The to get the better score on first try.
https://ravens-2-progressive-matrices-clinical-edition.netlify.app/
The to get the better score on first try.
The to get the better score on first try.
https://ravens-2-progressive-matrices-clinical-edition.netlify.app/
Try to*
And that's without gaming the system like OP did
Guess I gamed the system as well.
As a certified retard who had to make a random guess at least 10% of the time, I can vouch that this IQ test is objectively shit.
I got 147 +/- 3.5. Only one I guessed on was the last one.
this is definitely a test you could train someone on to significantly increase their score.
also, i'd say there are some questions which are arguable.
in fairness, you can increase your score on most IQ tests by knowing what xor is.
that's a big indicator to me, xor is not an intuitive concept really, but easy to spot if you're aware of it and looking for it.
My scores increased dramatically when i realized that there is random noise in some/most of the questions. I used to run out of time looking for a hidden logic that just wasn't there.
The last two, especially the last, I couldn't figure out.
path connected if and only if they are the same shape. color and number of shapes are red herring.
I refuse to participate in the scam called "iq testing".
a) you can be trained.
b) it rewards speed of execution over correctness lol.. truly only a brainlet wouldn't see that.. that alone is proof of low "iq"
>it rewards speed of execution over correctness lol
This one doesn't time you though
ok so it doesn't fully participate in the scam. it can still be violated by training.
and 'time' can be argued still plays a role since a person has limited time.
(you)ing to get anon to continue the zoom
also he's retarded
i have unlimited time because god died for me.
jesus fuck, I'm only at 17 and I'm pretty sure everything is correct but it's so fucking boring.
if I score low is always because I can't stand wasting time on this shit.
why is that the answer here?
I think since all the pictures have distinct numbers of objects it might just be you have to spot that it goes down by 2 each time, and then goes up by 2 objects each time after hitting 0
that's it? by that logic it can be "blue goes down by one every time so it must be the second scape that has no blue".
another reason iq testing is a scam: patterns are subjective in real nature.
yeah true. Who tf knows tbh maybe im too low iq to understand the true pattern. Seems completely random though
The type of objects doesn't matter, only the amount of them does.
It goes: 6 -> 4 -> 2 -> 0 -> 2 -> 4
>doesn't matter
only because the author of the "iq test" said so when nature can have countless other patterns naturally.
iq testing and authoring is practically astrology.
I think IQ test is basically finding the simplest pattern that fits the data. Usually there's a pretty simple rule just finding it is difficult.
Holy shit, you sound extremely fucking mad lmao
I don't disagree, these tests are nothing but pattern recognition
Actual IQ tests test much more
I almost did. Things just ain't sharp for long. Not going to. That's final. If something is out of place. You know what to do
Last question was pretty stupid
what did it mean?
Blue dots denote a mirror line
so? ah you may be close to the truth. they denote some kind of symmetry (mirror or otherwise).
but in that case why isn't it 5?
yup, and 1 is basically the test going "WELL ACKHSUALLY ITS TECHKNICALLY CORRECT B-BECAUSE... [it didn't show the other half]"
That would have to be a diagonal mirror line
buy why would 1 be the only one that doesn't mirror on its other side?
y tho
Honestly thought 4 would be a more valid answer so I picked it over 1, but I may be retarded
I assumed dots count the number of vertices of the shape. If there are different shapes, then no count.
Way better answer than mine
If the shapes are irregular, there are no dots.
If the shapes are triangular, there are three dots. If not, four dots.
These rules invalidate choices 1, 2, 3 and 4.
lmao triangles, and nothing suggests the amount of dots changes
Anyways about as much as I had expected.