I wouldn’t be humbled just yet, especially if you found some of the problems impossible rather than complicated but doable. A lot of people seem to have got unexpectedly low scores on this test. (And no-one’s said ‘Wow I usually do really badly on IQ tests but that one gave me a great score’)
Then go and work out exactly what and why the answers on that test are as they are. (Perla has missed some of the explanations, but it’s very satisfying to work out what the answers actually are. They’re all perfectly logical and obvious-in-retrospect).
After that you should be reasonably confident that you’ll do very well on any similar tests in future.
What that tells you about the nature of IQ tests and their calibration is debatable.
Well, when I went back and looked at a couple of problems, I was able to solve them, so far. It was definitely, then, an issue of time. (When I find the solution, I expect, it is completely clear and the missing frame is fully specified, and it’s reasonably simple. I.e., “obvious in retrospect,” as you wrote.)
I do know, independently, that my “multiprocessing” abilities have declined, and that these would be likely be important to any algorithm for solving these problems. I’m sure I could improve my time with practice.
Thanks for your kind thoughts and for the link. I’ll check it out.
I wouldn’t be humbled just yet, especially if you found some of the problems impossible rather than complicated but doable. A lot of people seem to have got unexpectedly low scores on this test. (And no-one’s said ‘Wow I usually do really badly on IQ tests but that one gave me a great score’)
Go and read http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/how-to-ace-an-iq-test (don’t look at the answers, just the methods) and then go back and redo the test. I imagine you’ll then get a much higher score.
Then go and work out exactly what and why the answers on that test are as they are. (Perla has missed some of the explanations, but it’s very satisfying to work out what the answers actually are. They’re all perfectly logical and obvious-in-retrospect).
After that you should be reasonably confident that you’ll do very well on any similar tests in future.
What that tells you about the nature of IQ tests and their calibration is debatable.
The URL is incorrect, the comma at the end should be removed. Here is the page
Well, when I went back and looked at a couple of problems, I was able to solve them, so far. It was definitely, then, an issue of time. (When I find the solution, I expect, it is completely clear and the missing frame is fully specified, and it’s reasonably simple. I.e., “obvious in retrospect,” as you wrote.)
I do know, independently, that my “multiprocessing” abilities have declined, and that these would be likely be important to any algorithm for solving these problems. I’m sure I could improve my time with practice.
Thanks for your kind thoughts and for the link. I’ll check it out.