So why did an arithmetic progression seem like a more probable candidate than fibonacci numbers, or let alone, (gasp) whatever 10th-degree polynomial that just happens to have f(1) = 1, f(2)=2 and f(3)=3 ?
4.
Everybody knows that 4 comes after 3.
The simplest explanation is that these are natural numbers, ordered, so the answer is 4.
It's just this kind of questions that measure conformity rather than creativity.
We can't really know what kind of logic there is in creating those numbers.
These kinds of tests can be learned, so there's no value in asking.
Sometimes an other answer than 4 would be more appropriate. Think comedy. Think art.
The test makers are trying to promote their own kind of thinking here.
These kinds of tests just promote people to fool around.
Some people are wise, but slow. These kind of simple questions can't measure wisdom.
What does the answer tell about what's beautiful?
Someone might not know, but they could make great pasta.
It's logically an arithmetic progression of f = an, with the constant a=1.
Someone who doesn't instantly think of 4 must be eccentric or just another idiot.
Pretty, innocent numbers were harmed in creating this test.
The most workable solution for many situations would be to assume the self-evident 4.
So why did an arithmetic progression seem like a more probable candidate than fibonacci numbers, or let alone, (gasp) whatever 10th-degree polynomial that just happens to have f(1) = 1, f(2)=2 and f(3)=3 ?
How about this sequence:
Nerd, Fucking Nerd, Holy SHIT what a Nerd, Matthew Z, .........
Naw---I'm just bullshittin ya.
I love the nerds.
Really, I do.
__________________
I'M OUTTA HERE.
IT'S BEEN FUN.
TAKE CARE.
PEACE OUT!!!
I was thinkin' more along the lines of..
1+2=3, 2+3=5, 3+5=8
So it could be 1,2,3,4,5
or....
1,2,3,5,8....
But assuming there's no "five" in the multiple choices, then... sure. 4 it is...
And if there is options for 4 and 5 then the test maker is just being rude, and 4 would probably still be the answer.
(damn me with the not reading threads ahead of time!!)
Lol. But really, that "numbers can be anything they want to be" and "everybody's right" crap cripples, not empowers people.
Warning: not being able to complete the sequence exposes you to schizophrenia, low income, lower work performance*, violent behavior and supporting multiple intelligences theory
p.s. yes, going by Athenian200's explanation, those numbers are most often encountered in the situation in question, and repeating it in an IQ test (if a person is capable of that - not easy) - is what gives people high scores. As high as genius scores.
The tests really have many options that are "possible", others with a twisted logic, others with unusual logic, others with unproductive logic, etc. Now it is *THERE* that the intelligence is measured; who finds the most productive logic, most logical logic, etc. One has to decide themselves the logic they use to choose the logic, and think how far they would get with it. The correct answer in good tests (most of them) is almost always the logic that gets one farthest.
*Hunter, J. E. and Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 7298.
We can't really know what kind of logic there is in creating those numbers.
That was my choice anyway. I think i choose that one (sorry, bad headache and was distracted)
I have just realised i didn't read it properly. I thought it was to do with those questions you posted about jobs.
OK, low income and violence for me.
“I made you take time to look at what I saw and when you took time to really notice my flower, you hung all your associations with flowers on my flower and you write about my flower as if I think and see what you think and see—and I don't.”
― Georgia O'Keeffe
My main point of interest is in here. Somebody teaches you a new skill in job, she puts utensils to dinner table 1, dinner table 2, dinner table 3, and says.. continue just like that, in the order I showed. People would then go to table 4.
But phrase it as an intelligence question, then people start saying, we don't know on the theory of this and that, etc..
What became so difficult in connecting the dots while we removed the concrete application and made it more abstract?
The main difference is context. Numbers are, strictly speaking, an abstract concept.
In the example you gave, the numbers were used to differentiate between tables. (with a slight implication of order) The tables could have just as easily been named Table Alpha, Table Beta, and Table Gamma. In this instance, the natural numbers certainly are implied.
You will note that my first example, the Fibonacci numbers, takes a different turn. These numbers increase in quantity. In that sequence, "2" would correspond to "2 tables," not "table 2" if we were to make a more direct application of the distinctly abstract sequence.
To conclude, the sequence has different interpretations given varying contexts. By assigning this context, you, in essence, change the sequence itself, even if the numbers themselves remain constant.
If a deaf INFP falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
My first thought when seeing a question like this is "the test makers want me to choose the answer 4." I don't see 4 as the only possible answer. It's simply the answer that they want me to choose.
Aside: My first thought for alternative answers is a sequence of non-composite numbers 1,2,3,5,7,11,13,.... My second thought for alternative answers is that there are an infinite number of polynomials which can be created fitting to that sequence, and there is at least one polynomial in each degree greater than or equal to one.
My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
http://www.revoltingvegetables.com
Has the world changed? If the Big Brother in Orwell's 1984 told that 1,2,3 continues with 5 whereas people thought of 4, today it's the opposite?