## View Poll Results: Which of the following statements reflect your opinion about that IQ question?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
• 4.

15 41.67%
• Everybody knows that 4 comes after 3.

3 8.33%
• The simplest explanation is that these are natural numbers, ordered, so the answer is 4.

9 25.00%
• It's just this kind of questions that measure conformity rather than creativity.

8 22.22%
• We can't really know what kind of logic there is in creating those numbers.

9 25.00%
• These kinds of tests can be learned, so there's no value in asking.

4 11.11%
• Sometimes an other answer than 4 would be more appropriate. Think comedy. Think art.

9 25.00%
• The test makers are trying to promote their own kind of thinking here.

4 11.11%
• These kinds of tests just promote people to fool around.

0 0%
• Some people are wise, but slow. These kind of simple questions can't measure wisdom.

7 19.44%

1 2.78%
• Someone might not know, but they could make great pasta.

5 13.89%
• It's logically an arithmetic progression of f = an, with the constant a=1.

4 11.11%
• Someone who doesn't instantly think of 4 must be eccentric or just another idiot.

2 5.56%
• Pretty, innocent numbers were harmed in creating this test.

7 19.44%
• The most workable solution for many situations would be to assume the self-evident 4.

10 27.78%
Multiple Choice Poll.

# Thread: IQ: Continue the series: 1,2,3, ..

1. ^^ Wise and well thought-after post, Katsuni.

I agree the most with this line in your writing:
As such, the best yeu can do is try to guess whot the most likely situation is, or whot the creator "wants" yeu to think, in which case it becomes less a test of formal logic, and more informal intuition.
These tests *DO*require intuition to figure out, why some system or "logic" behind some question is better than another. I'm seeing that many people are disappointed with it. It's extremely, utterly clear to me that it is their opinion.

I believe it is clear for many others, as well: many different theories, systems, abstractions - or by whatever name you want to call them - would produce any and all the answers provided for in the IQ tests.

Infinite explanations, finite responses.

Hold a pause and think for a while. I've had.

..

..

IQ tests require some logic to verify that a given "system", like an arithmetic progression of numbers, rounded down, will produce some answer X that is being sought.

Intuition is needed to sort out what kind of system of logic would be useful for most situation, given the context of IQ test and extrapolated in the real world. There are several factors which influence the kind of system wanted, and it's a part of intelligence as well.

A good logic by which to answer a question has following qualities:

-Simple.
No more complex system should be needed for an answer than seems required. This requires understanding of what differentiates complex and simple. If a complex and simple explanation have an equal power to explain or predict, simple one is preferred for most stuff humans do.

A simple explanation is accessible to more people than a complex one, making it superior, provided that the test taker has the intelligence of wanting to be able to communicate with a larger population.

All of this is intelligence.

-Explanatory.
A good logic explains flawlessly what it is set out to explain. If we assume a logic of a series of natural numbers, ordered, for one question - it must match the information already in the question, namely, the numbers present.

If we assume a logic that the question, "find items of a same kind or class" describes four-legged mammals, we must see that all the items we would include in an answer are indeed four-legged mammals, and no four-legged mammals are left out, lest we should change our assumption of the background logic.

-Usable.
IQ tests attempt to measure intelligence in relation to aspects of the real world, which is why the logic of choice for a particular question should be usable. The logic should have an application to life.

IQ and IQ distributions in a population are planned, crafted, engineered and designed to indicate those who have the mental capacity to do well in the population in a specific, mental way. This does not include good work habits, being a hard worker or knowing the specifics of some obscure profession. It does include the ability to collect information, verify it, explain it, and the ability to investigate and inspect one's own ideas.

Concept of IQ was born out of the idea to pick apart those who needed more than a standard amount of education to pass through school tests, which prepare one for life. It's expanded to find out those individuals who can do well, too, in the context of academia, schoolwork and society. IQ is an attempt to find out people who can do well. In part, it does find, so it works somewhat. It doesn't work absolutely (what could), but success is an aspect of IQ.

Hence, usable logic, "logic worth of something" is saught in IQ tests. Not logic that wouldn't get one very far.

This is situational, and the world is huge, so this one needs the insight from a person who's much alienated from the world, or from someone who can't see how the people have set out the "correct" answers in any real life task in any of the various fields: they're set out to be rather regular, when possible. Consistent.

IQ tests can't address the fact that a huge flow of irrelevant information comes our way. IQ tests mostly measure only the more "regular" part of our information processing in the world.

-Conclusion
IQ test is tied with the world, as there's a specific role designed for IQ testing. It's designed to find those who have specific mental capacity to do well in the world. It doesn't address qualities outside it's scope. The scope is fuzzy, and we can't know exactly what it is.

IQ test caters to regular parts of the information systems formed by real people in the world. We form regular systems of information to handle many tasks that come ahead. As an attempt to control the flow of information, people prefer rather regular and simple systems, as simple as possible. People in general prefer systems that are understandible, too. IQ tests measure the ability to understand this, too.

And yes, faster is better than slow, and it's not efficient use of one's time to spend too much on an answer. If the test's setup is to finish in time, an intelligent person will adjust and answer the questions in time in order to finish with a high score. A timed system suits better for the purposes of competition, as finishing tasks slowly is trivial compared to doing them fast. This is why the ability to produce more correct answers per time is more valuable than the ability to produce them at a slower pace.

2. P.s. The ability of finding the right answer is superior to that which gets the funny, irregular or illogical answer, because he who can get it right, can get it in any other way, too. One who finds illogical answers as well as correct answers, doesn't have the ability to choose from answers of specific purpose.

3. Originally Posted by Santtu
A good logic by which to answer a question has following qualities:

-Simple.
No more complex system should be needed for an answer than seems required. This requires understanding of what differentiates complex and simple. If a complex and simple explanation have an equal power to explain or predict, simple one is preferred for most stuff humans do.

A simple explanation is accessible to more people than a complex one, making it superior, provided that the test taker has the intelligence of wanting to be able to communicate with a larger population.

P.s. The ability of finding the right answer is superior to that which gets the funny, irregular or illogical answer, because he who can get it right, can get it in any other way, too. One who finds illogical answers as well as correct answers, doesn't have the ability to choose from answers of specific purpose.
Thank yeu thank yeu thank yeu thank yeu thank yeu ayieeeeeeeee! *Runs around in circles screaming and throwing fish all over the place*

That may not have been relevant, so yeu should probably ignore that last bit.

Anyways!

I've been TRYING for ages to get people to just accept the fact that someone who can break a complex system down into a simplified easier to understand yet still accurate one is an example of intelligence for aaaaaaages ;_;

Seriously I LOATHE those pseudo-intellectuals who use big words and crap just as an excuse to try to make themselves look smarter. Oh yay, so yeu read a dictionary. How... fun. It doesn't mean yeu're actually any smarter, and most of these people misuse the majority of the words they use anyway -_-;

The fact that they fail to use standard terminology to describe stuff shows they don't truly grasp the concepts involved. If yeu can ONLY describe things using complex terminology, yeu probably don't truly understand the processes taking effect well enough to create simplified analogies.

As for the next part though, the "PS" part, I find I must disagree. One who can find multiple answers therefore has proven multiple methods of being able to perform the same task, such as being able to understand the same situation from multiple angles. The whole "put yeurself in my shoes" ideal is actually very difficult for most people to do so. One who CAN do so has a massive advantage over many others. The one who can only see things from the single, rigid viewpoint, will almost invariably fail when faced with a trick question, or in most practical situations as they rarely coincide with the simple mathematical concepts. One who has only one answer to work with, can't accept alternative possibilities, or integrate several theories togeather into something more coherant. The whole concept of intelligence is the ability for the mind to take information and correlate it. If yeu lack the ability to gain additional information, and make use of it, then really, yeu have not shown any additional intelligence at all. The one who's able to factor in a greater number of supplimentary pieces of information, and actually make practical use of them, is many steps ahead of the game.

Assumming they don't get overwhelmed by the wealth of information and loose track of whot they're doing. Which... may... or may not describe myself >.>;

4. Oh those poor little numbers! Why are they forced into this death-camp to be digested by IQ tests, never to be seen again, when they should be making beautiful patterns that explain the universe?

What is wrong with you people? Can't you see that numbers are meant to be free, and not penned up like this?!

...

I would have picked 6.

5. Originally Posted by Haphazard
Oh those poor little numbers! Why are they forced into this death-camp to be digested by IQ tests, never to be seen again, when they should be making beautiful patterns that explain the universe?

What is wrong with you people? Can't you see that numbers are meant to be free, and not penned up like this?!

...

I would have picked 6.
FREE THE NUMBERS! FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOM!

Except for 8, it's got too much surface area, we're going to keep it back here to make coats out of. Figure 8's are always the best ^.~

(Yes, that was a bad pun, I know, I'm going to be pun ished by having to pay pun ance for this.)

Also, 1,2,3,10 is viable in base 4 as well.

6. Originally Posted by Haphazard
Oh those poor little numbers! Why are they forced into this death-camp to be digested by IQ tests, never to be seen again, when they should be making beautiful patterns that explain the universe?

What is wrong with you people? Can't you see that numbers are meant to be free, and not penned up like this?!

...

I would have picked 6.
Originally Posted by Katsuni
FREE THE NUMBERS! FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOM!

Except for 8, it's got too much surface area, we're going to keep it back here to make coats out of. Figure 8's are always the best ^.~

(Yes, that was a bad pun, I know, I'm going to be pun ished by having to pay pun ance for this.)

Also, 1,2,3,10 is viable in base 4 as well.
LOL @ emo NTPs.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•