Got 26/26
, I don't know exactly what they meant by helpers or calculus but I didn't use any of that. No formal training unless we count high school math and some introductory courses at university that I took out of interest... a long time ago too. -.-
Some of the simpler ones I just did by looking at them and knowing naturally because they were simple enough to not need additional processing. For the rest I didn't usually visualize anything either, just kind of processed them somehow. I will try to explain: a bit like fast speed reading of the sentence *vs* reading the sentence word by word and getting the result at the end. This latter version is what I did for deeper processing. The actual processing I suppose is done on an automatic level in my brain without much conscious access so that's all I can say about it.
A couple of times I did entertain myself by visualizing some arrows or sets of dogs/animals or A/B/C etc. This was not necessary though to solve the questions. As I said, this was more for entertainment now - my logic in general can be visualized well and sometimes in complex systems that *really* helps me simplify things but these questions were not complex enough for that.
Two times during the test, I also got "bored" enough (=some of my mental capacity was left too unoccupied) at a point that for entertainment I quickly made some simplifying rule or made up a reasoning why things were the way they were... this was useful though to answer some of the questions faster. (Of course only simple rules/reasoning as these questions were not too complex)
Someone mentioned they went by what sounded "true", that's exactly what I did in the "fast speed reading" mode for the simple ones. But I somehow have a very reliable warning signal in my brain that fires when the problem/question gets past the simple enough level where I can trust this completely automatic attitude and when that warning fires I go and switch into reading "word by word". I prefer being sure about my guess and will not give the answer without verifying first on a conscious level. Though I usually get it right... I still just don't trust it before verifying it. And sometimes I don't even have a guess anyway.
Otoh, in complex mathematical problems, I can sometimes fully trust the feeling that I somehow know the answer and it does work out when I check it on the conscious level. I still like to verify all of those of course.
This was actually a pretty cool test, and I have no formal training with logic either. Mass programming the multitudes with logic after all may ironically not be entirely logical!
What multitudes and mass programming are you talking about? Just curious what you meant by that.
On the whole, that style seemed to work well for me, as you can see in my below results (15 of 19), but maybe a true logician would see more than just bridges between things; they could also possibly see a meta-system (a system about systems).
Perhaps this would cause them to solve problems like these not only through deduction, but also by knowing "why" the different causal chains exist and/or connect together. I really don't know what I'm talking about though; I was only offering a theory on how it works.
I'm not a formal logician but I do like this sort of approach you describe.
I received 26/26.
I did a logic test on OKCupid that was loads harder and on that I didn't do nearly as well.
Can you give a link to that one?
