No way I am gonna get this without a hint or three.
So, is the third column answers for the first two (are the first two examples), or do all 8 squares need to be considered to determine the final one?
If you want the answer, type in “Outliers IQ test” into Google
[quote]FlyingFred wrote:
Hint: It’s not about patterns.[/quote]
Is the answer that there is no pattern? And that the one choice without the pattern fits the pattern?
I really don’t see what these things have to do with a person’s ability to survive in life, change their circumstances, and understand novel concepts. I’ve always thought IQ tests were biased towards mathematical, visual intelligence.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I really don’t see what these things have to do with a person’s ability to survive in life, change their circumstances, and understand novel concepts. I’ve always thought IQ tests were biased towards mathematical, visual intelligence.[/quote]
Unfortunately that’s the only kind of intelligence there is.
Every other skill is just an extension of mathematical intelligence to learned motor patterns developed with lots of exposure through practice and interest.
I don’t know my IQ and I really don’t care to, but I take issue with Outliers being a good read. That book was absolute shit.
Gladwell does not seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation. If you are looking for a good read on these types of issues I recommend supercrunchers. Gladwell is so overrated.
jnd
I don’t know my IQ and I really don’t care to, but I take issue with Outliers being absolute shit. That book was a good read.
It’s mostly social-scienc-ey type stuff, and the only thing it offers is trends, much like his previous work. He does a good job of backing up his assertions with evidence, and what is his conjecture is typically well-thought-out, even if moderately unsupported.
That said, if you only want more information on the 10k hour rule, don’t buy OUTLIERS. Buy TALENT IS OVERRATED.
[quote]jahall wrote:
FlyingFred wrote:
Hint: It’s not about patterns.
Is the answer that there is no pattern? And that the one choice without the pattern fits the pattern?[/quote]
I think you’re right.
It makes sense because the other matrices do have some kind of pattern. Somebody of Langan’s capabilities could probably easily see that.
i checked on google, but it doesn’t explain the answer.
At the bottom here is a discussion of possible answers
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I really don’t see what these things have to do with a person’s ability to survive in life, change their circumstances, and understand novel concepts. I’ve always thought IQ tests were biased towards mathematical, visual intelligence.[/quote]
Good IQ tests lean towards mathematics, visual sequences and patterns because they’re the only type of questions that aren’t culturally biased. You could administer this type of test to a tribesman from Malawi and get a good indication of his IQ. Some of the literary IQ questions, like word associations, greatly favor those who are well read. I’ve even seen written ones that are basically bar trivia questions.
I agree though that IQ doesn’t necessarily correlate to a person’s ability to adapt and succeed…its only an indication of intellectual potential. If you’re a lazy bum who doesn’t make use of your “tools”, having a high IQ is pretty meaningless.
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I really don’t see what these things have to do with a person’s ability to survive in life, change their circumstances, and understand novel concepts. I’ve always thought IQ tests were biased towards mathematical, visual intelligence.
Good IQ tests lean towards mathematics, visual sequences and patterns because they’re the only type of questions that aren’t culturally biased. You could administer this type of test to a tribesman from Malawi and get a good indication of his IQ. Some of the literary IQ questions, like word associations, greatly favor those who are well read. I’ve even seen written ones that are basically bar trivia questions.
I agree though that IQ doesn’t necessarily correlate to a person’s ability to adapt and succeed…its only an indication of intellectual potential. If you’re a lazy bum who doesn’t make use of your “tools”, having a high IQ is pretty meaningless.
[/quote]
we took an “original australian” which im assuming is aboriginal, IQ test in my psych course to exemplify this.
basically my class was all retarded.
like finish the pattern
1,2,3…
ans: many
smoking cigarettes is to ______ water
answer: eating
then there was another one about which should you eat, a crocodile, a wallaby or a kangaroo with a retarded explanation as to why.
we took another IQ test before too, it was a firefighters exam from the 1940’s
i actually did well on it because a lot of the questions were still common sense but the one i got wrong was asking about which company used to be a “mail order house” company
i didnt know that “mail order house” meant basically a place that just sells shit out of catalogs (mail order-house) and i thought it was a company that sold houses through the mail (mail-order house) cause idk wtf people did in 1940, ya know? so i got it wrong, the answer was Sears.
I think it’s D. At least the pattern tell so. Pm me answer pls.
Ps: I gave the answer in about 1min 20sec. I’m not 100% sure, but I gave it a shot lol. My IQ has been tested as being between 115 (when tired) and hovering around 128 (when fresh). So…I’m far far away from 140+ ehh
[quote]Otep wrote:
I don’t know my IQ and I really don’t care to, but I take issue with Outliers being absolute shit. That book was a good read.
It’s mostly social-scienc-ey type stuff, and the only thing it offers is trends, much like his previous work. He does a good job of backing up his assertions with evidence, and what is his conjecture is typically well-thought-out, even if moderately unsupported.
That said, if you only want more information on the 10k hour rule, don’t buy OUTLIERS. Buy TALENT IS OVERRATED.[/quote]
Thanks for Recommendation. I think I’ll read Talent is Overrated.
I had issues with some of Gladwell’s stuff, especially since I’m a statistics student. But overall an enjoying read, so long as I kept in mind that I was reading a popular account not articles from research journal. It did motivate me to look up some of the actual research papers which I find are often much better than anyones interpretation of them.
As for the IQ test question I’ll guess H (though I used a random number generator to guess with, don’t have much respect for IQ tests).
[quote]jnd wrote:
I don’t know my IQ and I really don’t care to, but I take issue with Outliers being a good read. That book was absolute shit.
Gladwell does not seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation. If you are looking for a good read on these types of issues I recommend supercrunchers. Gladwell is so overrated.
jnd[/quote]
And you don’t seem to understand the difference between a Journalist writing musings, anecdotes and opinions and a Scientist reporting empirical data…
oh shit ok I know the answer…damn I feel stupid…now…it’s not that hard, but not that ‘obvious’ to most (including me) either…
One more thing about IQ:
It’s about as useful in judging intelligence as the curl is in judging strength.
It’s A.
[quote]wushu_1984 wrote:
One more thing about IQ:
It’s about as useful in judging intelligence as the curl is in judging strength.[/quote]
That’s a damn good analogy. The is a correlation between a high IQ and being successful, but by itself it counts for dick.
There are different intellectual abilities just as there are different physical abilities. For example, some people can write beautifully but can’t reason for shit.
Cultural bias on IQ tests is PC bullshit intended to obscure the uncomfortable reality that IQ is not distributed evenly among racial groups.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
There are different intellectual abilities just as there are different physical abilities. For example, some people can write beautifully but can’t reason for shit.
Cultural bias on IQ tests is PC bullshit intended to obscure the uncomfortable reality that IQ is not distributed evenly among racial groups.[/quote]
You know this post took about 2 hours to appear. The mods were probably trying to decide whether or not it was racist.
Also the IQ difference in races you mention don’t matter since IQ tests are not very good at distinguishing small differences in actual intelligence or intellectual potential [actual intelligence in it self is very difficult to quantify exactly]. IQ is only good for broad strokes like the difference between mentally handicapped people and people of normal intelligence.