Re: IQ -- Council of The Grey

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:32:27 09/02/00 Sat
Author: avalanche
Subject: Re: IQ
In reply to: Mariah 's message, "IQ" on 08:24:26 09/02/00 Sat

> Now, there is an interesting thing...
>
> > > Which one of the numbers does not belong in the
> > > following series?
> > >
> > > 9 7 8 6 7 5 6 3
> >
> > 3 (the only number which is half of any of the
> other
> > numbers)
>
> That was a very interesting way of looking at it, and
> it took a lot of intelligence to come up with that
> answer... But, it isn't the way that I came up with
> the answer for that problem.

your method was the most complex one to use, however, one must wonder if using the most complex method is in fact the most intelligent method to use, i would say no. One must always first try the most simple method, if that method doesn't work, then proceed to a more complex method, if the simple method DOES work, then there is no need to go to the extra effort of the more complex method because the simple method works just as well (even better considering there isn't any effort neccesary as with the complex method)

>
> But, what if the two completely different ways of
> deriving the 'correct' answer both took intelligence
> but one of the answers was a wrong answer relative to
> the IQ test?
>
> Do you think there might be a way of looking at this
> number sequence that might be even more creative than
> both of our methods were, but be the technically
> 'wrong' answer?
>
> Wouldn't that mean the person coming up with the
> method had shown incredible intelligence - coming up
> with a relationship between the numbers that was far
> more creative than the one the writer intended?
>
> Would that make the person who got the wrong answer
> stupid, or even more intelligent than the writer of
> the problem?
>
> (Oh, and here's your lolipop...)

this is calculated in with modern IQ tests, in modern IQ tests, there usually are multiple correct answers, and they are studied by people who DON'T just tick off the answers without actually looking at them, modern (not all of them obviously) iq tests are also not just based on mathematical understanding, and modern IQ tests quite accurately unravel a person's intelligence.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Intelligence -- Mariah, 08:47:47 09/02/00 Sat
- Re: Intelligence -- avalanche, 10:11:00 09/02/00 Sat
Potential Aptitude -- Mariah, 09:28:03 09/02/00 Sat
Intricately Simple -- Mariah, 09:36:04 09/02/00 Sat