/sci/entists like to claim that their IQs are over well 130. Then a simple puzzle like this should be easy for you, right?
>>7888804
>/sci/entists like to claim that their IQs are over well 130
It's only the 15 year olds and stormfags who boast about "muh iq test results I got from a website by googling 'real iq test'". It's impossible for anyone with an IQ well over 130 to actually believe that their results they got that the websites scripts wants them to shareon facebook is not bloated crap.
>inb4 hurr you're a low iq brainlet
>inb4 hurr you're an engineer
is..is it "F"?
>>7888810
this. i always scored well above 130 on online tests. my real iq is below 120.
>>7888804
I don't claim this. Based on minimal "online" testing, I estimate my IQ in the 115-120 territory.
Although I took a "simpler" test recently that pegged me at 130. I don't really believe it but it was still a nice ego-boost.
I don't know if this is the answer, but my poor guess is H.
If you look at the top row, compare where the x's are in the first and second one. There's an x in the bottom left of both, and thus theres an x in the bottom left of the third one. For the second row again, there's an x in the top left on both and an x in the final one in the top left too. Using this logic we need to find a solution with an x in the top middle, which only H has.
It's probably not it but whatever
>>7888815
Real IQ tested by psychologist is 142. Scored 117 on the test? Explain that. My friend who is also IQ tested and scored something higher than 135 only scored 112 as well. Whats up with this test then? My answer is it's retarded and IQ is retarded.
>>7888846
are you referring to the test in the op? it only tests one type of intelligence, real tests test for general intelligence.
you can be really good in one thing and not so good in another, while still having very superior general intelligence.
>>7888846
Some real tests test for vocabulary. They aren't exactly that great
A
Source: wicked smaht. A whole thread of non-answering geniuses here. Fascinating. Must be a coincidence.
>>7888804
Now call me an idiot but this seems like bait.
I don't give a shit about what the OP says, because fuckin whatever iq doesn't mean shit etc etc
but I don't think any of the solutions are viable.
Here's the pattern I see:
In column 1 row 2, take note of the positions of the triangles.
In column 3 row 1, the positions are in the same configuration, rotated anticlockwise 90 degrees.
This holds true for the X's and O's as well.
In column 1 row 3 and column 3 row 2, the same pattern holds true.
Since we don't have a column 1 row 4 that would correspond in the over two up 1 correlation between rotations, I look towards column 1 row 1. If this were rotated, the three triangles would have that triforce configuration with the tip at the far left of the 3x3, however none of the possible answers show this permutation.
That's the only pattern I see, but I'm also tired, so who knows.
Hint for slow geniuses: symbols change as they move right.
>>7888804
The answer is B.
Each shape moves from left to right for each step. The pattern is that not only does each shape move right by one box each time, but they also change shape. X becomes O, O becomes triangle, and triangle becomes X. Once the shape has moved all the way to the end of one row, it moves down to take the first place of the second row in the next figure (ex. The triangle at the top right of the first figure becomes the X on the beginning of the next row for the following figure). The bottom right shape of each figure will reset at the top left in the next figure.
So for the second to last figure, the circle on the bottom right will become a triangle and appear at the top left. The two triangles next to it will become Xs and move to their right as well as the triangle a row above, coming down to the next row to join the other Xs to make a row of them. So on and so forth for the rest of the figure when applying the rules.
>>7888978
Sorry. In the example I meant the O in the top right of the first figure becomes the triangle on the beginning of the next row for the following figure. I had the reply window up when I was looking at it, so I wasn't seeing right.
>>7888804
B
shapes shift right
But also change shape. X to O to triangle.
>>7888804
It's quite obviously B.
Sorry /sci/ but if you didn't get that you definitely aren't going to be a distinguished scientist or professor (and that's perfectly fine, if you were in anyway angered by this statement you have issues to sort out, gradschool and the job market are a fucking grilling process and statistically only a very small minority of the people who are reading this will ever make it as a even semi-respected scientists).
It takes a lot of intelligence to be "respected" by academics and I feel too many undergrads are stupidly ambitious.
Worst part is, being respected isn't that big a deal, take it from me, the happiest professors are often the most humble, they're usually the more laid-back ones teaching at LACs.
This board is infested with TSS, Typical STEMstudent Syndrome.
If you're the kind of person who somehow finds pride in the fact that you're better than a large mediocre segment of the population, comparing yourself to (otherwise nice) persons who aren't studying science, haven't had a good education or are just plain not too bright, you might have TSS.
Bonus points if you're the kind of person who got picked on at highschool, isn't too good with the ladies and otherwise has frustration to vent at the rest of the world.
Yes, yes, this one question isn't going to be a good indicator of your real IQ but it does matter.
Don't convince yourself that you can make it as an academic in a g-loaded field like science or math with an IQ of about 115.
People need to stop dissing on the technical lapses in IQ, of course it isn't a perfect measure of "intelligence" (whatever the hell that means) but it's a bretty good indicator.
Squash your egos and use the tools, the world is handing you to make better decisions.
>>7889589
Chinesefag btw, do pardon my engrish.
>>7888804
Oh, this is so cruel. I haven't read the comments because I want to ponder this a little bit. There is patterns everywhere but in the end it is just too hard. (No I'm not going to get it)
The real answer is H.
You're making up rules as you go, shapes go from right to left, shapes change from 1,2 to 1,3, there's only one constant.
If you check the top row, the only constant is X in the bottom left square.
Middle row, X is top left.
Bottom row, the only constant is X in top middle.
It's H.
>>7888978
I'm going to go kill myself now, I didn't and never would have realized this.
CONDUCTOR WE HAVE A PROBLEM
>>7889740
What distracted me most was the most bottom left box and one above it. Turn them counterclockwise and they are similar as the two boxes on the right side.
>>7888804
Fuck, the best pattern i see if ( H )
I initially tried rotating or inverting the cards to see any matching, but the next pattern i saw was looking for sameness. If you look patterns in each row you see that in the first fow there is only one position that has the same item throught and that is the "x" in the bottom left hand side. Following the pattern in the next row is that the entire top row is the same for all three. The final row now, the two that are remaining have the same item in the top center. I then looked at the cards to see if any were the same and "H" was the only one.
>>7889738
>patterns everywhere
Spot me more than 2
>>7888978
This is the answer guys. Every step every shape shits one to the right and changes shape in a fixed pattern. Easy problem, I did it in that old iq test people used to post with a bunch of problems like this (this was one of the harder one).
If anyone wants to know this is one of the end questions on iqtest.dk
The test itself is quite well received by most experts.
Of course there will be many opinions about it, IQ is a contentious topic because of how many person's feelings it can hurt.
I am guessing there are many just-scraped-by Mensa members who might not get pic related's answer either. Dont be too tough on yourself for not getting it, unless you plan on making it big in academia.
>>7889589
if you're in academia to become a "distinguished' and "respected" professor, you will likely be disappointed regardless of your IQ.
You can be a shitty researcher with a uni job with a <130 IQ (I am an example of this. I work very hard though--at least 8 hours a day completely focused on math with no distractions, and talk about it other parts of the day with friends).
>>7889861
Patterns are little difficult to explain but fine, I have no better to do. Before I go tough, they are incomplete, that's why I had to exclude them.
Like I said just a few minutes ago. The most bottom left box and one above it. Turn them counterclockwise and they are similar as the two boxes on the right side.
Take two top rows in top right box and turn it counterclockwise and you have two left columns in middle box.
Now, I know these are just few repetitions but there is multiple symbols moving tied together which makes it worth mentioning.
Then there is similar or mirrored lines like XXO and OXX in left side and bottom middle.
Many columns with triangle at the end and X or O in the middle.
With just a few symbols you are going to get patterns and yes they are incomplete but you brain clings to them and don't let go and they will pile up.
What if I accidentally pick a true answer. Is that making me a genius?
Is there Any good books on this kind of stuff? I'm really interested
>>7890255
Raven's Matrices
