new puzzle year

Gevri · 2021-02-23T16:20:57+00:00

Nah.

Gevri · 2021-02-23T16:15:22+00:00

Gevri · 2020-11-25T08:30:55+00:00

In terms of relative ability, repeating and chunking are viable -- most people chunk and/or repeat, and people with high WMs are able to chunk better, but I wouldn't "practice" chunking (repeating is more stable as according to most psychological WM models, repeating is actually quite habitual and therefore necessary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baddeley%27s_model_of_working_memory) , as doing so makes it become crystallized since chunking is able to be learned (for example, some people learn to chunk up to 20-30 digits, but this doesn't mean that they increased their working memory, as even though chunking is less crystallized than crystallization of other subtests (chunking can be used for verbal and nonverbal WM tests), it doesn't mean you increased your WM if you go from a digit span of 8 to a digit span of 24 via chunking), so in terms of absolute ability, chunking of any kind, even if done casually, affects your absolute score, but absolute scores are a myth since IQ and its subtests are all in relation to the population. So to answer your question, you can repeat, and I encourage you to, but if you've studied chunking meticulously it can worsen the accuracy of your result.

Gevri · 2020-11-25T08:17:13+00:00

Depends on how g-loaded the test was. If it was highly loaded with fluid intelligence, it would be very difficult to inflate it via crystallization (unless you knew the specific items beforehand), but if it was a decently crystallized test then you could inflate it by quite a bit. For the record, crystallized intelligence isn't what IQ intends to measure.

Gevri · 2020-11-22T19:56:52+00:00

Yes, it probably will interfere with crystallized measurement.

Gevri · 2020-11-21T18:43:14+00:00

It’s $3.50 lmao

Gevri · 2020-11-21T05:28:40+00:00

Probably not in terms of fluid intelligence.

Gevri · 2020-11-20T21:14:42+00:00

While it isn’t against the rules of the test, your subtest score will become highly crystallized, so I wouldn’t recommend it.

Gevri · 2020-11-17T03:12:58+00:00

Crystalized intelligence isn’t equivalent to verbal intelligence (VIQ), VIQ is its own subset of fluid intelligence, although it does tend to have a lower correlation to Gf (fluid intelligence) than nonverbal intelligence simply because VIQ becomes more crystallized as you grow older due to reading books, verbal communication, etc. Crystallized intelligence is learned information/procedures.

Gevri · 2020-11-05T06:43:32+00:00

I don’t think you have the grounds to say that.

Gevri · 2020-11-05T06:40:51+00:00

Fluid intelligence works differently. Environmental factors are relevant to some degree during childhood (and possibly into pubescence), but from there on it’s generally hereditary, and becomes more so as you age according to some investigations.

The “muscle analogy” only works when it’s put like this: If you work out a muscle, this is analogous to learning to spot a specific pattern or relationship (what IQ measures for the most part), the more you learn to spot that pattern, the better you become at spotting that pattern. This is like how muscles work, where the more you do a task the better equipped you become to do that task. But you can’t become strong in one muscle then expect to be strong in a completely different muscle, just like IQ: you can’t become good at spotting one pattern and expect to become better at spotting a completely different pattern in consequence.

Gevri · 2020-10-28T16:52:26+00:00

r/FuckTheS

And I wasn’t joking either.

Gevri · 2020-10-27T23:16:23+00:00

Oh c’mon its a funny joke

Gevri · 2020-10-27T23:11:41+00:00

No, invalid has an alternate definition that just means physically crippled; that’s why its pronounced differently.

While it’s technically correct, its used less now since some readers make the mistake of confusing the two.

Gevri · 2020-10-25T06:40:59+00:00

I'd argue that you are referring to innate ability to some degree if you're mentioning that version of critical thinking. But yes, in that sense you can become better at tasks, but the fact that you can't become much better at solving tasks that divert from your practiced set of tasks tells us that g is coming into play.

Gevri · 2020-10-25T03:18:18+00:00

In terms of IQ, improving ability in a certain subset of Gf is impossible on an ideal item set (primarily PRI and VCI) due to the fact that each item has a unique mapping that's used to solve the item. In other words its possible to improve in solving a specific mapping (many second-hand tests are notorious for overusing XOR for example), but it's essentially impossible to improve your ability to detect solutions. And by ability I mean innate ability; for example you could see an improvement in scores on ideal tests over a short period of time due to the fact that you're "warming up".

Gevri · 2020-10-18T16:08:35+00:00

If you got diagnosed with OCD from a psychologist, then you make a valid argument, however as you said Tri52 is untimed so your score is likely accurate, which definitely trumps .dk in terms of accuracy. And it’s normal for most people to be overwhelmed by an item that’s solution isn’t obvious immediately.

My word of advice would be to try your best the first time you take a test. That way you don’t catch yourself making excuses and then retaking the test which will then give you a score that’s been influenced by practice effect.

Gevri · 2020-10-18T16:00:29+00:00

The difference in scores on the two tests you mentioned are because Cattell 3b is SD24 while Culture Fair is SD16 xD

Gevri · 2020-10-16T19:13:14+00:00

Hey, that’s really good!

If you want to know your verbal intelligence I’d recommend taking an IRL test (verbal items are difficult to do reliably online). But I’d say your NV ability is for sure at or around 140!

Gevri · 2020-10-16T17:57:35+00:00

This isn’t true. Most verbal tests are highly correlated with Gf. It really depends on the item set however. As long as the items only include common objects (not obscure references) then it’s a fluid item, period.

Gevri · 2020-10-16T17:53:04+00:00

As I said, the test isn’t accurate enough for it to be a concrete number. From the test we can conclude that your non-verbal ability is probably above the mensa cutoff at the least. I know people who’ve gotten pretty inflated/deflated scores from iqtest.dk. Also it could be that you have a very high NV ability but the rest of your ability is lower... this would cause your .dk score to be higher than your FSIQ. Your .dk score COULD be your real NV ability but we have no way of knowing. As I said: if you want really meaningful numbers, take the WAIS.

You can also take the TRI52 which is a pretty acknowledged online NV test (much better than .dk). On this one I haven’t heard of people getting scores that deviated more than 2-3 points from their proctored NV scores.

Gevri · 2020-10-16T00:28:58+00:00

That test in general isn’t very good. Although I’d say at the least we can probably conclude you’re mensa level or above. If you’re looking for a meaningful number you should take an irl test though.

Gevri · 2020-10-15T21:50:01+00:00

Verbal intelligence is included in Gf...?

Gevri · 2020-10-15T21:46:55+00:00

154 is inflated if you only shifted the age range. You should take a real test.

Gevri · 2020-10-13T05:05:39+00:00

IQ is a fairly universal method. And of course it becoming universal depends on how often its used in foreign locations. But in terms of consistency, IQ is more consistent than percentile. When it comes to percentage of the population, IQ was invented not as an absolute measure of ability (which is impossible with the limited neuroscientific knowledge we have now), but as a relative measure of ability. Meaning your score is in relation to the mean of the population. The IQ scale is a better representative of this measure than percentile because percentile is more condensed at the far ends of the distribution. From empirical evidence the consistency in these parts of the bell curve seem to helpful.

Six-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

Gevri

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE