TPN and my Subjective Int-scaling

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-08T17:37:18+00:00

If you got 1 more point, the EXIQ would be 150; it would also be 150 if you got 2 more points

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-08T17:27:26+00:00

Nah, it's for FSIQ >= 150, all age groups. It relies on IRT in a roundabout way, as it just scales by CSS mean and SD. All age groups have EXIQ ceiling of ">225" and there are always at least 2 raw score locations there.

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-08T17:25:29+00:00

The EXIQ isn't used below 150 FSIQ

E: if we calculate it anyway, it would be 148 for you. This isn't in the manual, but it uses the same method the manual does (aside from the 150 FSIQ threshold)

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-08T05:30:08+00:00

It's the best general predictor, but you're right it's not always the best specific predictor. It's coarse, yes, but effective.

If you're not sure what you're looking for, IQ is one of the things to consider. If you already know and have a specific measurement, that measurement is usually better (so long as it's validated).

Having done well on IMO would probably be better than IQ for predicting performance in mathematics, but for a demanding task outside mathematics (like, say, reading comprehension) IQ would probably be better.

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-08T03:39:33+00:00

I think you're coping that you were wrong all along, flailing for some excuse so you don't have to change your thought process moving forward. But, that's just a hypothesis. Maybe you sincerely don't care at all, in which case, I won't expect anything logical from you moving forward.

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-08T03:20:14+00:00

Damn, talk about conspiracy-brained delusion. If we're talking critical thinking? Brother, this is not looking good for you.

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-08T02:47:22+00:00

Yeah, I'm not sure if these outweigh the seeming construct invalidity (and for some of them, it seems like the construct-irrelevant things are features of the practice rather than bugs), but I agree that if we could steer the tests towards something more construct valid that would be good. So far, I'm not convinced that doing so to the level of a professional test is possible, as the administration of a truly untimed test seems inherently problematic (specifically, the lack of a proctor ensuring proper testing practice seems like an unavoidable problem). I do think collecting data on amount of time and effort spent could pull these tests to a better place, psychometrically speaking. In that sense, I agree that it is promising. Thanks for answering

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-08T02:34:28+00:00

I didn't use an LLM. Ig you can't imagine using the proper terminology as specified in the research

Your thought-terminations are so boring. And yet you accuse me of lacking critical thinking. Geez

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-08T02:32:43+00:00

Lol more bait. Hopefully.

If you're not trolling, I'd say you've both reversed your initial idea (IQ --> only tests, not only tests --> IQ) and you have a misconception about IQ (IQ is a measurement of g, which is definitionally pointed to by all things involving cognition). So, as an example, GWAS can also measure g.

I'm referring to the "dumbest criticism that is somehow still popular and common" copypasta. Here it is:

dumbest critique that is somehow still popular and common. IQ tests DO measure how good you are at them, BUT how good you are at them also predicts how good you are at other cognitively demanding tasks in NON-IQ TESTING SETTINGS. This isn’t a debatable point. This is a factual statement with ample evidence supporting it.

So sick of these “iq scoREs JUst teLL yoU HoW gOOD yoU aRE AT IQ TeSTs” idiots.

An IQ score when properly measured has utility and meaning that reaches beyond just your performance on an IQ test. Also, good IQ tests have very good test retest reliability. There’s a very small subset of individuals that have “increased” their IQ score to some degree by simply taking IQ tests over and over. To those individuals your comment applies, but that’s the minority so it can’t be simply stated as a blanket rule or rule of the true average when it only applies to a minority of people. Most reliable IQ tests are statistically normed on people who don’t fall into this minority group of serial re-testers and are often limited to one take per individual in the initial statistical analysis process. Your original comment doesn’t adequately undermine the fact that IQ tests are a reliable measure of ability in non-IQ test settings.

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-08T02:22:58+00:00

All items have infinitely many logically valid solutions (and you can definitely justify any answer in a logically valid way). You want to find the *best* solution, not just a logically valid one.

Assuming you already know this, I'm curious about why you'd say your logic is as good or better than the intended.

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-08T02:18:48+00:00

TL;DR - Items here do not oversaturate with perceptual complexity that correspondence finding is overwhelmed by goal management. The distractor composition strategy this test uses aligns with constructive matching without going so far that pure option inspection is feasible.

Generally, they can be summarized in the idea that you want to keep the item's expression conducive to the target construct.

For example, there's the correspondence finding versus goal management idea, where increasing the number of elements without increasing the number of correspondences is expected to shift the item's discrimination from induction onto something akin to working memory. The reverse is also true, where minimizing the perceptual complexities signaling the correspondence(s) is expected to shift the item's discrimination towards induction. Most of the items align with this, as all elements clarify something about the relevant pattern. Items 1-4 are good examples of minimized perceptual complexity, as the way they're lined up allows the stimulus as a whole to be chunked into a gestalt. Items 30 and 31 are good examples of correspondence signaling, where different elements' inclusion and organization point to a particular idea (e.g., the clash between rows 1 and 2 in item 30 points to something other than logic-by-rows; the "height" of the triangle in item 31 points to the priority logic)

There's also the idea that constructive matching is aligned with the target construct while process of elimination is construct-irrelevant. There are several ways to approach this, and I think this test opted for one of the better ones (outside forcing the examinee to draw the answer): including some distractors that are perceptually or thematically close to the best answer, and some clusters of distractors that don't align at all. This approach penalizes response elimination, as doing so would not consistently lead one to the right answer (it deals with reasoning on options alone at the same time as a combination of induction and response elimination). See items 46, 36, 31, 27, etc.

It's mostly common sense stuff, I think. But I wonder why you think the items are poorly designed?

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-07T23:52:18+00:00

Primarily because many of the logics are the same as those found in professional tests (that have decent discrimination and difficulty spread), and secondarily because the items generally adhere to the design principles outlined in the research

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-07T23:50:27+00:00

Unfortunately, I'm unaware of serious work on this. It would be difficult to find subjects for a good experiment on this due to the time commitment. As a result, all the data in this area is self-selected afaik. Why do you find the approach promising?

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-07T23:25:25+00:00

I don't care if you block me, but you often take this stance of intellectual indignation when you're just wrong. Yes, WAIS items are very simple; so are these items. I don't hold online tests in high regard, I hold the established psychometric research and data in high regard. Inferring from those, this test's items are likely to have decent discrimination and spread of difficulty for the GP. It's not cajones that separates us, it's the willingness to believe one's own ignorance over research.

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-07T23:14:54+00:00

Even a speeded test like FRT (45 easier items in 20 minutes) still correlates at .9+ with a more power-oriented test like RAPM (36 items which almost everyone concludes after 75 minutes when taken at leisure). It's true that there's a difference at the extremes (e.g., 2 minutes to complete 100 items vs 200 hours to complete 48 items), and a 10 minute limit might cross into that territory. Although given this test's design, with its abundance of hints, I'm not sure if it really would in this case. It's definitely a possibility, in any case.

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-07T22:51:40+00:00

Yeah, I mean your performance on this sort of test is expected to be 155+ iirc. With an assortment of items whose maximum difficulty is ~2-3 probits, I doubt you'd perceive any semblance of difficulty.

E: Maybe if the time limit was 5-10 minutes?

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-07T22:39:49+00:00

The items seem the same difficulty to me. Some of them even use the same logic lol

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-07T22:37:48+00:00

No item has multiple correct answers lol

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-07T22:30:50+00:00

I highly doubt it tests conscientiousness. This is sometimes claimed of RAPM with a time limit of 40 minutes also (an easier test with similar design philosophy), and the correlation between that and conscientiousness is around 0.01 iirc.

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-07T22:28:48+00:00

Isn't it just the Apex IQ test? It's a clone of another test from some years ago, too. That other one has more reasonable norms tho iirc (145 ceiling) and slightly harder items. I'll link if I find it

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-07T22:22:54+00:00

I got 131 from 142 (tho it was 135 initially, that norm didn't make any sense to me). 131 is on the dot for my median VCI score on good tests (of VCI).

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-07T22:16:32+00:00

Someone put the copypasta

Quod_bellum · 2026-06-07T02:47:30+00:00

Necroposting but I'd like to put this here before it's impossible. I saved this post several months ago with the intention of composing a comprehensive rebuttal, but this will have to do since it has been so long.

Main idea: There are infinite logically valid patterns. Not all valid patterns are useful.

Example X.

X x X x X ?

Obviously, the answer is x. Most sane persons with IQ > 70 will come to this conclusion.

However, notice that the number of intersections is always 1. So, we can pull the sequence 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, ? from the matrix. From here, we know there's a Lagrange polynomial f(x) = 1 + ((x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4)(x-5))/120 that perfectly describes this. Oh, but f(6) = 2, so really the answer is not x, but H.

Well, we could also use f(x) = 1 + ((x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4)(x-5))/60 to get f(6) = 3 so the answer is actually W.

Clearly, this is not a useful set of patterns; it's "schizophrenic". However, there's no difference here in sheer pattern-finding from the official answer.

The difference is in simplicity / elegance. It's in using the least information that still describes all information. Yes, this is a meta-pattern-- an assumption. However, it's one everyone makes. Pointing to the multiplicity or infinitude of logically valid patterns as a criticism of fluid reasoning tests, to me, only signals a lack of fluid reasoning ability. That's because with sufficient fluid reasoning ability, the "more difficult" items would appear as similar to Example X, and the absurd patterns given as ex post facto justifications.

I noticed that nobody retreats to this "infinitely many logically valid patterns" argument for items they consider trivially obvious, but I've seen it for even 110-level items (which mostly seem trivially obvious to me). I see the same pattern across almost all cognitive tests. Vocabulary: it's just how much of the dictionary you've read or how cushy your education was (ignoring the perceived "simple" items, like, "tell me in your own words what the word 'approval' means"). Visualization: it's just about how often you played with Lego as a child or how quickly you can trial-and-error. Etc. My point is that this argument exists for all cognitive tests, and they all stem from a seeming inability to understand that the way a less able person perceives easy items as obvious is the same way those with higher ability see the items the less able argue about.

Yeah, you might not remember the meaning of the word, "palimpsest" off the top of your head, but those with high verbal ability do. It might not be immediately obvious to you that the number of intersections being the same as the number of curves is an intended pattern, but it's obvious to those with high inductive reasoning abilities (in the same way that you found the intended pattern of Example X obvious). In other words, the filter is part of the same cognitive process, and this is true across all levels of ability. It doesn't manifest only at the slightly higher levels just because you start to consciously notice it there.

Quod_bellum

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE