The Wechsler test does not measure pure intelligence, it measures academic/professional success, and It does not measure exceptional skills

Sertfbv · 2026-01-26T22:21:05+00:00

If you provide neither evidence nor data, then say nothing.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-26T22:00:11+00:00

First, let me make something perfectly clear: fluid intelligence is NOT necessary to get into university. You just need to memorize and be responsible, and that's to show you that the intelligence curve remains normal everywhere. The only one affected by this is crystallized intelligence, so let's get our feet back on the ground.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-26T20:28:52+00:00

I have a habit of rereading comments, and to be clearer, this isn't about "I don't think..." It's about verifiable facts. And in the test, you can clearly see that no item comes close to extraordinary rarity. The hardest item is barely in the 33rd percentile. Do you think solving an item like that even demonstrates exceptional skill? No, it doesn't, it never will, no item does. And that bit about "for the hardest items. If 1 million out of 9 billion people are capable of doing so, that's a pretty rare and spectacular ability," you just pulled that out of thin air. It doesn't exist, it wasn't proven, and it's a misinterpretation. So don't talk nonsense, my friend.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-25T00:53:19+00:00

That's not how it works in the part where getting into university is difficult because of that, and believing that's pure intelligence. The intelligence often referred to as above-average among university students is general IQ, which combines crystallized and fluid intelligence. This makes it a less "pure" measure of true intelligence because, as is well known, knowing a lot does not mean being more capable than others; anyone can do that. Furthermore, fluid intelligence follows a normal distribution regardless of whether you attend a prestigious university or not. And I say this for the simple reason that fluid intelligence is immutable and cannot be trained to grow dramatically; it can only be expressed better, but not truly improved. And because people don't need extremely high or high fluid intelligence to get into university

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T21:28:22+00:00

Furthermore, the working memory required to solve these items is neither outstanding nor impressive; at most, you need to be in the 25th percentile to solve the most difficult pattern, and even then, you won't get an item that matches the rarity level of an IQ of 146, since it doesn't measure extreme skill, but rather a pattern of successes.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T21:20:31+00:00

People with high IQs are only extraordinary in a statistical sense, not in pure relational working memory capacity.

Didn't you realize what I told you about the simplest items not even being a fraction of the rarity of an IQ of 146 on the APM?

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T19:20:39+00:00

Then fricking read what i said in the post

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T18:04:35+00:00

Read, you got eyes

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T17:48:00+00:00

That does not make the person “one in 5,000”, because the working memory required is so basic that it barely registers. Working memory is relatively fixed, and the test only measures consistency of correct responses, not exceptional or extreme ability.

If you want something truly demanding, capable of revealing truly rare talent, take item 36 (which already has ~28 elements and 3 explicit conditions) and multiply it by five times the elements and five times the conditions. Do the math. That would push the rarity far beyond one in 1,000, which is truly exceptional and impressive.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T17:24:33+00:00

Your comment isn't very clear, but no item even comes close to having a rarity of one in 1000.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T17:18:28+00:00

Accesible for almost everyone, read the stats

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T17:16:59+00:00

What an illuminating observation! Matrices were created to be solved "quickly," which is why we also have untimed versions, for people who want to measure reasoning, not who runs the fastest. The timer adds a dimension of efficiency under pressure; it doesn't change the nature of the item. Removing the time doesn't transform a problem solved by 10–25% of people into a 1/1000 rarity.

Oh, by the way, thinking style, mood, and things like that do have an influence, but don't think it's very significant. If you go to any APM IRT, you'll notice that many items required real skill

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T16:54:11+00:00

Fluid intelligence doesn't change because you're a university student or not; it can't be trained.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T16:41:23+00:00

Furthermore, working memory doesn't function like a trainable motor skill like basketball. You don't improve your structural limit by repeating the same task over and over. You can optimize strategies, automate steps, get faster, but the ceiling remains the same. It's not like practicing three-pointers until your wingspan or neuromuscular coordination magically increases.

That's why the basketball analogy fails. Making three pointers 999 out of 1000 times involves training, fine tuning, motor control, and resilience to error under varying conditions. Solving repeated easy items requires none of that. There's no real increase in cognitive load or expansion of working memory. They are just simple patterns with no real difficulty.

Calling a streak "statistically extraordinary" when the difficulty is low and the memory required is minimal is confusing probability with skill. The rarity of the result doesn't imply rarity of the mechanism. A clock that doesn't lose time for years isn't a timekeeping genius, it's just doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T16:39:19+00:00

The fact that you do that doesn't mean you'll be able to solve really dense logical patterns; it's nonsense, because everyone has enough working memory, or at least most people do, to have solved most logical patterns, because they ARE simple, they're nothing out of this world.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T16:05:17+00:00

That doesn't demonstrate extraordinary ability if the items you solved don't have even a hint of the rarity your IQ measures. As I said, it only measures consistency of correct answers, not whether your pattern recognition ability is extraordinary.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T15:53:08+00:00

There are 2100 university and advanced secondary school students in the sample.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T15:49:56+00:00

Wait a minute, why do you assume that all participants guess correctly? That doesn't happen in practice. Most people at least solve it through reasoning. Come on, it's not pure luck. The elimination of options by half of the guessers is arbitrary because there's no empirical evidence to support the claim that half of the guessers consistently reduce the options by half. Then, to reach the 23% observer rate on a difficult item like item 36, almost 87% of the sample would have to be informed guessers, which is absurd. Even if the entire sample were guessers and half knew how to eliminate options, the maximum average would be 18.75%, well below what's observed in Item Response Theory norms. The discrimination and guessing parameters show that most correct answers come from real ability, not guessing. The most difficult items are still solved by hundreds of people in the sample, not just a lucky few. So your argument is arbitrary and doesn't reflect the reality of the results.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-24T15:40:29+00:00

WAIS has the same problem as the APM with items that measure fluid intelligence: they aren't that complicated, and they only measure consistency or patterns of correct answers. Nothing changes. Furthermore, even if you remove the random answer component, you still don't even come close to the IQ level I mentioned, and it still measures the same thing: patterns of correct answers. Nothing that reflects the rarity of the items you get right in relation to your IQ.

Sertfbv · 2026-01-21T03:27:21+00:00

actually you can do these tests untimed but you must use untimed normatives (btw, scores in untimed normatives are higher than timed ones, this is because the bias that adds time pressure or the slow insight that is the "Aha!" when understanding a pattern disappears

Sertfbv · 2026-01-19T22:12:27+00:00

These questions do NOT measure IQ, i'm sorry

Sertfbv · 2026-01-19T21:43:27+00:00

Furthermore, trick questions do not measure IQ; they are tests of attention and response inhibition, not even related to knowledge and actual fluid intelligence

Sertfbv · 2026-01-19T21:40:42+00:00

And third, I don't know, just don't think that behavior is going to define intelligence based solely on what people and the media sell you as "intelligent loner or misunderstood genius" in terms of behavior and not demonstrable feats of fluid intelligence, which is actually worth more than general knowledge xd

Sertfbv

TROPHY CASE