Answers to emode.com IQ test ( "the original IQ test" )

Re: Question 11:Semantics and Logic.. "Definitely"


Yes, because there is a possibility that there is not a single wick that is a snick.

So the statement is rendered logically false by the absolutism "definitely'.



The diagrams won't really help as the bottom line is that there is no basis upon which to assert to an absolute degree that some wicks are sticks.

There is no basis to assert they aren't either, but the statement was a logically false absolutism because of the word "definitely".

Re: emode has "squares"


They didn't give any of those explanations, I did.

And I was probably drinking orange juice at the time.

My explanations are explanations about how I arrived at the answers. The numbers above are the amount that is deducted from each of the previous numbers in the sequence.

You'll note that each time the deduction is reduced by 2.

That was just one way to arrive at the answer and the one I saw. There are multiple ways to interpret the sequential trend and arrive at the same answer.

Re: Emode's Question 20: Jack vs Sandy


Yeah, well now you know this is not their explanation but rather my hasty explanations after I took their test.

Deleted from the first post is my rant about how I hated the test and such.

Anywho, the part about catching up in the end is a joke that has been answered here several times.

Someone said that wasn't true, and my answer is that unless Sandy kept running after it ended that he did.

As you note, losers usually do. :wink: 'Twas the point of the joke.

That question has been the most consistently argued one here, and I was surpised. My initial explanation was just sarcasm and I only actually explained it when a bunch of people contested it.

Others, including yourself, took their explanations of it much more seriously. Mine was flippant.

Fruity Question #27
Hello all,
I've spent the better part of the last hour and a half reading this thread - there's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back. Just kidding. I actually found this thread both stimulating and amusing, particularly the multiple methods to arrive at the same correct answers.

Anyway, the reason for my post - I had an alternative reasoning for one of the questions that, unless I just missed it, hasn't been posted yet (well, that and I'm dying to join in the fun here). :-)

27. Which one of these five things is least like the other four?
Plum
Grape
Apricot
Peach
Cherry

I chose the grape because it's the only one without a pit.

Of course, after reading through this thread, I notice that some people in the older posts argued about coconut, which was clearly not a choice above, so I am guessing that Emode has altered some of their multiple choices, apparently to make a "best possible answer" ever so slightly easier to justify.

Anyway, just my two cents. Thanks for listening.

Interesting! I wonder if they did so in response to discussions herein...

Welcome to A2K.

Grapes
I was surprised that no one mentioned grapes don't have pits until a couple of posts ago. The growing-on-vines explanation seems much less obvious to me than the no-pit explanation. Anyway, I've been reading through all this just itching to point that out, and someone beat me to it. Damn. Still, the most interesting thing about the thread is seeing some of the ways that people come up with the correct answer through entirely different means. For the record, the only one I got wrong was the number preference question; 400 over 300, etc. At first I thought it was multiples of twelve, but 300 killed that theory. I couldn't see the connection, even though the 144, 121, etc. question should have clued my in. By the way, hi, all!

Nathan

Amusing
I just retook the test answering every question as wrongly as possible. The results were rather amusing:

Congratulations, Nathan!
Your IQ score is 72

This number is based on a scientific formula that compares how many questions you answered correctly on the Classic IQ Test relative to others.

Your Intellectual Type is Inventive Inquisitor. You have the unusual distinction of being equally good at math and verbal skills. This means you are a creative thinker and are uniquely good at teaching others through experiences. You are also a great improviser and very good at handling change.

The "Inventive Inquisitor" type is personified by a little image of Benjamin Franklin (helpfully captioned "Benjamin Franklin"). How very flattering! I'm Ben as he would have been with an IQ of 72!

By the way, is anyone else amused (or disturbed) by "Inventive Inquisitor"? It conjures the image of a demented priest scurrying around his torture chamber and hammering and welding together nasty contraptions, all the while chuckling quietly to himself. Either that or Michael Palin in a red robe asking Gilliam to fetch the Comfy Chair. How hard would the "PhDs" at Emode have had to think to come up with, oh, I don't know, "Inquisitive Inventor"? Still, the former is a lot more amusing.

Anyway, the question remains: how can I score 72 with every single question as ridiculously wrong as I could make it? I mean, yeah, 72 is pretty bad, but if that is the absolute lowest score, what does that say about the test?

"Inventive Inquisitor" eh?

Sounds to me like someone curious enough to take the test but who then "invents" all the answers.

Welcome to A2K Nathan.

 Answers to emode.com IQ test ( "the original IQ test&q
What's up all,

Posting for the first time. Just for the record I took the test, got a 142 score (the so-called "Visionary Philosopher") and then searched Google for the answers, which led me to this forum. The only question I got wrong was #7...

7. John likes 400 but not 300; he likes 100 but not 99; he likes 3600 but not 3700. Which does he like?

900
1000
1100
1200

I put down 1200 but now see that I should have thought more about it (pissed myself off for missing that one). Most of the answers I could see right away but for some reason not this one. To make me even more pissed my girlfriend, who got at least 6 wrong, got this one right away! So she uses this against me now because she is very competitive (she chooses to ignore the fact that I got the others right).

I really like the debate about genes versus environment because I think a lot about this one myself. I believe that there is some information passed along in genes that plays some role in mental capabilities but I do not think that scientist have a very good handle on what it is because of the basic way of so-called "testing". I am no expert on this but the Aristotelian reasoning that seems to be at the basis of most the so-called scientific approach to testing hypothesis seems to be flawed in the way so-called 'proofs' are measured. As much as people try to control tests I believe that 'objectivity' is a myth as we are human and that itself rules out objectivity. Humans develop the hypothesis and humans develop the tests, therefore the tests have the same flaws as humans.

This may seem simplistic but I do not see how it can be otherwise. If we want to discover how 'intelligent' an Eagle is we use our own criteria for what intelligence is. We cannot 'think like' another creature, i.e. know what mode of perception and criteria the Eagle is basing its judgments on. When it comes to humans, we do not understand even what 'Life' is, because 'the created cannot understand what created it', something like 'the seer cannot be the seen'. This is not a rant about any particular religion, even if a 'process' created us then we cannot completely understand this 'process'. So there are many gaps in our initial information base and we try to answer questions (that is part of our job anyway, the job of being human I mean) that we do not have enough information to answer, and will never have. So the answers are partial at best, and certainly not objective no matter what instruments are used (we create the instruments too).

I agree that intelligence seems to be dynamic but it may be that the information stored by way of genetic structure may also be dynamic. In other words even if the genes do not change their structure this may not mean that the information, that in part this genetic structure appears to represent, is not itself dynamic and does not evolve, irrespective of environment and irrespective of the apparent stasis of the genetic code. What I am saying is that we cannot rule out 'internal factors' playing a role in the evolution of mental faculties such as the 'will to improve' or even 'visions'. Also the structure of something (genetic code for example) is related to but not the same thing as its function (i.e. the information and the way this information is related to the structure).

In ancient times what has been called 'Correlative Thought' seemed to be the prevalent mode for the 'thinkers' in the great ancient 'Riverine Societies' (Nile Valley Complex, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley Sawaswati Civilization, Ancient China). The thing is a lot of the correlative thinking was based on other methods of deriving information such as meditation, visions etc., which are all but dismissed by most modern scientists. However people like Einstein, Kepler, Newton, etc. seemed to be more in tune with this ancient way of thinking as were many musicians like Bach, Beethoven, Bartok, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Art Tatum, etc.). I am an improvising musician and I normally think in this mode of thought, however I was thinking like this before I started to play music, in fact for as long as I can remember. I know that association is a basic human skill and not only the province of the Ancients, but if you do a little research on the documentation that exists on the kind of so-called 'logic' (that may not be the right word) that was employed by the Han Dynasty in ancient China (for example) then you will understand my point.

Just some thoughts, great forum.

mbase,

Welcome to A2K.

alex23,

That made no sense. But welcome anyway. ;-)

yeah I know, but here's what happened:

-Complete Emode IQ test
-Feel confused and second-guess myself
-Attempt to find answers to test
-Accidently research IQ tests for an hour
[brain fizzles]
-Find answers to test and feel a little better
-Stumble upon 6 page discussion board on test
-Discover problems I didn't even know I had
-Become angry at the world
[brain is at rolling boil]
-Decide now is the time to join discussion and warn of evil intentions
-Cut and paste portions of previous research sites for effect
-Imagine evil laughter
-Realize that despite my near perfect score on this IQ test, I am just another idiot

alex23

welcome

Alex 23 ROCKS!

I think.....

Remember, always go with your first instinct...

:wink:

the test itself is inaccurate as the max score is 144 and the min is 72.

Also, there are a few ambiguous questions such as question 33 and 2.

question 33 have two possible answers: the circle and the isoceles triangle.
The circle has infinite vertices hence the odd one out. However, the isoceles triangle can be seen as the odd one out as the blue dot is not exactly at the center of the shape. ( that is, the blue dot is not equidistant from the vertices of the isosceles triangle).
Question 2 can have kangaroo as the answer and deer as the answer.
Notice that only the word "deer" does not contain the letter "o".

Quite right. Welcome to A2K.

I didn't know the floor for the test. Did you answer each question incorrectly to find it?

answers & explanation to emode test
i think the explanation to question 3 is so vague. what is this?
. Which number should come next? 144 121 100 81 64 ?

Answer: 49

Explanation: - 23 - 21 - 19 - 17 the next one is 64 - 15

they are just square of the numbers..

144(12x12) 121 (11x11) 100 (10x10) 81 (9x9) 64 (8x8) and so the next number is 7x7= 49

either way of explanation is acceptable as
2^2 - 1^2 = 3
3^2 - 2^2 = 5
4^2 - 3^2 = 7
so on...

and of course the most obvious way to identify the pattern is knowing it's just a series of squares.

i answered all the questions incorrectly using the most not possible answers to get the min score.

That was what I was wondering. But I doubt that there is a "less wrong" factored into the test.