I’m not smart enough :-(

[Eszett]

People I could need some crowd competence, I can’t solve this problem ...

[heedpantsnow]

My guess is C.

[SpAmRaY]

This might help http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-25934.html

[jdcarpe]

D

[Eszett]

@SpAmRaY Yes, this guide looks helpful, I have to dive into it ...
@heedpantsnow How come you vote for C?

[Mandolin]

 ....:/

[CPTBadAss]

I once applied to a company who tried to give me a test like that. I tried answering three questions then decided this was moronic and now, I don't work for them . I wonder what that makes my IQ...

So I guess what I'm saying is, it's going to be ok .

[Binge]

I'm blind.

[yasuo]

C

[esoomenona]

.

[Eszett]

Can someone explain his proposed solution, please?

[esoomenona]

.

[Eszett]

@esoomenona Nice! I thought about ignoring (shapes or colors) too, but didn’t came to this idea.
1st row: 11 times black
2nd row: 10 times a black
3rd row: 9 times black
That would be answer A.
At least this makes sense.

[tp4tissue]

Warning Spoiler

WBWBW       WWWBB
BWBWB        BWWWB
WBWBW       BBWWW

BBWWB        BBBBW
BWWBB        WWWBB
WWBBW       BBWWW


Anyone else who's figured it out.. Chk ur answer..


Tips,  Don't look for too-deep-a-logic..

WHY?

These puzzles are meant to be solvable in a SHORT amount of time..

On a Iq test, If there are deep-recursions,  no one would have the time to solve it, and it would be pointless to give the problem in the first place..

Now,  there CAN be ones designed to be highly time consuming.. but they're not popular because this type of search is always hunt and peck, since it involves very little MATH...  so it's essentially a trial and error problem without much purpose, and so there's little incentive for anyone to make or do a really big one...

[Eszett]

@tp4tissue Wow, that is really tough. Thank you!
For the upper left sub-shapes the pattern is clear: first row WBWBW, second row BWBWB, third row WBWBW
But for the lower right sub-shapes I can’t see a pattern:  first row BBBBW, second row WWWBB, third row BBWWW, where’s the pattern?

[Findecanor]

Too many possible patterns. If you within a finite amount of time find the pattern/s that the designer intended, then that is just luck, not being smart.

I'll also say C.

[tp4tissue]

@tp4tissue Wow, that is really tough. Thank you!
For the upper left sub-shapes the pattern is clear: row 1 WBWBW, row 2 BWBWB, row 3 WBWBW
But for the lower right sub-shapes I can’t see a pattern:  row 1 BBBBW, row 2: WWWBB, row 3 BBWWW, where’s the pattern?

Spoiler..


Read the whole plot as a paragraph

first symbol (left-top) per box   alternates  bwbwbw....
second symbol to the right of the first symbol  alternates  wwwbbbwwwbbb...
third symbol below the 1st symbol, alternates bbwwbbww...
fourth symbol to the right of third symbol, alternates,  bbbbwwwwbbbbwwww...


make sure to use the spoiler tag to not spoil the puzzle for other people guys.

[tp4tissue]

Too many possible patterns. If you within a finite amount of time find the pattern/s that the designer intended, then that is just luck, not being smart.

I'll also say C.

there's no such thing as luck.. everything happens as determined by preceding events

There is also no such thing as stupid or smart,  you are build exactly as intended, every component about your existence is a necessity in the grand scheme.

your emotions, everything you feel and think, are ordained.. 

[Eszett]

@tp4tissue Right, that makes sense. I think it is a pattern which is to see when you write it down. From the memory alone I would not recognize it!

[tp4tissue]

@tp4tissue Right, that makes sense. I think it is a pattern which is to see when you write it down. From the memory alone I would not recognize it!

There's the chance that I could be wrong though... so.. idk.. keep looking if you like. LOL

[RED-404]

Your IQ test is actually testing if your racist.

[FoxWolf1]

Too many possible patterns. If you within a finite amount of time find the pattern/s that the designer intended, then that is just luck, not being smart.

This. And also, with no directions, why assume that "pattern" is necessarily right? Maybe the square should have "the exception that proves the rule." Or maybe it is more correct to decide the contents of the box based on aesthetics or Feng Shui rather than "pattern".

And even if the answer is going to be determined by a "pattern", in fact, any of the answers can be part of the "pattern". There is no direction to instruct us that a shorter pattern is preferable to a longer one, and any answer is consistent with the existence of a pattern the period of which is equal or greater to the length of the sample given. It's like if someone writes, for pattern completion, "ABABABABABABABABABABA_". Unless there is an instruction to prefer shorter patterns, it would be just as correct as anything else to answer "5". Yes, this would result in "ABABABABABABABABABABA5", but that is still a "pattern." It's just a pattern of which we only have one repetition (so far).

[tp4tissue]

Too many possible patterns. If you within a finite amount of time find the pattern/s that the designer intended, then that is just luck, not being smart.

This. And also, with no directions, why assume that "pattern" is necessarily right? Maybe the square should have "the exception that proves the rule." Or maybe it is more correct to decide the contents of the box based on aesthetics or Feng Shui rather than "pattern".

And even if the answer is going to be determined by a "pattern", in fact, any of the answers can be part of the "pattern". There is no direction to instruct us that a shorter pattern is preferable to a longer one, and any answer is consistent with the existence of a pattern the period of which is equal or greater to the length of the sample given. It's like if someone writes, for pattern completion, "ABABABABABABABABABABA_". Unless there is an instruction to prefer shorter patterns, it would be just as correct as anything else to answer "5". Yes, this would result in "ABABABABABABABABABABA5", but that is still a "pattern." It's just a pattern of which we only have one repetition (so far).

um....

you're actually questioning the nature of GOD, as in the existence of recursion rules in general.


The problems on a test makes an assumption.. between the creator and reader..

those assumptions are.....

Time limit...
(Relative) Comprehension level....


Tests are not clear cut lines...  they essentially just make sure you're NOT-an-idiot.. that's their only goal..


I've always felt that those people who disparage the Testing process itself is doing it emotionally, an aversion-to-stress..  and perhaps to justify to themselves that they're BETTER than the test creator, and that they need themselves not be limited by rules..


The tests of ANY kind possess imbedded assumptions that are beyond the paper itself and are not malicious in principle.. there's a place for it.. how else can we communicate to one another.

the most basic form of TEST  is querying..   


Say hello,   <-that is a test...

[jackalope]

d

[dorkvader]

I once applied to a company who tried to give me a test like that. I tried answering three questions then decided this was moronic and now, I don't work for them . I wonder what that makes my IQ...

So I guess what I'm saying is, it's going to be ok .

Looks like ravens progressive matricies. My next guess is Nagliari nonverbal. (since ravens usually has no larger than 3*4 IIRC) In any case it's clearly a martix based nonverbal intelligence exam. These are supposed to be more balanced across people if different languages, races and backgrounds.

I remember taking that quiz when I was elementary school. I enjoyed it but they took it away after I got enough right. I just wanted to solve the fun puzzles.

the most basic form of TEST  is querying..   


Say hello,   <-that is a test...

I argue that the most effective type of examination is one-on-one though since they are very inefficient it's not useful to use them often.

As to the pattern, The one TP4 posted is the same pattern I saw. Here's the puzzle restated in terms of shapes (just for fun)


SCCSS     CCCSS
CCSSC     SSSSC
CXSCC     CXCCC

SSSSC     CCCCC
CCSSS     CCCCS
SXCCC     SXSSS

With the answer that TP4 proposes:

SCCSS     CCCSS
CCSSC     SSSSC
CSSCC     CCCCC

SSSSC     CCCCC
CCSSS     CCCCS
SSCCC     SCSSS


Not sure about the pattern here on the right colums but the left colums hold for both answers A and C and only the latter of the two holds for the "colour pattern" approach TP4 uses above.

[tp4tissue]

I once applied to a company who tried to give me a test like that. I tried answering three questions then decided this was moronic and now, I don't work for them . I wonder what that makes my IQ...

So I guess what I'm saying is, it's going to be ok .

Looks like ravens progressive matricies. My next guess is Nagliari nonverbal.

I remember taking that quiz when I was elementary school. I enjoyed it but they took it away after I got enough right. I just wanted to solve the fun puzzles.

the most basic form of TEST  is querying..   


Say hello,   <-that is a test...

I argue that the most effective type of examination is one-on-one though since they are very inefficient it's not useful to use them often.

I think many kids these days fundamentally misunderstand testing.. it's a failure of our education system..

Why take tests.. they're milestones for how much information you possess and are aware of.

Why possess information,  so you can use that information to get food and girls,

why get food and girls.. ...   most people understand everything from here on...  LOLOL

[dorkvader]

I think many kids these days fundamentally misunderstand testing.. it's a failure of our education system..

Why take tests.. they're milestones for how much information you possess and are aware of.

Why possess information,  so you can use that information to get food and girls,

why get food and girls.. ...   most people understand everything from here on...  LOLOL

Clearly a fundamental grounding in the principles of epistemology and ethics (or meta-ethics, depending on what you mean by "ethics") would greatly benefit just about everyone. But instead of thinking about the reasons behind things, most people seem to just act based on instinct or in accordance with social norms (or "how they were raised"). Dabrowski was right.

Even defining what intelligence actually is has proven to be a difficult challenge. Only after you have your definition (philosohpy) of intelligence made can you design a test to measure it. Then, even assuming it can be measured, since tests can be "taught to" or "gamed" they become less effective.

[Eszett]

there's no such thing as luck.. everything happens as determined by preceding events. There is also no such thing as stupid or smart,  you are build exactly as intended, every component about your existence is a necessity in the grand scheme. your emotions, everything you feel and think, are ordained.. 

@tp4tissue Interesting, what you say is called determinism, a philosophical point of view of an historical debate. Along with you, the most prominent ambassadors of determinism were: Hobbes (1588–1679), Spinoza (1632–1677), Locke (1632–1704),  Hume (1711–1776), Laplace (1749–1827), Planck (1858–1947),  Einstein (1879–1955). The opposite concept is the concept of the free will: we can act unpredictable depending on our mood and temper.

To get the transition over to sociology: the more predictable we act among friends, the more we get loved. :-)

[dorkvader]

there's no such thing as luck.. everything happens as determined by preceding events. There is also no such thing as stupid or smart,  you are build exactly as intended, every component about your existence is a necessity in the grand scheme. your emotions, everything you feel and think, are ordained.. 

@tp4tissue Interesting, what you say is called determinism, a philosophical point of view of an historical debate. Along with you, the most prominent ambassadors of determinism were: Hobbes (1588–1679), Spinoza (1632–1677), Locke (1632–1704),  Hume (1711–1776), Laplace (1749–1827), Planck (1858–1947),  Einstein (1879–1955). The opposite concept is the concept of the free will: we can act unpredictable depending on our mood and temper.

I don't think that free will is the opposite of determinism, Rather that on the scale of agency, determinism is at one of the endpoints.

Laplace's deamon is a good thought experiment surrounding it, but it assumes an external observer. I argue that this assumption is an easy one to take, but that's way off topic.

To build a bridge over to sociology: the more predictable we act among friends, the more we get loved. :-)

I don't even know where to begin with this. I think there is a lot you are assuming but not clearly stating to make that argument.

[tp4tissue]

there's no such thing as luck.. everything happens as determined by preceding events. There is also no such thing as stupid or smart,  you are build exactly as intended, every component about your existence is a necessity in the grand scheme. your emotions, everything you feel and think, are ordained.. 

@tp4tissue Interesting, what you say is called determinism, a philosophical point of view of an historical debate. Along with you, the most prominent ambassadors of determinism were: Hobbes (1588–1679), Spinoza (1632–1677), Locke (1632–1704),  Hume (1711–1776), Laplace (1749–1827), Planck (1858–1947),  Einstein (1879–1955). The opposite concept is the concept of the free will: we can act unpredictable depending on our mood and temper.

To build a bridge over to sociology: the more predictable we act among friends, the more we get loved. :-)

Yes.. but remember, I only say this within the framework of our immediate reality.

I do not, and CAN NOT deny the possibility of alternate realities which have different logic.

[Puddsy]

this thread went over my head REAL quick

[tp4tissue]

I think many kids these days fundamentally misunderstand testing.. it's a failure of our education system..

Why take tests.. they're milestones for how much information you possess and are aware of.

Why possess information,  so you can use that information to get food and girls,

why get food and girls.. ...   most people understand everything from here on...  LOLOL

Clearly a fundamental grounding in the principles of epistemology and ethics (or meta-ethics, depending on what you mean by "ethics") would greatly benefit just about everyone. But instead of thinking about the reasons behind things, most people seem to just act based on instinct or in accordance with social norms (or "how they were raised"). Dabrowski was right.

Even defining what intelligence actually is has proven to be a difficult challenge. Only after you have your definition (philosohpy) of intelligence made can you design a test to measure it. Then, even assuming it can be measured, since tests can be "taught to" or "gamed" they become less effective.

Depending on your universe

To define in completeness is -most-likely- not possible if that definition is to exist within a frame of incompleteness..


Our own Awareness-  is an approximate partitioning of a complete system.    where the reality has no such segmentation.   


Fvkin' It is very distressing to acknowledge that to-think itself may be wholly inadequate..


as far as teaching ethics... normative and descriptive (as they are defined) are essentially already being taught in our schools..  Don't kill people, don't steal, don't eat too much cheese...

And look at America..  people kill, people steal, people eat WAY too much cheese.

The reason?  lack of Meta-Ethics.. 

[tp4tissue]

this thread went over my head REAL quick

well, did you do the puzzle ?

after you do the puzzle...   start to question, why do the puzzle, why do anything anything at all.. and you'll be on track and arrive at where we are 

[heedpantsnow]

So what is the answer?

[tp4tissue]

there's no such thing as luck.. everything happens as determined by preceding events. There is also no such thing as stupid or smart,  you are build exactly as intended, every component about your existence is a necessity in the grand scheme. your emotions, everything you feel and think, are ordained.. 

@tp4tissue Interesting, what you say is called determinism, a philosophical point of view of an historical debate. Along with you, the most prominent ambassadors of determinism were: Hobbes (1588–1679), Spinoza (1632–1677), Locke (1632–1704),  Hume (1711–1776), Laplace (1749–1827), Planck (1858–1947),  Einstein (1879–1955). The opposite concept is the concept of the free will: we can act unpredictable depending on our mood and temper.

I don't think that free will is the opposite of determinism, Rather that on the scale of agency, determinism is at one of the endpoints.

Laplace's deamon is a good thought experiment surrounding it, but it assumes an external observer. I argue that this assumption is an easy one to take, but that's way off topic.

To build a bridge over to sociology: the more predictable we act among friends, the more we get loved. :-)

I don't even know where to begin with this. I think there is a lot you are assuming but not clearly stating to make that argument.

Dahh...... ok...  but...

If you have determinism as an Endpoint.. 

Then..  we have to clarify that the Scale of Agency is only intellectually tangible, but not a real thing..

because you CAN'T have imperfect agency Up to perfect agency (determinism)

but you CAN have varying levels of Perceived agency, as an incomplete observer.

[tp4tissue]

So what is the answer?

I posted it. Reply #13 dun dun duhnnn  mouse over and u see the answer..

if you don't understand the answer I put there, then you didn't do the puzzle.. and I don't want to spoil it for people who are doing the puzzle.

[rowdy]

I love this kind of thing, but I've never been any good at this stuff.

Also, BBW tp4?

[tp4tissue]

I love this kind of thing, but I've never been any good at this stuff.

Also, BBW tp4?

Tp4 is totally down with BBW

[dorkvader]

Dahh...... ok...  but...

If you have determinism as an Endpoint.. 

Then..  we have to clarify that the Scale of Agency is only intellectually tangible, but not a real thing..

because you CAN'T have imperfect agency Up to perfect agency (determinism)

but you CAN have varying levels of Perceived agency, as an incomplete observer.

I think before we have the discussion on "scale of Agency" / determinism, I think we first need to hammer out our own viewpoints on "agency" vs. "perceived agency".

So the scale of agency is a thought construct, exists inside the cave. The concept of agency is outside the cave of course, so it's just a mapping of what we think to what we think actually is. It's possible that we don't have agency, only we think we do. In such a case, if we ignore everything outside the cave (since we can't know about it anyway) we would live in a deterministic system. It can also exist that we actually do have agency but think we don't. Since that's not the case for me, I can't imagine how that'd work out. The other two cases are true.

Another facet: since the actual truth of our agency is likely not knowable, then we might as well act as if we have it, since in one case it's the truth, and in the other case it doesn't matter. Then again, I don't know how the opposite case (having agency but thinking you don't) influences anything. I suspect it would have no bearing on your decision.

So on one side, f you think you ahve agency and you're right, then it's true and good. If you're wrong then it doens't matter anyway.
On the other side, if you think you don't have agency and you don't then it's true (but doesn't matter) and if you think you don't have agency and actually do then it still doens't matter as it doesn't affect things.

I think the square / decision matrix is balanced towards the idea of having agency even if you're wrong.

I love this kind of thing, but I've never been any good at this stuff.

Also, BBW tp4?

What's BBW ?

[tp4tissue]

Dahh...... ok...  but...

If you have determinism as an Endpoint.. 

Then..  we have to clarify that the Scale of Agency is only intellectually tangible, but not a real thing..

because you CAN'T have imperfect agency Up to perfect agency (determinism)

but you CAN have varying levels of Perceived agency, as an incomplete observer.

I think before we have the discussion on "scale of Agency" / determinism, I think we first need to hammer out our own viewpoints on "agency" vs. "perceived agency".

So the scale of agency is a thought construct, exists inside the cave. The concept of agency is outside the cave of course, so it's just a mapping of what we think to what we think actually is. It's possible that we don't have agency, only we think we do. In such a case, if we ignore everything outside the cave (since we can't know about it anyway) we would live in a deterministic system. It can also exist that we actually do have agency but think we don't. Since that's not the case for me, I can't imagine how that'd work out. The other two cases are true.

Another facet: since the actual truth of our agency is likely not knowable, then we might as well act as if we have it, since in one case it's the truth, and in the other case it doesn't matter. Then again, I don't know how the opposite case (having agency but thinking you don't) influences anything. I suspect it would have no bearing on your decision.

So on one side, f you think you ahve agency and you're right, then it's true and good. If you're wrong then it doens't matter anyway.
On the other side, if you think you don't have agency and you don't then it's true (but doesn't matter) and if you think you don't have agency and actually do then it still doens't matter as it doesn't affect things.

I think the square / decision matrix is balanced towards the idea of having agency even if you're wrong.

I love this kind of thing, but I've never been any good at this stuff.

Also, BBW tp4?

What's BBW ?

If you ask the internet.. BBW (Big Beautiful Women) is a genre in pr0n predominantly populated by Obese Women.

for ME.. bbw has always meant a pretty girls that are thicker, m0re curvy...



I believe that how one views agency is less important than (at least) thinking about it at all.

Because once a person tackles the fundamental problems of existence, they are in their most enlightened form.  That is the very basis of self awareness..

In our past histories, the challenges most of us faced were much more simple and closely related to lower survival instincts..

While that guidance still forms our core..  we can now thoroughly anticipate where the extravagance that derives from low-instinct fulfillment will end...

Eating too well and too much
Moving too little or too slowly
Indulgence in too much sexual gratification.. (incl. pr0n/alcoh/drug addiction). !!


The only true course of action NOW available for all humans to take up (at least partially) is to explore the limitations of consciousness.

To study, learn, and expand our understanding.

 
This contrasts with simpler goals such as get money, fvk *****es, and drink..

^^^ I've spent many years doing this, at its best, a fleeting-high


So.. it is important that we teach and encourage intellectual happiness..  Today more so then ever, because it is JUST TOO EASY to be an animal...

Citizens of developed countries have virtually unlimited food (obesity) and unlimited distractions (drug sex alcohol)

How is it that people as animals can be so discontent in our Utopia?

That is because our base programing as lower animals has ran to completion, any and all excess fulfillment derived of this form is no longer satiating to the adults of our culture.



The path to Happiness (relative + sustained) and our-future-in-space lies in books and the expansion of knowledge.

[cinnamonrollz]

Is not the answer E because all the rows have 2 x 2 boxes with the same shape arangements and 1x box with unique shape arrangement except the bottom? Just pay no attention to the color!

sterp breaking my mind.

[tp4tissue]

Is not the answer E because all the rows have 2 x 2 boxes with the same shape arangements and 1x box with unique shape arrangement except the bottom? Just pay no attention to the color!

sterp breaking my mind.

[heedpantsnow]

There is no spoon.

[Oobly]

I'd say the answer is "C", but according to my logic the bottom right shape should be a solid square not a circle.

IMHO, it is the "most correct" answer, since NONE of the answers follows the shape pattern completely, but "C" follows it for 3 of the shapes and fits the solid / open pattern perfectly.

[tp4tissue]

Eszett,  does ur book have answer key ?

[Lain1911]

I'm still looking for the question.......

[rowdy]

I'm still looking for the question.......

It's in the first post - there is a blank box at the bottom of the second column, and 6 possible patterns to go into that box.

[Lain1911]

I meant to put a little sarcasm in there to address there is not worded question it just assumes you know what to do

[rowdy]

I ment to put a little sarcasm in there to address there is not worded question it just assumes you know what to do

Must have been that 7th full stop

[GL1TCH3D]

As far as I can tell the answer is

E based on the pairings of the top and bottom shapes


Would be interested in knowing what the actual answer is with an explanation if you ever get one