Nor do I. They're a measure of how well you do on the test, nothing more. There are more factors than 'intelligence', however that's defined for the purposes of the test (which may not be designed to reflect anything else except the test, regardless of what the small/large print states). It's possible to rehearse the types of questions found in IQ tests and improve your results through familiarity but still be unable to tie shoelaces, boil an egg, or function usefully in society.
I also suspect that being likeable is probably not a test parameter.
I agree to a certain extend. This specific test is challenging your logic, creative thinking, your short term memory and your ability to solve concurrent problems. It also measures your ability to learn quickly.
It gives absolutely no indication of your emotional intelligence (often referred as EQ). Researches tend to demonstrate that you need a balance of both. Some types of work take advantage either of one or the other or both. That's another story.
This test is relatively short. Some people are slower than other and by no means dummer. They will resolve excessively complex problems if you give them the time to think about it.
I'm a half decent chess player. One of the friends I like to play with almost always beat me when we play blitzes. But he can't beat me if we take the clock out. He would be a better candidate to make difficult calls within 10 seconds. I would be a better candidate if I have 10minutes to make the same calls.
The Raven test has been used for the past 60 years. It's statistically proven that the 9 year old kid who just did 130 will be very successful academically. It doesn't mean that the one who did 80 will fail but the odds are against him/her.
Oh and if you are the smartest dyslexic on earth… You will still fail this test.
