Missing number IQ test

[Pawelk198604]

I always wonder how to answer that on IQ test or the number series

I tried IQ test on internet and it show that i have little over 100 IQ what i shame i'm so dumb

[BagelRabbit]

I always wonder how to answer that on IQ test or the number series

I tried IQ test on internet and it show that i have little over 100 IQ what i shame i'm so dumb

That means that compared with all normal humans, you are slightly above average in terms of your Intelligence Quotient (IQ). Someone with an intelligence quotient of 100 has a typical IQ.

That being said, the concept of an IQ has come under some controversy lately, and if you're still not happy with your scores, you are capable of increasing them through brain exercises. So I wouldn't worry about it

-Upsilon

[ZetaX]

From a mathematical point of view, those "continue the sequence" problems are nonsensical. A sequence can be continued any way you want, after all.

There are some possible formalisations that essentially amount to "use the sequence that is most easily described", but there still are many different ones. One could go with an adaption of Solomonoff induction, for example, but that depends on choosing a universal turing machine and a prefix code.

[Dkmdlb]

What's the next number in the sequence:

1, 2, ____

No, you're wrong, it's 4 because each number is double the previous number.

TL;DR internet IQ tests are worthless.

[Majorjim!]

I always wonder how to answer that on IQ test or the number series

I tried IQ test on internet and it show that i have little over 100 IQ what i shame i'm so dumb

I wouldn't worry mate. IQ tests are nonsense. They serve only to 'pigeon hole' people. You are only as smart or as stupid as your actions. Do what you can do and work hard at it.

My sister took an online test and it came back as 160 IQ. And there's no way that was accurate. You really need to be tested by a psychologist to get a 'real' IQ result.

[LordFerret]

An IQ test is not a measure of your 'intelligence'... it is a measure of your 'potential for learning'. For those of you who think such tests are bunk, I'll suggest you sit down and read "Bias In Mental Testing" by Arthur R. Jensen ... you'll find the meat in chapter 4. I'll point out to you that Jensen set out to prove there was bias in such testing, but his research proved otherwise. Many books have been written since contesting Jensen's findings ... but NONE OF THEM include any empirical data, none of them bothered to retest Jensen's metrics, and they're all based on "opinion" and "feelings".

[Darnok]

So even tests from https://www.mensa.org/ are waste of time?

[heng]

Yes, because they only measure how well your answers fit into the social group of people designing those tests.

"Judge a fish by by its ability to climb trees, and mudskippers will win."

or something similar.

Besides, there was this solution to the missing numbers problem: 19.

To any sequence of numbers you can construct a polynom(?) polynomial or something, which will lead to the next missing number be 19. (Or any arbitrarily chosen value.) So, there is never a unique solution...

Edited July 14, 2015 by heng

[Majorjim!]

So even tests from https://www.mensa.org/ are waste of time?

IQ tests dont help you solve or create anything. They can be useful for diagnosing low mental capacity defects and little else.

Obviously healthy adults will not benefit in any way from it. I passed the Mensa test ten years ago. The only 'benefit' I experienced from it was the ability to gloat about it.

[SciMan]

IQ tests only measure how well you took the test, and sometimes not even that.

Somebody could have the capability of being the smartest person in the world, and yet fail an IQ test because they were never taught how to read.

There can be mistakes (or deliberate action) affecting how the test is scored even with all questions answered correctly.

Questions can be badly worded, which would make the only logical answer "I need more data to be able to fully answer the question as asked".

Some questions may have many "correct" answers, but the test only recognizes one of them as correct. These can sometimes result in a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation.

That's been my opinion for several years now.

Before you ask, I actually did well on the IQ test I took.

It's my opinion that the best IQ test is one that requires somebody to actually learn, and then apply what they learned, without being tied down to learning any one specific thing.

In other words, my IQ tests would have the person taking the test solve several problems in the real world.

I don't mean "real world" as in "give somebody a description of a problem that needs to be fixed and ask them how to fix it".

Regular tests already do that and the quality of the answer is entirely subjective.

I mean "Here's a few broken items of various complexity (simple circuit, small engine, broken chair, etc.) and plans for one entirely new thing. Fix and/or build them. If it's not worth doing, state why."

Access is provided to a wide range of tools and materials, and a computer with internet access.

Here's why I designed the test this way.

1. Repair/build something, the result is very clear. Either it works right or it doesn't. If it works better than new, that's bonus points. If the broken thing or plans for new thing have design defects that the person taking the test fixed, that's also bonus points.
   
2. Internet is included because IQ is "Capacity to learn" not "How much do you already know", and therefore limiting access to information defeats the entire purpose of the test. After all, looking to see if someone else already solved a similar problem is more intelligent than figuring out how to solve a problem that's already been solved (don't re-invent the wheel).
   
3. The "if it's not worth fixing..." bit is because it's smart to know when it's not worth the effort of fixing something. It's all about figuring out if it's cheaper and/or quicker to get a new thing instead of fixing the old one, as well as figuring out if time matters more than money in that situation.
   

These tests could very well take 6 months to a year, but the end result would be the best indicator of how intelligent (and determined) someone is that I've ever heard discussed.

This kind of testing is very similar to IMO the best way to conduct a job interview.

If it wasn't very clear already, I'm very much a "prove by doing" kind of person. It doesn't matter how many degrees you have on your wall if you can't solve practical problems.

Edited July 14, 2015 by SciMan

[ZetaX]

All those that just claim that IQ tests (the serious ones, not your usual web-based nonsense) are use-/point-/worthless are ignoring evidence on the contrary. The correlation between IQ values and many kinds of success is well established, for example (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations for a small list).

[Bill Phil]

All those that just claim that IQ tests (the serious ones, not your usual web-based nonsense) are use-/point-/worthless are ignoring evidence on the contrary. The correlation between IQ values and many kinds of success is well established, for example (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations for a small list).

Correlation does not imply causation.

[LordFerret]

Again, an IQ test is a measure of 'capacity for learning'.

And, if you're the smartest man in the world but can't read?... you're not the smartest man in the world - you may merely have to potential to be ... and 'potential' does not make "is".

[Darnok]

IQ tests only measure how well you took the test. Nothing more, nothing less.

Somebody could have the capability of being the smartest person in the world, and yet fail an IQ test because they were never taught how to read.

That's been my opinion for several years now.

Before you ask, I actually did well on the one I took.

If you are smartest person in the world I am sure you can learn English on your own at level allowing to even pass that test

[heng]

My apologies for fulfilling Godwin's law.... but:

Some IQ Test results for "famous" people...

[Darnok]

I think you guys confusing some things... for example Einstein could have lower IQ than some average person, because Einstein was good in one thing in physics, while this average person could be way above average in multiple things.

[ZetaX]

Correlation does not imply causation.

So what¿ Correlation is all we need to use IQ as a reliable way to judge how well a person will perform on a given task. Causation is competely irrelevant here.

Also, some of the studies demonstrate causation (in the usual weak sense, as proving causation is near impossible; by the way, I recommend reading up on how this is actually done for a nice read).

- - - Updated - - -

I think you guys confusing some things... for example Einstein could have lower IQ than some average person, because Einstein was good in one thing in physics, while this average person could be way above average in multiple things.

Short of rare illnesses, intelligence is not that focused. If you are extraordinary in one area, then you are generally quite good overall, short of rare effects. Physics is already quite broad by itself, it requires good deductive skills and inductive reasoning; both and some other parts of it are useful in almost every field of research and everyday life.

My apologies for fulfilling Godwin's law.... but:

Some IQ Test results for "famous" people...

Well, that's a case in point that high IQ and success are correlated. But in regard to that and the independent "IQ correlates with morality" hypothesis this is just anecdotical evidence.

[SciMan]

I have edited my previous post with much additional material. I'll admit that my "wasn't ever taught how to read" thing wasn't exactly well-founded or well stated.

IQ tests only measure how well you took the test, and sometimes not even that.

Somebody could have the capability of being the smartest person in the world, and yet fail an IQ test because they were never taught how to read. Edit: admittedly, this is an edge case, and potentially a straw-man.

There can be mistakes (or deliberate action) affecting how the test is scored even with all questions answered correctly.

Questions can be badly worded, which would make the only logical answer "I need more data to be able to fully answer the question as asked".

Some questions may have many "correct" answers, but the test only recognizes one of them as correct. These can sometimes result in a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation.

That's been my opinion for several years now.

Before you ask, I actually did well on the IQ test I took.

EDIT: Start of totally new material:

It's my opinion that the best IQ test is one that requires somebody to actually learn, and then apply what they learned, without being tied down to learning any one specific thing.

In other words, my IQ tests would have the person taking the test solve several problems in the real world.

I don't mean "real world" as in "give somebody a description of a problem that needs to be fixed and ask them how to fix it".

Regular tests already do that and the quality of the answer is entirely subjective.

I mean "Here's a few broken items of various complexity (simple circuit, small engine, broken chair, etc.) and plans for one entirely new thing. Fix and/or build them. If it's not worth doing, state why."

Access is provided to a wide range of tools and materials, and a computer with internet access.

Here's why I designed the test this way.

1. Repair/build something, the result is very clear. Either it works right or it doesn't. If it works better than new, that's bonus points. If the broken thing or plans for new thing have design defects that the person taking the test fixed, that's also bonus points.
   
2. Internet is included because IQ is "Capacity to learn" not "How much do you already know", and therefore limiting access to information defeats the entire purpose of the test. After all, looking to see if someone else already solved a similar problem is more intelligent than figuring out how to solve a problem that's already been solved (don't re-invent the wheel).
   
3. The "if it's not worth fixing..." bit is because it's smart to know when it's not worth the effort of fixing something. It's all about figuring out if it's cheaper and/or quicker to get a new thing instead of fixing the old one, as well as figuring out if time matters more than money in that situation.
   

These tests could very well take 6 months to a year, but the end result would be the best indicator of how intelligent (and determined) someone is that I've ever heard discussed.

This kind of testing is very similar to IMO the best way to conduct a job interview.

If it wasn't very clear already, I'm very much a "prove by doing" kind of person. It doesn't matter how many degrees you have on your wall if you can't solve practical problems.

[LABHOUSE]

Only thing it does is give bragging rights.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you guys confusing some things... for example Einstein could have lower IQ than some average person, because Einstein was good in one thing in physics, while this average person could be way above average in multiple things.

https://xkcd.com/435/

[Darnok]

Only thing it does is give bragging rights.

- - - Updated - - -

https://xkcd.com/435/

So if someone is good at 3 first areas he can't have higher IQ than incredible talented but only physicist?