34 can be answered by B. in diagonal direction 1, 6, 8/ 2,4,9/3,5,7 have same logic. two white balls are moving counter clockwisely. in this way the answer is B.
No 35 break inferencing consistency rules, where there is no relatiion sample to apply, except inference direction must be diagonally from right up to, left bottom or from left up to right bottom, and duplicate visual of question on eveyside of current question, so it make readable visual diagonal pattern, it simmilar to question no 32
You gotta be a dumbass to recur to these type of things to score higher on an IQ test. Literally fooling nobody but yourself. I did the test and got 135 no help whatsoever.
I had 135 iq before i saw this! I now feel stup1d for NOT noticing some questions! (Except 33 and 35 they didnt make any sense to me and they still do not)
@@pineapplejuice1156 no you didn’t I got 142 on my first time lol. I think you meant the other guy. Maybe learn to read before trying to ’’flex’’ your IQ.
got all up to 31, but then had few minutes left for the last 4, failed them took more time outside of the test and was able to find 32 and 34, i still needed the solution for 33, 35 but.. i think the ones who scored 140+ are more likely lucky than smarter, like, 2 in 100 got 135iq, 1 in 31k got 160iq, in 31k there are 620 people with 135iq, so this 620 people will try their rng with the unknown question with 1/6 odds for a correct answer, few lucky ones will get 150 by pure luck, lets say you manage to esclude few options logically and there you go this assuming the real test is similar
35s honestly not so bad, it’s basically like some of the triangle square circle stuff from earlier(question 23) where they each need to appear in the row(except now the shapes are the “up arrow”, “down arrow”, “vertical parallel lines”, “horizontal parallel lines”, and “horizontal line” there can be some confusion in the bottom left box as to whether it had the “horizontal line” and the “vertical parallel lines” or just the parallel line, however that can be easily deduced by looking at the columns and seeing that the third already has the “horizontal line”
I am really new to these kinds of tests and to the logic behind them, but some of the last ones really feel like someone has to guess an insanely complex “function” (sequence of steps) behind some randomly generated pattern. Is this what “intelligence” really is? Most mathematical/analytical problems require a robust motivation/structure/reasoning behind what you are trying to accomplish. I certainly can’t imagine having to complete these under 15-20 seconds or smth. Wow!
An interesting thought I often think about with these Raven matrices. Non-verbal method of defining intelligence but what is it truly measuring? Is the time fair? If someone trains for these as the questions themselves have a clear pattern to them that you can practice looking out for (with the exception of the last few questions) then how does that get accounted for? What about different methods of pattern recognition that arrive at the same answer but with a more sophisticated method vs a simpler one? Having multiple choice can also be a problem since you can arrive at the correct answer without completely seeing all aspects of the pattern compared to someone who thought of a complete picture. You can also get the right answer for the wrong reasons and faulty logic. There is too much these tests don’t actually measure so putting faith in them, in my opinion, is ironically a low IQ move lol. If anyone says that’s me being insecure though I actually got a super high result on this test but to avoid coming across as bragging I will not disclose the exact number.
is this test really accurate? i got a result of 131 but i know that im a slow learner. i do work a lot with charts and patterns for years maybe that helps me but for example if i read something i really have to focus bc my mind keeps drifting off
maybe you have high iq but low conscientiousness, maybe even adhd or something idk, could be a slow learner because you find it hard to focus, just an idea.
this test is mostly logic, id say the purest type of intelligence, but its not the only one and its not necessarily the most valuable in society, one that i lack is working/sequential memory (ability to have complex thoughts without losing track)
@user-ir7qs3oe9e i share the same thing. I can have a line of thoughts that end up with a conclusion. I can know the conclusion but i will lose the process. I then have to go all over again or go backwards from my conclusion. The issue is that sometimes it takes me a lot of "wandering" to get there so i dont know if i can get there again. Or sometimes i have these key moments but the fade away.... anyway. Thanks for the insight, makes sense
No ofc not, IQ can’t determine intelligence as well as popular belief might have you believe. It’s mostly used to determine if you have some mental disability, as long as you score within 85-135 you can’t really tell if someone is very intelligent or not. It’s only if you score below 80 or 85 it should be a concern and likely you have some disability. If you score over 145 then you are ’’probably’’ gifted or just VERY good at puzzles. Either way, IQ is not a great measure of human intelligence, it's only used as a tool in some areas of psychology. The reason mathematicians, physicists, and chess players usually score higher than lawyers, philosophers, writers, etc on an IQ test (on average) not because they are smarter, but because they have been more exposed to puzzle and matrix-like activities in their everyday life, not because they are more ’’intelligent’’ than the rest. I’m a life long chess player and have scored 135-140 on every iq test I have done in my life (both irl and mensa internet) and the reason I could score so high is because I do both puzzles in my free time and because chess is pattern recognition. This does not make me more intelligent than ’’99.9%’’ of the population as some people like to claim. I wouldn't say I’m dumb, but I’m definitely not near the ‘’genius’’ level as IQ tests would like to claim.
while some of the explanations are good, some are either overly complicated or are poorly explained by the style of animation you chose. you should align things better, it looks like a wonky powerpoint presentation sorry to be negative
