patrick.net

Got them all!

The key is realizing they are "trick questions" and need to be read carefully and logically. I almost FUBARED the first one, but caught myself.

I also think I've seen these before, hut it's been a while.

Too easy for a logical mind (assuming I got these easy trick questions right).

Original study.

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2F089533005775196732

This can't be true. I got all of them correct and if I were a brainiac, why ain't I be rich?

GNL says

This can't be true. I got all of them correct and if I were a brainiac, why ain't I be rich?

It isn't true. You know who I know? The article is from here:

DD214 says

https://nypost.com/2017/09/26/the-worlds-shortest-iq-test-will-make-you-feel-like-an-idiot/

It's to make people who read the NY Post think they are actually smart. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if people who continue to read corporate media if they are even human, no offense to anybody that is reading the NY Post.

Got the first one wrong, the other two seemed pretty easy though. Is there a time limit or something? Otherwise seems like it wouldn't measure much.

NuttBoxer says

Got the first one wrong

Always check your answer. Math isn't always obvious but it's always logical.

I flunked everything. I am stupid.

Undoctored says

Original study.

The results are more interesting when u look at the study, here is the PDF link. I went through the first 20 pages and found it fairly interesting. Not sure what is in the remainder.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/089533005775196732

richwicks says

At this point, I'm starting to wonder if people who continue to read corporate media if they are even human

My family used to ask that of me every time I turned down a request for money. I seem to recall inhuman bastard a few times and other colorful terms hurled at me over the years but that did not change the outcome.

Ceffer says

I flunked everything. I am stupid.

Haha. I failed the first one, but it was 4:00 am. Also, IQ means nothing, it's just the ability to recognize useless patterns.

IQ is nothing more than a measurement of how useful you are to exploit.

DD214 says

My family used to ask that of me every time I turned down a request for money. I seem to recall inhuman bastard a few times and other colorful terms hurled at me over the years but that did not change the outcome.

Love on the installment plan. As long as you are juicing their foolishness with bucks, you are great. When the bucks stop, you are a cruel monster.
Not worth the phoniness and the guilt trips. May as well save the money and take the abuse up front.

DD214 says

My family used to ask that of me every time I turned down a request for money.

You did them a favor by denying them on the money beg. Every time, and I do mean every time, when I gave money to friends or family to help them out it only enabled then and made things worse.

Ceffer says

May as well save the money and take the abuse up front.

It was quicker and less stressful.

You really piss them off after turning them down when you write a letter back to them critiquing them on their whining and begging giving ratings on originality, creativity, believability, sentence structure and so on.

quickest test:

how many genders are there?

Three, masculine, feminine, and neuter.

Don't be neuter.

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

quickest test:

how many genders are there?

I dunno, depends on which language grammar. There are only 2 sexes though.

This just show that you are good at math n logic. Nothing more

The first one is tricky at least for the first thought but easier to find the answer was wrong(1.2!). Then try with algebraic way ball+(ball+1)=1.1 to find it.
Next two are straight forward.

KgK one says

This just show that you are good at math n logic. Nothing more

Is it better to be good at math and logic or is it better to be bad at math and logic?

The questions could be framed in a way that makes them clear rather then an 'Occam's Razor logic trap' to make people feel stupid.

The second question doesn't tell you enough information. You are put in the situation of figuring out the logic trickster's trick and turn of language correctly. It does not tell you if five machines perform separate functions in sequence to produce one widget, or if each machine produces a widget in the same amount of time simultaneously. It also does not tell you if the 100 machines have subsets of the five machines necessary to produce a single widget or not, or if all 100 machines are the same and operate to produce widgets simultaneously at the same rate. I just stopped participating at that point.

To call this an IQ test is glib. 'Legal logic' is also trickster logic. It requires a certain 'lock and key' prior knowledge to figure out, either from statutes or precedents etc. It is designed to be confusing to make lawyers look 'smart' and worth their fees when they are either bullshitting or looking things up in books.

Ceffer says

The questions could be framed in a way that makes them clear rather then an 'Occam's Razor logic trap' to make people feel stupid.

The second question doesn't tell you enough information. You are put in the situation of figuring out the logic trickster's trick and turn of language correctly. It does not tell you if five machines perform separate functions in sequence to produce one widget, or if each machine produces a widget in the same amount of time simultaneously. It also does not tell you if the 100 machines have subsets of the five machines necessary to produce a single widget or not, or if all 100 machines are the same and operate to produce widgets simultaneously at the same rate. I just stopped participating at that point.

To call this an IQ test is glib. 'Legal logic' is also trickster logic. It requires a certain 'lock and key' prior knowledge to figure out, either from statutes or precedents etc. It is designed to be confusing to make lawyers ...

So, we should assume you got all of them wrong?

@Ceffer Questions 1 and 3 are not confusing or ambiguous and require nothing more than knowledge of basic English and basic arithmetic. I suppose you could give hints to make them easier. They do not require anything like genius to figure them out. They require “reflection” and that is why it is called a “cognitive reflection” test and not an “intelligence” test.

I admit I came up with the “obvious but wrong” answer for the first question, but then I checked myself by adding the supposed price of the ball and bat and making sure it came to the given total, and they had the given difference in price. I realized I was wrong and adjusted accordingly. I had seen this before and used algebra to come up with the right answer. I guess without knowing algebra anyone could figure it out by trial and error.

The third question is even easier. Algebra will not help you here at all, you just have to know what “half” and “double” mean and how to count backwards by one.

The second question maybe you could quibble that it should state that each machine is operating independently, they never speed up or slow down, there is no scarcity or contention for supplies or power or space to put the widgets. However adding that I don’t think would make a difference for those who gave the obvious-but-wrong answer. They would still give the the time it would take five machines to produce 100 widgets, instead of the time it would take a hundred of them to do so.

I aced it. So what does that mean besides I'm an ACE! Oh, and a dam good Texas holdem poker player! Oh and it took me less than a minute to answer all three.

However when I read the next paragraph I thought I got them all wrong, lol. I was like WTF. I was at first unaware that those were all the typical wrong answers.