No you are not right, I flipped it in photoshop and C is not symetrical when folded.
D is though, so the fags who made the test should have gave me the 200 IQ i deserved.
What I mean is that it can imprint on itself in a symetrical way. Now the simpler and more base minds may say “OOO D is asymetrical” but D imprints on itself in a symetrical way. E does too, once E is imprinted it becomes symetrical. C does not. C has no symetry about it. It is the only image which cannot produce any symetry after a fold.
Are you sure that you are talking about the right image? D, the open box, is obviously not symmetrical as well as being the only non-square. But their explanation is rubbish.
D is symetrical onto itself, all the images are symetrical onto itself, except C which if you zoom in, you can see the fence holes are rather sloppy and lose, and the top ones are smaller than the bottoms.
the type of symetry of D is different than B, and the type of symetry of B is different than E.
D is symetrical on the first stage but not the final stage, B is symetrical on the final stage and E is symetrical on the final stage.
C has no symetry at all whatsoever, thats why I picked it, yet they said I was wrong.
Top 4% of the U.K. population, but I only started the test 1.25 hours in of a 3 hour test so I was surprised to have even got that. My mind was elsewhere then, as it often is, and as it often is lately.
I would have picked D but for a different reason which is it is the only one which is asymmetrical
Because all of the others have identical symmetry when divided horizontally across their centres
The Rarity chart puts you at about a 127 IQ. The test said my IQ is 141 but I viewed it as unfair, the test was not written properly and they even used false mathetmatics, claiming that triangles have three planes. A test with false claims cannot be taken as true and accurate. Therefore my IQ should be much higher, around 200ish because the test was unfair, and I could legally prove that the test should have given me credit for at least 3 or more questions I got wrong. This is significant because it was only a 28 question test. It is also implied that my IQ is higher than 141 because only 1 out of every 192 people has an IQ of 141, yet I find it hard to find friends, and therefore there is not one of me in every 192 people. My IQ is closer to 200. which has a probability of one out of every 76 billion people, so it is probably slightly less than 200, because there are less than 76 billion people. What is a cool number imbetween 141 and 200 that I should pick for my IQ?
surrep did you bother to read my post. I said C has no symetry you have to zoom in the fence is sloppy the gate holes are sloppy, they are not actually symetrical, its an optical illusion you get when you dont carefully examine the picture.
Well I sat an official supervised 3 hour Mensa test, and got my score in just over half the time, so what would I have got if I had utilised the other 1.25 hours? a much higher score, that’s what
No it is not an optical illusion for all of the full parallelograms within it are exactly the same size. Because the diagonal
lines in both directions are equidistant from each other. Admittedly the print is not perfect but that is totally irrelevant
If you draw a horizontal line right across the exact centre it shall be a mirror image on both sides since it is symmetrical
It is best to sit a recognised supervised test, as there’s nothing wrong with testing your IQ to find out what it is, but it is just another aspect of us.
Would you take, or have you taken an IQ test James?
Back in the '70s I used to write the damn things. I thought it a dumb exercise then, and I know it is now. My career was intelligence design. IQ tests are just way, way too simple minded. It is like putting all women, cars, or food on a scale of 1 to 10. It just doesn’t work that way. But the kiddies love it.
Even so James, 2016 is the year I retake my IQ test (minus the massive stress-factor that ensured I did the test in only half the time ) and enrol on a few relevant university short courses to propel me forward.
Trixie, I’ll send you the link to the supervised Mensa American IQ tests… I’m sure you’ll ace it
So I guess you aren’t very satisfied with your score?
Numbers are just a very convenient and precise way of representing the hierarchies in your head.
Usually the people who attempt to escape evaluation and invalidate all attempts at clarifying hierarchies are ones who aren’t satisfied with how they are being evaluated and thus their place in the hierarchy.
Iq tests are like handing someone a gun and measuring a couple of their shots on the target. Depends on the gun and what their mood and what time of day it is. People who had a bad breakfast or are tired are going to get a poorer score depending on their mood.
That being said, it is generally accurate after a few groupings, within a range of 20-30 points. So for example, if someone scores a 110 iq on the test, that generally means they have an IQ imbetween 90 or 130, depending on if the test is accurate. This particular test that I mentioned in the OP, isnt terribly accurate though, it seems whoever made it has a bad habit of incorrect labeling of geometric properties (the test maker claims that 2 dimensional triangles have 3 planes.)
The test only seems to be a predictor of dumbness, and not smartness. For example, if someone consistently scores a 90 IQ, they are pretty much gauranteed to be dumb. But if someone scores a 150 IQ, the have an equal chance of being as clever as someone with a 180 IQ, and the !80 IQ has more or less an equal chance of overall being dumber than someone with a 150 IQ.
They are not precise at all. And often very misleading.
As I have stated before, intelligence comes in a variety of “flavors”, types, and speeds. To test intelligence, one must test:
) Memory
) Communication
) Algorithms
Each involves speed, precision, direction (in vs out), and variety (and duration in the case of memory). The variety of intelligence provide for “types”. The different types handle varied situations differently and thus do better within their own favored situation. What is normally thought of as a stupid person, often can handle a specific situation better than the average and even than geniuses. How many “geniuses” are socially well adapted and capable? Not very many at all. A “good politician” is a genius at politics, but usually not anything else. It all depends upon very specific algorithms, neurology (at that time - changes more than you think), and preceding or “setup” situations that can either enable or disable specific mental functions without interfering greatly with others.
It is all much like trying to gauge the best computer. Which computer best fits your needs (discounting cost) has the “higher IQ” than the others. And your needs are not a constant. Sometimes a slower computer better serves than a fast one (especially if the faster one has been updated by Microsoft). Some computers are made for playing games with special graphics cards. Some are made more for math and scientific usage. Some merely for search and display. Each has its own specialty. They cannot be gauged merely by saying that one has a rating of 95 and the other has a rating of 110.
And it takes a pretty low IQ to think that one can assess IQ in such simple minded ways as a simple scalar. They become suckers misled into believing what others wish them to believe.
Hmm…which computer is better, the 99 dollar windows basic or the one that can play games?
People who are good at social skills aren’t geniuses, they just happen to be beautiful and born with vaginas. They are selfish idiots that don’t contribute to MIJOT, they just make the world a worse place with their existence. They are boring and stupid. People who do conspicuous consumption are idiots.
) and enrol on a few relevant university short courses to propel me forward.