There's no time limit on the test either, so people could take arbitrarily long.
But it seems from what's written at the start that what they're looking for is correlations between the different types of questions, rather than scores across people
Its an modern open-source and collaborative resource of IQ style questions for research studies. IQ has a lot of flaws, not the least of which is its usage outside of academic research, as a measure of job aptitude and hiring potential (spoiling its utility as a metric since the questions can be trained... setting aside its dubious usefulness as a hiring tool anyway).
It seems like ICAR is spending a-lot of effort to remain scientific, and i feel like a website like this goes against that by spoiling the test utility for future potential participants.
I still do not understand why we are wasting scientific resources trying to stack rank humans on arbitrarily defined concepts like cognitive ability or intelligence.
After over a century of psychometric research in cognitive abilities and intelligence, what do we have to show for it? Whose life has actually improved for the better? Have the benefits from such research, if any, outweighed the amount of harm that has already been caused?
"You achieved a total score of 50! This means that you are 70% higher than 13351 participants who have completed the test. The percentile score is calculated on-the-fly. This means that your percentile rank may change as more people complete the test."
Not sure this was worth 65 minutes of my time. Would have liked to see whether whatever this version of the ICAR60 is is pegged to a standardized (IQ) test score. I'm assuming the 13,000 people who have also taken this are not representative of the wider pop.
Bear in mind that while most questions are language-agnostic, some require the knowledge of the English alphabet and definitions of uncommon English words.
You might not want to give them your personal data. That's run by the same Cambridge that housed the Facebook scraping mechanism that was used by Cambridge Analytica to create personality profiles that got Trump elected in 2016.
Pretty sure cognition is biological. I am of the opinion though various programs and college admissions accelerate a large portion of capable and able people to the top, they are not likely the best out of the entire population. I have frequently met (mostly young males) working in restaurants or supermarkets who would do exceedingly well if they had the right circumstances. Though personality (in terms of choosing to fight for an education) is important too: of those I offered to sit down and chat with (because their media landscape is mostly bad social media/conspiracies), none have taken me up on the offer. Whether due to their personality or my approach I do not know.
57. I got a ton of shape rotation problems. Figured out a strategy for those:
Focus on the 3 pronged shape. It is unique in all 4 orientations. You can use this to filter out bad rotations. Then use adjacencies to filer out the rest.
I do not understand the shape problems. How are they solved? Does then pattern progress left to right, top to bottom? Or is that part of the riddle?
For the dice questions, which rotation on the is being performed? I think that's part of the riddle, most rotations are impossible given the initial position.
Either am an idiot or the solution to the riddles is something taught in school, which is something I've never been taught.
IQ scores perpetuate racism. True worth of a human being for a civilization is empathy and ability to cooperate. I wonder though if IQ has any impact on those
Don't ask me why but I did feel a tiny bit bummed out after getting 50 and being told I'm in the 68th percentile out of 13000~ people.
It's worth considering who the other participants are, has this been mostly shared just among University of Cambridge students / staff (and HN readers now)?
I scored 54 and while the cube rotations are painful to do I was sure of all my responses and wonder which ones I got wrong. There was one I didn't know the answer: somebody liked 96 but not 45 and liked 540 but not 250 - can someone spoil that for me? There was one that had a trick in the answer order - which was 4 letters on from T which is X but in the choices 4 after T was Y which was what I checked initially.
26 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 53.0 ms ] threadI’m now 43 and other day I was looking up test papers for the 11+ (school entrance exams for 11 year olds) and thinking - damn this is HARD!
Anyone else feel like they used to be so much quicker?
A Cognitive test struggling under load is ironic/amusing.
Doesn't that skew things? That is a lot of time a lot of people don't have.
But it seems from what's written at the start that what they're looking for is correlations between the different types of questions, rather than scores across people
It seems like ICAR is spending a-lot of effort to remain scientific, and i feel like a website like this goes against that by spoiling the test utility for future potential participants.
After over a century of psychometric research in cognitive abilities and intelligence, what do we have to show for it? Whose life has actually improved for the better? Have the benefits from such research, if any, outweighed the amount of harm that has already been caused?
Not sure this was worth 65 minutes of my time. Would have liked to see whether whatever this version of the ICAR60 is is pegged to a standardized (IQ) test score. I'm assuming the 13,000 people who have also taken this are not representative of the wider pop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Kogan_(scientist)
Never have we seen a result so relatable to most users. =3
https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/intelligence.shtml
https://kaiwenwang.com/writing/hypothetical-foldy-ears-as-an...
Oh no, I'm retarded
>This means that you are 88.68% higher than 13391 participants who have completed the test.
Hmm
But this makes no sense doesn't it? It looks like the intention is
"You're score is higher than 88.68% of 13391 participants who have completed the test."
What it's literally saying is that 13391 participants got a score 88.68% lower than yours
Focus on the 3 pronged shape. It is unique in all 4 orientations. You can use this to filter out bad rotations. Then use adjacencies to filer out the rest.
For the dice questions, which rotation on the is being performed? I think that's part of the riddle, most rotations are impossible given the initial position.
Either am an idiot or the solution to the riddles is something taught in school, which is something I've never been taught.
No idea what that means but I no longer want to see another cube for at least a few weeks :P
Were we supposed to have scratch paper? I didn't use any.
I got 50, I guess that's good, especially because I'm ready for bed.
It's worth considering who the other participants are, has this been mostly shared just among University of Cambridge students / staff (and HN readers now)?