Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Can you beat Boris?

Well given the types we get round here, I bloody well hope so!

I loved IQ tests when I was a kid, it was one of the things I could do easily without having to swot it up first. I used to get 99/100% every time I took one. I must be getting older and slower, because I only got 30 out of 32 right on this one.

11 Comments

  1. Radical Rodent says:

    28, though I missed one altogether.

  2. Mr Ed says:

    I fail to see how that could be regarded as an IQ test, it is just a string of silly-arse questions that 10 year olds like to ask adults. There is no science in it and some of it requires knowledge, not intelligence.

  3. Tim Newman says:

    What Mr Ed said, we used to ask each other these puzzles in junior school.

    Anyway, 28 out of 32.

  4. RAB says:

    You must have been a bit lonely at Junior School, Mr Ed and Tim, if you were asking your mates those sorts of questions. Us normal kids were swapping comics like the Beano and the Dandy. It was our teachers who were asking us those questions in preparation for the 11+. We in the A stream thought them a bigger laugh than Desperate Dan or the Bash Street Kids, and aced them every time. And as I remember, they were a damn sight more demanding than these 32 examples. Where are the spacial ability questions for instance? Have IQ tests been dumbed down now too??

    But you are both on the right track… How good an indicator of success in later life is a standardised IQ test?

    What about the ability to concentrate, to learn, to discipline oneself to have the drive to succeed? Or the propensity to be a lazy bugger, unless pushed, like me? IQ tests are not the be all and end all of life’s achievements, but they are an indicator of someone who can see a hole in a ladder without it having to be painstakingly explained to them.

  5. Mr Ed says:

    IQ rests that I recall doing had lots of little pictograms with circles and triangles in various patterns, and the ability to discern the ‘logical’ pattern appeared to be the measure. I got 151 on one test aged around 12 under exam conditions.

    What the test cannot measure and perhaps disguises is those whose brains take a different approach and who see things differently to the norm, often a trait of the inventor or entrepreneur.

  6. Talwin says:

    Mr Ed. ‘pictograms with circles…..’ Progressive matrices I think they were called. I was always crap at them, so seeing all you 28ers here makes me feel very humble.

  7. Flaxen Saxon says:

    IQ tests are intriguing. I’ve always fared badly on conventional tests. At primary school I was designated last but one according to the ‘star system.’ Every time a kid did well they got a star on a chart which was placed prominently on the wall. Yes they did that in the sixties. I had two stars. To place that in perspective, Leslie Green had 52 stars (I fancied her rotten) and David Manning had one. Now David Manning was a bit of a ‘spakker.’ Thinking back, poor David was intellectually challenged. Poor bastard, he really had no chance. I failed my 11 plus and Leslie passed. I went to a sink Secondary Modern in the Black County, West Mids. They put me in the third set for maths, English and Science. By year two I’d worked my way to the fourth set. I was bumping along at the bottom. My form teacher suggested ‘I would be better served by being placed in the remedial class.’ Note the quotes. I have a mind for remembering this sort of shit. Mr Masters you are a cunt, but long dead, I’m sure. Now the remedial class is not a place you want to go unless forced. I had an interview with the Headmaster. It would be down to his wisdom whether I would be placed with the unteachable. I told Mr Evans that I didn’t want to go with the mongers cos I had a bad chest and that the smoke would make it worse. The thick fug of smoke in class was a constant reminder that these kids were way past the fourth set. Luckily for me Mr Evans decided to send me to the monger class. Thank you Mr Evans, you did me a service. And yes I’ve checked, Mr Evans is long, long dead.

  8. RogerC says:

    29 right, 3 wrong. I failed to read two carefully enough and just didn’t know the answer to a third.

    When I was a kid, I used to have a tactic which would always net me a very high score in IQ tests. I knew I was great at the visio-spatial problems, okay at the mathematical ones and poor at verbal questions and anagrams. You don’t have to tackle the questions in order and they typically get harder towards the end, so I’d go through the all of the visio-spatial problems first, which netted me a lot of points very fast. Then I’d tackle the mathematical ones until I started finding ones that stumped me, then go back and do the few verbal problems and anagrams I could tackle.

    I can’t think I was getting an accurate result using that method, but it impressed my teachers.

    Not that IQ seems to matter much. It doesn’t correlate at all with ability to make money, nor does it correlate strongly with academic success. IQ tests tend to give consistent results if you test the same person multiple times, even if you space the tests over many years, so we’re definitely measuring *something*. It’s just that nobody can really pinpoint what it is (other than the ability to do IQ tests).

    The thing that correlates most strongly with academic success, at least in adulthood? Age. The older you are, the better you’ll do, assuming you don’t lose your marbles.

  9. RAB says:

    Nothing wrong with tactics when facing an exam RogerC, a sign of intellegence in itself I would say. And, of course, there are traits to exams and tests that are built into them.

    The questions in this IQ test tend to the slight of hand, the sort of misdirection that Magicans use to fool an audience. You will notice that it isn’t about you capacity at maths that is the point of questions like the “How much earth is in a hole measuring…” It is your ability to read and comprehend the question. Most people will steam right in trying to figure out the cubic capacity of the hole because they think it is a maths question, forgetting it is a HOLE.

    Once you have sussed the formula and format of these tests, they become easy. One of the two I got wrong was the “How many feet were there?”. Well I said 122, because I counted up all of the dogs and cats etc plus the man, and yes… technically only the man has feet, so the answer is two, but I can’t help feeling that the test was cheating there. How often do you hear of a dog, cat cow or horse going from a lying down position being described as getting to its paws, hooves etc. You say getting to its feet don’t you?

  10. Julie near Chicago says:

    Ah, RAB, great minds (in this case yours and mine *g*) think alike.

    However, even the so-so on-line Merriam-Webster includes this def. of feet:

    ▸ noun: a foot of a vertebrate other than a human being

    The link to the OED def. seems not to be working. And there is no link to the OED for “foot.”

    A big raspberry to the writers of the Test, and you and I wants our points back. ;)

  11. Tim Newman says:

    I thought the feet one was a bit sneaky as well.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: