where to find a good IQ test

[Tung Mai Le]

Hi,
I've been training DNB for two weeks or so. I'm keen on measuring its
effect on improving IQ, starting now, then check back 2 months later,
for example. So you guys know a good link to test IQ for free?
Tks.

[Liu Chun-Lei]

http://www.iqtestexperts.com/
I think this is a good IQ test.
Congradualations!

[ailambris]

It wouldn't make sense to take the same test twice, doh.

[ailambris]

Hold on, let me get my ipchains back first.

[genvirO]

Questions weren't bad, better than some other recreational tests out
there.

Score: IQ = 160

Pretty sure that's a perfect score & I'm pretty sure it's over
representative.

I think the ceiling should peak between 125-130 based on my perceived
difficulty of the questions, 160 is certainly an inflation. Also, even
though I obtained the correct answer, for one of the questions I
noticed multiple answers that had equal value; suggesting some shabby
craftsmanship.

Still, the test was fun!

[ailambris]

Gwern has a compilation of tests available on his site. It's pretty
large.

http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ#iq-tests

Good luck, welcome to the group.

[genvirO]

Thanks, ailambris (& Gwern)!

One test I highly recommend is the JCTI (Jouve-Cerebrals Test of
Induction), also mentioned in Gwern's list. I found the construction
of the test much better than the Gigi, in terms of its consistency in
adapting to the users performance as they progress. One fundamental
difference between the Gigi and the JCTI is the that the Gigi test is
timed, including test taking speed in its calculation of final score,
and the JCTI is instead not timed, hence speed is not a variable
considered in the final calculation. Because of these two things (not
timed and more consistent in terms of how it adapts to the users
performance), I think the JCTI may be a more reliable indicator, but
only in comparison.

In an attempt to remove some bias, I actually performed much better on
the Gigi test as opposed to the JCTI.

First attempt on Gigi = between 140-160
Time spent answering questions - less than 15 minutes (total time
allowed = 30 min)

First attempt on JCTI = between 130-140
Time spent answering questions - 45 min+ (total time allowed =
unlimited)

I've also completed another test mentioned on Gwern's list, the
Brainforce Test. My score obtained here reflected my lowest
performance to date, 118 (I think - I took it a few days ago).
Personally, I didn't enjoy this test at all, I found it hard to reason
my way through some of the questions because of their small size and
close proximity (questions and answers). I should also admit that the
test is much more spatially inclined than the mentioned tests, not my
strong suit, however I don't think this fact limited my performance as
much as the other problem mentioned (small size, close proximity).
Also, due to it being more spatially inclined, I'd be comfortable in
saying that's a less reliable indicator, in comparison to the other
tests mentioned.







See: http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=44

[D. K. Ohms]

So is there an actual point to this public disclosure of scores on
tests of dubious value? Are you telling us your training has worked or
is it just a little show and tell?

The reported improvements hailed for DNB training were on a test that
calls for some spatial awareness so uh hmm ... And all of the tests
you report require that

Ohms

[D. K. Ohms]

Wait a sec. I think I see it now. Yes it all fits.

Your highest score is on a test that requires speed-demon reflexes.
Speeded tests correlate poorly with overall g. Your performance on
JCTI, because it is an untimed test, probably reflects your native gf
level better, so we can see the discrepancy between Gigi and JCTI can
probably be accounted by your training.

Another one for DNB influencing speed? Yeah, definitely.

Brainforce just plain sucks, I think.

Ohms

[Timmy]

On Aug 3, 1:00 pm, Liu Chun-Lei <liucl....@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.iqtestexperts.com/
> I think this is a good IQ test.
> Congradualations!
>

This isn't that great a test since it's culturally sensitive, someone
who works a lot with words will get an inflated score
simply because they more used to manipulating them in there head.That
said I got 120 , which is surprising because I felt like a complete
dumb ass
during the whole thing.I suck at word problems because my brain can
not work efficiently words and language for some reason , I often
forget simple
words the moment I need them but am able to describe the word I need
with perfect accuracy. (It's quite annoying)

[moe]

I'm one of those people that have spent 2+ hours on the JCTI
(everytime I take it for some reason. My mental stamina is terrible.
Or maybe I'm just not very intelligent ha). You should probably take
the JCTI again as you may not have spent enough time on it to reach
max score. In fact some test designers encourage test takers to spend
a few sessions on a test.

On Aug 10, 6:10 am, genvirO <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> "Another one for DNB influencing speed? Yeah, definitely. "
>

> The following response is short, thus not sufficient, however I will
> make a future response that is hopefully a little more detailed.
>
> Speaking generally, it's relative to the persons initial information
> processing capability. If it is low, then traditional n-back setting
> (3 sec. interval, etc) may improve information processing, which is
> pretty much synonymous with gs or mental speed, however you wish
> phrase it. If it is initially high, pre-training, then it will likely
> have little effect on 'speed' and its effect will be more inline with
> what is already broadly purported, quite simply because a 3 second
> interval, among other things, just doesn't cut it (too slow) if you
> want to challenge the above average person in this area.
>
> For me personally, I do not think that traditional n-back (default
> settings, 3 sec interval, etc, as described) has had a _direct_ impact
> on my information processing ability.
>
> I've generally always performed things pretty quickly, an example
> already acknowledged with the Gigi and the JCTI. I finished the JCTI
> in under an hour - there are up to 52 questions - most people spend
> _more_ than 2 hours (sometimes 5 hrs - I mean, c'mon, really? You have
> nothing else to do other than worry about what you obtain on a test
> that decides whether you live or die!?!?!) on this test, judging from
> what I have heard since taking it, so perhaps I should have been more
> patient, oh well, more important things to work on from my
> perspective.
>
> I also do not think that improvements in IQ scores cited in the
> scientific literature are _largely_ related to improvements in
> 'speed', from the overall findings, judging from the background
> (educational, other) of participants.
>
> However, I do make an active attempt to improve information processing
> by adjusting the time per interval, from 3 sec-0.80 sec. I am
> currently working on the 6-n-back under the 0.80 sec threshold. Also,
> as I and others have commented on before, the benefits one potentially
> receives from cognitive training are limited by the cognitive
> exercises they undertake as well as the time they spend and
> consistency to which they train. This being said, I think it's
> important to _consistently_ work on a battery of cognitive exercises
> as apposed to adopting a rudimentary approach, whereby one for example
> relies solely on the possible benefits derived from one source, in
> this case, traditional n-back forms such is what is described in the
> scientific literature.
>
> Something I've consistently stuck to for a while now. Took me a while
> to settle on this, but I got there:
>
> I do the following exercises for 20 min each, nearly every day (with
> the exclusion of days of fatigue and decreased time load following
> expectation of any tests, exams, etc).
>
> -----Speed?--------
> - Triple combination _VARIABLE_ n-back  = adjust time interval
> between .90 sec and 1.40 sec - Four 5 min sessions
> = currently working on 4-n-back
> - Dual n-back = 0.80 second interval - Four 5 min sessions
> = currently working on 6-n-back
>
> ----Other--------
> - Triple arithmetic _VARIABLE_ n-back  = 3 second interval - Four 5
> min sessions
> = currently working on 5-n-back
> - Quad n-back = 3 second interval - Four 5 min sessions
> = currently working on 6-n-back
>
> Similar to my initial thoughts, I will probably respond more about
> this when I get some time.

[Pontus Granström]

Some people spend several days taking the CFSNE (etienne). Didn't seem that hard though. Taken over several days it will almost certainly be possible to ace it. These kind of questions brings up interesting
things about the quantum level of intelligence. Is there a "build up" of "G" or is it one bliss moment of G or how does it work?? Back to the quantum action of thought again.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.

[moe]

"Taken over several days it will almost certainly be possible to
ace it."

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one. Myself and others
have had the experience of spending what others would call an obscene
amount of time on particular test items/problems and still not
resolving them. It seems as if one reaches a sort of logical capacity
limit and additional time spent simply doesn't matter. The fact that
some can finish a test at lightning speed and that others have to
spend a few sessions on a test could simply be due to differential
rates of plasticity and/or other factors. In fact scores resulting
from multiple sessions probably have more predictive power when
considering the hard sciences. I'm pretty sure you'll have more than
one session to understand the material in your real analysis or
topology class.

On Aug 10, 8:14 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some people spend several days taking the CFSNE (etienne). Didn't seem that
> hard though. Taken over several days it will almost certainly be possible to
> ace it. These kind of questions brings up interesting
> things about the quantum level of intelligence. Is there a "build up" of "G"
> or is it one bliss moment of G or how does it work?? Back to the quantum
> action of thought again.
>

[Pontus Granström]

Don't know if I would put matrix reasoning the bucket of reasoning tests though, considering all the evidence. There seems to be much of "perceptual and simultaneous presentation" going on.
Still it might be impossible to ace it, I will give it a try.

[☉]

Matrix reasoning is a type of reasoning problem, there's no way around that fact. But we could discourse on all of the finagled subtleties that vex certain kinds of matrix reasoning problems until the cows come home. (For example, it is questionable that the RAPM really stresses reasoning beyond 2 sigma, since the accepted untimed norms barely reach 2.3 sigma.) However, it would be impossible to find a reasoning problem that doesn't require perception... and such problems are by far the *easiest* for problems of the matrix type, so that is an irrelevant contention to make, as if such really undermined the reasoning component that is there.

Of course, it is possible to "ace" any test, but is it likely? That depends on the nature of the test.

Amount of time taken is not always a sufficient condition for having gotten a certain score, that is, beyond a base amount. In a few words, some problems simply won't be cracked by thrashing one's cranium over them, and as t approaches infinity a definite limit is reached (sooner or later) which essentially depends on an individual's native capacity.

Anyway, good luck.

argumzio