Here is one of maestro high iq test creator Paul Laurent’s brain-teasers: The Universal Pictogram Associations Test. You can find the test here. (You can find more of Laurent’s high range IQ tests here.) To quote from Paul Laurent on this association test:
In the square of 64 slots there are 34 hidden consecutive associations which you must discover. An association is a coherent relation between two adjacent slots or two slots that are connected diagonally.
The slot of origin is e-3, from here you must choose the next slot (and always one at a time, without skipping) in the direction you consider most convenient (right, up, left, down or diagonal). Keep in mind that there are 30 slots that don’t contain a real useful relation.
Each correctly chosen association is worth a point.
One error is permitted in the sequence of associations. Only the points obtained in a consecutive manner starting from the slot of origin will be counted.
The associations need to be described through letters and numbers. For example: c6-d7
Some associations require convergent thinking and others powerful divergent thinking. In general, logical, numerical, symbolic and spatial connections are presented. Alternative thinking is the key to success. Keep in mind that despite the “ameable” aspect of the test, it is highly challenging. Work as had as you can.
Required cultural level: medium
Estimated time for complete resolution: between 2 and 4 hours.
Send your answers to: hiqland@gmail.com
A few days after your answers have been received you will be e-mailed a score report.Take as much time as you need.
References are allowed.
Please, do not discuss solutions in public forums.
No norm is available yet.
.
No related posts.
Okies I’ll try out your brain teaser today . Well I too have a brain teaser for you to solve – Here’s it !
Brainteasers-1 – Solve these brainteasers and find out how smart you are.
http://www.3smartcubes.com/pages/tests/brainteasers-1/brainteasers-1_instructions.asp
Great post! you are doing splendid job.
Since you seem to know something about testing, perhaps you might help with some questions I have about high range testing. I posed some similar questions on the forum at WIN (World Intelligence Network) about a year and a half ago, in the hope that some of the designers of these tests might explain their methodology, and also to provoke some stimulating discussion. My post remains unanswered, and while it may be possible to speculate all sorts of inferences from the lack of answers, I have to admit their silence only fuels my skepticism.
I would really appreciate answers to the following:
1. A psychometric test is a measuring tool (hence the “metric” part of its name). In order to measure something, the person designing the instrument must have at least a working hypothesis as to what he/she is seeking to measure. I want to know what theories regarding cognitive functioning, or at least a working hypothesis, support measurement in these extreme ranges – particularly where the test purports to measure far beyond the range of any professionally-developed standardized test.
2. Having established what it is we are seeking to measure, we need to know how well the test does actually measure it. A professional test would be extensively beta-tested to weed out bad items etc. I want to know how the item validity of these tests is ensured.
3. Where the number of available individuals is very tiny, in no small part due to the intended range of the test, I wonder how any sort of statistical validity can be justified when the sample size is naturally so small?
4. The sample used to norm the test, in addition to being only a few individuals strong, would tend to be an Internet-literate, test-sophisticated and self-selected sample, whose self-reported results on tests taken previously must, at least in part, be taken on trust by the designer of the new test. Query scientific method.
5. I am automatically suspicious of any “IQ test” item that is entirely open-ended, e.g. requires an essay type answer or there is no one right answer (see some of the later questions on the Sigma Test, for example). This leaves the door wide open to subjective marking by the examiner.
6. And possibly my biggest objection: in order to make items “hard”, I have seen test questions that rely on arcane academic knowledge, or it is simply not clearly delineated at all what the question is (meaning basically it measures your ability to get inside the designer’s head and second-guess what he intended the question to be). This raises the question as to whether these tests are even measuring IQ, whatever that may be. An analogy might be temperature – beyond certain temperatures, you might need specialized equipment rather than a household thermometer, but it would still be temperature that is being measured. It wouldn’t be helpful if beyond a certain temperature, other factors such as barometric pressure were being entered into the measurement to an increasing (but unknown) degree.
It has also been pointed out that, in the highest ranges, some of these “high range” tests have actually been shown to have a zero or even negative correlation with standardized tests! Now, that REALLY starts the alarm bells ringing! Could it be that some people who have developed a high level of skill at difficult puzzles are in fact the population who do best at these high range tests, rather than those who haven’t the time for puzzles and contests (like me!) but do score very highly on regular psychometric tests?
I’d appreciate your insights.