How Anyone can get Mensa Membership [Algorithm]
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Link to Algorithm: imgur.com/gall...
In this video I try my best to create an algorithm that can solve most of Mensa IQ test problems. I think it can solve 70%+ of the puzzles but it misses out on the harder ones.
-------------------------------------
Contact me
Twitch: / pas1729
Twitter: / pas1729
Reddit: / puzzlesandsolutions
Discord: PAS#2348
Facebook: / puzzles-and-solutions-...
The Puzzles & Solutions channel will be dedicated to solving puzzles and other things similar to puzzles.
I think the feeling of being special is more important than actually being really smart.
My entry test was a bit special. It included language skills, numerical series, spatial reasoning and memory instead of such puzzles.
Intelligence is nothing without critical thinking and creativity in my opinion
You probably took WAIS test
@@PuzzlesAndSolutions nothing?? You mean possibly destructive? :3
@@PuzzlesAndSolutions Cool... two things that just so happen to be highly correlated with intelligence (IQ).
This is good only with patterns which are the easiest from my experience (my result is 138). The most difficult ones are "add a word in the beginning to make new words" and obviously the mathematical ones especially the ones with 3 variables in 3 equations (takes time to solve on paper)
A great explanation. Thank you! 😊
I've recently taken Mensa test (real one not online), 45 questions in 20 minutes. 70% of the questions were extremely easy, but still having a look at the matrix, possible answers, searching for the right line where to tick the answer and turning the page takes its time. My suggestion is to practice on paper rather than online since it makes a huge difference. I had to guess the last 3-4 answers cause I ran out of time. I have no idea how many points they can cost, I'd be upset if I hadn't pass it because of them.
Did your test consist only of questions with the 9 square matrix like in the video? And which country are you talking about?
@@jessesinclair3861 yes, they all were Raven matrices. I took it in Italy but the booklet was in german language, so I guess the test is the same in Germany. It looks guessing didn't have a big impact on the result, I'm officially a Mensa member now.
@@alessiounipd I think you can be confident. Obviously not all of the answers have the same weight on the final result, but you have to score 130 to pass, so there's margin for errors.
@@alessiounipd as far as we've been told A was for those trying the test for the first time, while B for the other ones. Only 1 guy has been given the B test. I suggest you to print test that you might find online, make a booklet, have a distinct sheet for results and solve it.
@@alessiounipd If you fail in one country can you go to the next country if you prefer not to wait to retake? :D
Whats your IQ?
I mostly agree with him. When working with matrices, you should not only analyze horizontally and vertically, but also diagonally. More generally, you need to think outside the box, and I mean literally outside the 3x3 box. Many people don't, which is why they don't realize that there are also diagonal directions.
Not only that, but sometimes looking in reverse order can help you see the solution.
I found the diagonal trick really fast.
Basically, you have anything between like 3-4 different rule sets and different combinations of them.
You have to find the rules first, verify them, and follow them.
My mistake was treating the test as a linearly progressing problem in difficulty; in reality, they throw some problems at you with a diagonalization trick, and then the next might have columns, rows, and diagonalization logic, combined with a very abstract addition/subtraction element.
Nice algorithm. The thing is, I think you'd still need an IQ of at least 110 to follow along the algorithm. ;) So not "anybody" can get into Mensa.
I have to say, this is a really unique and amazing idea to come up with an algorithm to solve these types of problems! It would be difficult, but they could also try turning this into a program (at least a basic one). The fact that they even went through all past mensa problems to create this is really impressive, too.
I think something else this shows is the limitations of tests like these - don't you see how arbitrary it is, for example, to test based on a 3 x 3 square gride? Also, it is clear that people who have more past experience seeing (and are used to) these kinds of organization schemes will have less to think about when solving. For example, some might not think to consider that certain patterns are present (because they'll consider them unimportant based on past experience with other problems they solved) and may find it a waste of time to look there unless they had prior exposure to them - for example, "repetition of characteristic" is biased by which characteristics the test-taker will think are valuable consider (by thinking about which characteristics the test-maker would have most likely used). In a country where test-takers had past experience with and exposure to ideas such as "counting shape vertices" and "counting shape edges," these problems will be much easier. Another great example is the "XOR" pattern (you called it "addition with cancellation") that is often used which some kids will also have had more experience with. Other slight advantages include things we take for granted without even noticing, like how prior experience with a dice allows us to see dot patterns not only as "circles" but also numbers, just as some puzzle questions use them.
More importantly, I think it's ridiculous how arbitrary the horizontal, vertical, and diagonal patterns are used. Also, diagonal is the most questionable - we understand how a "diagonal" sort of "line" can be drawn using a 3 x 3 grid of squares, but this doesn't form a real "line." Prior experience with games that draw imperfect diagonal lines (using shapes like triangles, circles, and, as is the case with these problems, squares) would definitely help a person score higher.
What I haven't mentioned (and what isn't really relevant to this video specifically) is that a person's motivation when taking the test is probably the most important part and can be largely influenced by a person's circumstances. This is most easily seen when comparing someone who ascribes a lot of value to what score they get on the test versus someone who sees the test as pointless. The person who doesn't have much motivation to give correct answers will likely begin guessing randomly when challenges rather than giving the questions any thought, thus causing them to score poorer. Of course, caring too much about the test can lead to negative consequences, too, such as increased stress and overthinking which can increase the chance of errors.
Adding onto this, populations with less of a reason to care about the test include impoverished areas, places where students are more stressed about living and providing for their families than getting good marks on an assessment they were told does not matter, and just being in any kind of environment that discourages caring placing any value on the test's results.
Also, using a more obvious criticism, why can the test be reliably studied for, anyway? It has been shown that practicing problems like those on the test helps improve scores. If all answers can be obtained through learning, who's to say that those who score well haven't - through indirect means - also learned how to solve the problems? Also, the question remains: how is pattern recognition of these specific puzzle types (which seem to be arbitrary and at least influenced by the culture they originated from) representative of pattern recognition ability in general?
@@SkillUpMobileGaming I partially agree with your objection. But I'd like to point out that generally people are not forced to take such kind of tests, so motivation, cultural differences and economical condition shouldn't really affect the result that much. I agree that such tests are not completely reliable in measuring fluid intelligence since experience does count. These tests are time based and practicing increases your speed, resulting in a better score. So the question whether Raven matrix is a good indicator of people intelligence is well posed.
_” But I'd like to point out that generally people are not forced to take such kind of tests”_
Sorry, but this is literally how most people are first introduced to the tests in countries like the US - the tests are typically given to young children in schools (for free). Additionally, I’m talking about situations where these tests are used in research. Sure, participants can opt out at any moment, but my point remains that if someone is taking the test and thinks, “it doesn’t really matter what I score at the end of the day,” that is definitely going to bias their score.
Again, even for image-based puzzles, it does not make sense to call them “culturally fair.” For example, in some countries, “up and down” puzzles are much more common (or something that would bias results to a lesser extent: familiarity solving puzzles “right to left”), while most IQ test questions are solved horizontally.
Here’s an example that makes it very clear: Imagine there’s a person who grew up in a country where puzzles (in a 3 x 3 grid of squares) are solved by adding the first and the second squares of each row to get the third square. No other puzzles are solved - they are all solved this way.
Well, if this person goes to take the test, they’ll obviously fail because they’ll be using the wrong method to solve them. Does that mean this person can’t learn how to solve the puzzles the right way? Of course not: with proper training, they would definitely be able to learn.
Here’s the problem: if they’re perfectly able to learn how to solve these puzzles after being taught, who’s to say *those who solve the puzzles correctly the first time weren’t **_indirectly_** taught* how to solve the puzzles the right way the same way that this imaginary person learned how to solve them the wrong way (by adding the first and second squares to get the third of each row)? How can we rule out a person’s environment for having influenced their ability to solve puzzles? I fully believe that it is practice with puzzles similar to the ones on the test (indirectly learning and practicing) that leads people to give the “correct” answers to these puzzles. Bottom line: if they can be taught, why couldn’t this “pattern recognition ability” have come about through learning? What basis do we have for assuming that babies are just built-in with this ability?
My comment also doesn’t even begin to address how arbitrary using a 3 x 3 grid of squares is. What’s so magical about 3 x 3, anyway? Why not 8 x 2? Why is the square to solve for always on the bottom right corner? Why use squares at all - why aren’t circles used instead?
What about cultures where perfect squares and circles are not used in artwork? Wouldn’t we expect them to have a harder time understanding what’s in front of them versus someone with familiarity with these types of shapes, grid schemes, and puzzle problems?
Whatever the requirements for a “culturally fair” test, you could probably create one (even though it satisfies all the requirements for a “culturally fair” test!) for each culture where that particular culture has more experience with the test layout, pattern types, shapes, etc., thus causing that culture to score higher than others. Of course, at the end of the day, participants’ motivation would be most important (go to a war torn country and see how much they’ll care about taking a test that they know won’t do anything to get them out of the mess they’re in - they’d rather take the test in hopes that someone would just help them for once).
If you check Mensa tests most of matrixes can be solved either vertically or horizontally. And 3x3 is the simplest way to have a recognizable pattern. With only 2 lines you would have just one available line to extract the logical rule behind the sequence, that would be extremely difficult without a second example confirming the first one. But I guess you could just read a little bit about psychometry and it would be more clear.
nice thumb, lol
The German Standard Mensa Test doesn't use Matrixes at all ;) There is no way you can "cheat" in the German Mensa Test and it is probably also the most difficult because Germans have one of the highest I.Q.
for all structures of patterns, my outlook tends to be centered around 3 things:
-flow
-coherency
-dependency
-frequency (not how frequently something happens, its more like how when you tune into different radio frequencies you obtain different sets of information)
first i observe the items that seem to be constant, ik this is sorta redundant and obvious, but i wrote a paper on these sorts of patterns, depending on the leaderboard/levels of coherency, it increases its chances of being what id call a 'binding factor' which is the uppermost influencer in the hierarchy of elements. i also will see if any information leaves the system, based on what i believe are the most probable constants. after you know whats most probable (i tend to try avoiding dismissing factors, including the obvious matrix grid and potential numbers following all directional possibilities), you go down the list to see if the lower elements are dependent on the higher ones. luckily, in iq tests specifically, we know that they *must* be of lower frequencies or layers, because otherwise nobody would be capable of realizing the pattern intuitively.
if you have any questions feel free to ask, idk if my papers any good or not, but id be willing to share that as well. but i describe this logic recycling the words 'dimension' 'element' and 'force'.
oh but unless you break something thats consistent into smaller pieces, like for the lines their individual lines, intersections, for shapes, their symmetry lines and folds, the indents, this doesnt make much systematic sense. it would still be faster to simply see that pattern, so i suppose this really relies on the person using it to have the ability to see these things naturally ;-; because then it becomes far too elaborate
i originally noticed that with larger scale puzzles, id allow myself to be deceived by element placement, which sorta causes the unwanted biases T^T so i started thinking of it this way to ground me much faster and better, so i can consider more ideas etc when im mislead
hey man do u know any book or something with lots of raven advanced progressive matrices exercises to train?
Yes. ...what's the purpose of it?
....I mean; what do you want to achieve?..
IQ is all about rate of understanding something....
Creativity is more important than IQ....
Engage in a creative activity, then you will get stupid ideas out of your mind....
Do something creative man ...or read or discuss something that's creative.....
NB: Don't confuse Creativity with IQ :)
@@anandunambiar1032 the purpose is fun I think it’s so much fun mate :)
@@g.kolamanov5665 Um, if you are interested in matrices there is high probability that you like Geometry .. ..Do some Geometry problems man :) .
Or watch some movies like Mad Max Fury Road
@@anandunambiar1032 I’m 14 I’ll start morr advanced geometry soon ;)
@@g.kolamanov5665 🤣🤣🤣
A great explanation. Thank you! 😊
Dr Grande (PhD in Psychology) says that:
1) ANYONE can get into mensa (because the qualifying WAIS-IV exam can be taken MULTIPLE TIMES, then the test taker can just submit his higher (last) score.
*2) MENSA is more about NARCISSISM than about intelligence.*
Unless the WAIS-IV is completely identical how can "ANYONE" (your word) get score high? Have you met and interacted with people who have an IQ of 70? Do you realize it takes even some IQ points just to read and follow directions? Even if the WAIS-IV test was the same one for each iteration, the person would have to memorize the answers from iteration to iteration and even that takes some bit of IQ.
I would like to join mensa not because i want to be better, but Simply because im curious about the people I would meet there
This technique don't allow probably anybody to pass the test. Only works for some problems. Unfortunately is a ridiculous proposition. But I appreciate other videos very much.
It can solve 60-70% of the online test puzzles, giving you a lot of time for the harder puzzles.
@@PuzzlesAndSolutions In my opinión not even 60%, then if you don't have enough high IQ probably you won't make even 2 problems more than without using your technic. Not enough to enter. The time that gives your technic don't give you a significant advantage to solve enough problems if you don't belong to the top 2%. Even you can be more confused when you try to apply your technic in a problem that doesn't work and your IQ is not enough. This last problematic point is crucial. Probably it can work for people like you that have high IQ.
@@PuzzlesAndSolutions I'm writing about the Mensa test with matrixs, not online test in general.
@@PuzzlesAndSolutions Your erroneous assumption here is that all people need to solve the harder puzzles is time. One thing they've found about matrix reasoning in particular, is that there are IQ cutoffs to even be able to solve problems with enough complexity regardless of the time given. This is why matrix reasoning is completely untimed in the WAIS-IV. Most people will not be able to solve the last matrix problem on that subtest even given infinite time. Sorry, but if anyone could get into Mensa using your algorithm, then you would have disproven decades of research in the field and something tells me that one of these things is much more likely than the other.
This explains what one does in one's head automatically.
Great video! Also I was wondering once i've seen the solution from one of your video (which i've already done) are the tests that i'm going to do in the future going to be accurate?
I think that training on Raven matrices definitely improves your score.
It’s based on how you solve “riddles” so even though it might not be your original idea it’s still something you inherited by the vids and implemented in ur mind. So yes it will be as accurate as any iq test
like instantaneo prima ancora di aver letto il commento a causa del nick
I mean when I took the mensa test it was almost nothing like the tests I've taken online...I've taken Norway Denmark and Finland (I think) online. I'm not gonna go into detail but these type of questions were only 1/6 of the culture fair paper
Interesting, in what country did you tale the test?
@@kappamomondo1038 in the UK
Man, it might be that the maximum score of that test will be 162. So you feel hard.
Online test are 145 max.
Can you please tell us what type of questions you found? You should be at liberty to share, I'm not asking for the actual questions but only for the type of question.
What you mean is that only 1/6 of the paper was raven matrices bc there were 2 different types of tests, and you probably chose the one containing language (verbal).
do a video on the new arealme 2021 IQ test, the hardest one so far
Did the 2014 one and got 164, not sure if it’s completely correct since I’ve never scored that high before
188
Is the Mensa Norway test accurate for 13 year old people?
No iq test is accurate for 13 year olds since people physically and mentally develop at different paces. I'd say stay away from iq tests until you're at least 24-25 years old (17 if you're gonna base your career on the result).
Thanks!
great video.
by the way what's your chess elo?
Chess has very little to do with IQ. Positively correlated? Sure... but it's really hard to distinguish how much of your elo is due to IQ and how much of it is due to practice, memorization, etc.
@@philj9594 overall iq measures almost nothing tbh. I asked him that question because I saw another video in which he solved a pretty hard chess puzzle.
I need about 5 to 10 seconds to solve a puzzle like your example.
But I don't need to learn an algorithm beforehand. I can come up with a procedure on the fly.
The entry tests are time limited. You would probably fail if you are really slow.
Do you have a discord server?
so more then half people in mensa are not above 130 i love the video
How do you draw that conclusion?
@@kappamomondo1038 that's a joke