The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Sir Francis Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin, first popularized the notion of measurable intelligence in the late 1800s. Charles Spearman later discovered that all mental abilities tend to correlate together when statistically analyzed. He called this G. Modern researchers tend to agree that there are two kinds of intelligence, crystallized intelligence (learned knowledge) and fluid intelligence (abstract processing ability). Most non-verbal intelligence tests measure the latter. Some research suggests that fluid intelligence may correlate best to G.Just another test from Similar Minds, the quiz shows you 15 different sets of number patterns, and you have to work out the next next number in the sequence.
I scored 77% on this test, which apparently means I'm better than 77% of the people who took the test before me. ^-^
Click Here and try for yourself :)
Page:
Heh, who knows? :) I just guessed!
Chaos wrote:
> I just chose 81, it was the next odd square. :S
4 and 16 aren't odd :P
I assumed the base was increasing by 2, 3, 4... etc each time but for all we know it could have been the Fibonacci sequence or something. o_o
> I just chose 81, it was the next odd square. :S
4 and 16 aren't odd :P
I assumed the base was increasing by 2, 3, 4... etc each time but for all we know it could have been the Fibonacci sequence or something. o_o
I also got 94% despite seeing no relationship between half of the numbers, and using guesswork on possible relationships.
I don't think it works.
I don't think it works.
Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> Yeah I didn't really get them.
>
> Another one I didn't get was the 4, 16, 49 one. It seems to be a
> series of squares but it doesn't hint very clearly what the base
> is increasing by.
I just chose 81, it was the next odd square. :S
> Yeah I didn't really get them.
>
> Another one I didn't get was the 4, 16, 49 one. It seems to be a
> series of squares but it doesn't hint very clearly what the base
> is increasing by.
I just chose 81, it was the next odd square. :S
I did the same, then put in random numbers. I got 4%. Quite startling really.
gota few, lost interest, closed window.
loathe maths.
i`d like to be better at it and always mean to brush up on it, but always end up doing something animatey instead.
i can track and alter variables and things when i write scripts, so i`m not a complete dunce, just don`t get on that well with maths.
loathe maths.
i`d like to be better at it and always mean to brush up on it, but always end up doing something animatey instead.
i can track and alter variables and things when i write scripts, so i`m not a complete dunce, just don`t get on that well with maths.
Yeah I didn't really get them.
Another one I didn't get was the 4, 16, 49 one. It seems to be a series of squares but it doesn't hint very clearly what the base is increasing by.
Another one I didn't get was the 4, 16, 49 one. It seems to be a series of squares but it doesn't hint very clearly what the base is increasing by.
Damn you bob! I didn't get the 900s one, or the 1000-2000s one... amongst others.
94% :)
--
But some of those were just totally cryptic.
--
But some of those were just totally cryptic.
Damn that's hard. XD
Page: