High Range IQ Tests Made Easy

Definition

WARNING: All high range IQ tests are bad.

What do I mean by this statement? Well, for one, I am not being derogatory. They are all, in fact, bad. However, in what sense? They are not, for one, stupid. Nor are they boring. Well?! They are not silly. However, they do not measure what they purport to measure, that is, intelligence. Still, like their psychological brethren, the official IQ test, they are flawed, better still, wobbly but wobblier still. Since they are not measuring intelligence, what exactly are they measuring?

Commonsense might dictate that HRIQ tests are measuring intelligence. In fact, commonsense would be wrong. What HRIQ tests measure are people already defined by the system as intelligent, people that is, with IQs measuring at or above 130. So, what HRIQ tests are measuring is, to turn a phrase, metaintelligence. Now, we do not even begin to understand what intelligence is, artificial or otherwise, and here you go throwing metaintelligence into the mix. Like intelligence, whatever that is, which is defined; according to modern wobbly psychometrics, as a person’s maximal capacity to complete a novel standardized task with realistic scoring using their perceptual and cognitive abilities. In other words, an official IQ score.

Now, once achieved, a person, call them Joe or Jane, decides that the score they received on the standardized test seems inadequate, maybe, for instance, Joe feels his 135 score on a standard measure like the WISC, for example, does not reflect his true IQ. So, being an adventurer, he sets out on a journey to discover strange new worlds of intelligence and IQ. Then, he bumps into the HRIQ world, and things, well, change. Now, his 135 IQ, which made him a genius everywhere he went, suddenly turns him average. And being overtly driven by external rewards, he seeks to remedy that problem.

And this is where it gets dicey. He immediately notices that these tests do not succumb to the typical methods so tried and true with standard IQ tests. He shoots off one solution. Nothing. Another, nothing. Still, another. And this is where we end up. Nothing. And now for something completely different.

What Joe has stepped into is the quagmire of HRIQ. And what he does not yet realize is that IQ is no longer the measure. What is the measure is, metaIQ. Now, metaIQ is something qualitatively different than traditional IQ. metaIQ is like a traditional IQ, plus. And what is the plus? Well, to follow that we must introduce some language.

When I was at university, I had a friend double majoring in computer science and mathematics. In fact, he graduated magna cum laude, and went on to work at a major computer firm. He could play any board game, chess, checkers; you name it, to a level exceeding expert. For some reason we got onto IQ scores. He told me that in high school, he had taken an IQ tests and scored, 90. “Wow,” I said, “90?!” perplexed at the fact that a person could be doing so well in university and yet. Well, he went on to explain that the way he saw it, especially with respect to verbal testing, was in terms of constrained complexity. “Math, science, etc.:, he told me, “...I see, a constrained complexity. That is, as bounded in a manner of speaking. English, philosophy, etc. So much nonsense, and so subjective. And that subjective bias, well, it shows on tests. And my mind just explodes with possibilities. And I simply can’t manage...”

Anyway, I’ve decided to borrow that leading phrase, constrained complexity, and add a couple more. Namely, constrained complexity, constrained complexity (obfuscated) and unconstrained complexity. And this is where Joe IQ steps into the quagmire of HRIQ. And what is that? Unlike traditional IQ tests, Joe must now identify that type of IQ test question presented him, in other words, he must test not only his IQ, but his metaIQ by asking himself, is this question;

A. A constrained complexity question.
B. A constrained complexity question, obfuscated.
C. An unconstrained complexity question.

At this point, I’m going to present three questions, each matching the types above. Your job, as a reader, is to identify each question in turn and then take appropriate steps for solution, if you are, first, able to meet the metaintelligence problem, that is, identify the type. These questions are not necessarily in the order given above. So, don’t guess.

Too, I will stick with numerical questions for consistencies sake. Furthermore, type A and B numerical questions, can be classified under the auspices of; progressive rules, how to get from one number to the next, ordinal rules, how to find a number at a particular position, and an inclusive rule, what numbers are in the sequence and which are not, for instance, all odd numbers. Type C question can involve any of the above or more importantly, step out of the system and involve, extraneous rules, rules not found within the system considered. Keep in mind I am using numerical problems. These methods can be extended to verbal, lateral, etc. type problems and are not bound exclusively as such.

1. 14, 23, 28, 33, 42, 49, 59, 66, 77, 86, 96, 103, ?
2. 8, 36, 160, 560, 2112, 5824, ?
3. 0, 1, 3, 6, 2, 7, 13, 20, 12, ?

Sign in to give a comment on what you think each sequence represents, type A, B or C and an answer to each, if you like.

Comments and Critique

And this is where I part ways with the, for lack of a better terminology, postmodern view of HRIQ testing. I think, it leans way to heavily in the direction of type B and C problems and even conflations of the two, type B+C problems so to speak. Far too many test designers are proceeding in this direction, requiring test takers to take huge chunks of time for something that is, in my opinion, akin to solving the Sunday crossword. I took my first HRIQ test, like, after Joe taking a standard IQ test akin to the WAIS test. Scoring above 3 deviations, I thought, like Joe, I could do better. Being an avid reader at the time of Omni magazine, I came across the Mega test. I took the test, taking about 2-4 hours total to complete it using a dictionary and thesaurus, and scoring 24 raw score, honestly, not better than my WAIS score, statistically that is. I’ve been doing this ever since with every test taken, never involving myself for more than, I believe my maximum is 5-6 hours time on any one test. That said, these postmodern HRIQ tests are beyond me, taking, in my opinion far too much of a person’s time and simply for a score that is, honestly, meaningless as most test designers will admit.

With that said, I think test designers would be better served by their craft if they thought more deeply about problems that are type A but increasingly more complex, testing as it were the neural efficiency of the test taker rather than there cognitive endurance. Do not get me wrong, I think there are some very creative folks constructing type A style IQ tests, throwing out as it were type B and C or B+C problems in favor of complexity and less in favor of convolution and obfuscation. However, test designers can do as they please, and we; as test takers, must be aware that we enter into that contract as soon as we engage in taking one of their tests.

So, I would recommend not taking tests that you must, order, that is, tests that are not publicly available for viewing so as to determine are you setting yourself up for type B and C, B+C problems where you want nothing to do with them. Be very aware of their instructions, some instruction sets are abhorrent, ambivalent, nightmares. Stay away. If tests are publicly available, read them carefully before taking one. Determine if the test designer has created a test requiring metaIQ, and if you want to engage yourself in such an undertaking, go for it, I have, and sometimes with horrendous results. Still, if you wish simply a basic IQ score, try to determine that is what the test designer has in mind. Anything else, chunk it. And, don’t worry if they say no AI, no this, no that...use whatever tools you like. Chances are, if they’re a metaintelligence test these tools will be of little to no use as, especially AI, is designed around constrained complexity, not the other type B and C problems.

Anyway, some of my thoughts on the evolution of HRIQ testing in general and its postmodern manifestations. I think it has really changed for the worse. Mostly this is a technological, not, test designer problem. Whatever it is, only the future holds. And the future of human intelligence, who knows?

Kenneth Myers