If someone has a very, very high IQ...

Your typical IQ test is based in pattern recognition and acquisition of information that is in front of you or stored in your memory.

People who are able to solve problems quickly do so because they have an intuition for how the solution may look like, and they’ve compartmentalized methods of solving, such that they may access it quickly. You do the same thing once you feel very comfortable with a given type of problem.

Give someone 1000 integrals to do. I’m sure, at the end of it, they’ll be pretty fucking good at integration, and they’ll be faster than you.

Center left?

Middle left has a rather weak pattern behind it in a way that each column has 3 of one color and 2 of the other. Now going columnwise, you get 3 empty, 3 filled, 3 empty, 3 empty, so one could guess 3 filled would follow in the next 2 collumns forcing it to be middle left.

As I said, though, it's a pretty weak pattern.

If this were true, math would have been developed to its current level millennia ago.

No, high IQ does not guarantee high proficiency in math. Such proficiency is more or less a roll of the dice genetics wise. However high IQ highlights better ability to notice patterns.

can you count without learning numbers first?

Middle left

...

That does not explain the second column.

The right three blocks are a function of the left three. There is no pattern where the rows depend on the ones above.

This one is hard. Thanks for the solution.

Not necessarily. If that was an area they tested highly in, then yes they probably will be that good at math. It's possible to have tested poorly in numerical areas on a full-scale IQ test and still return with an overall high score. There are also as many IQ tests that don't include numerical categories as there are tests having them. These tests however do have noticeably lower ceilings due to this absence.

... due to this absence, so it's much more difficult to score, say, in the 99.9999th percentile if one isn't good at math. It is still very possible though. Math isn't some esoteric brainiac subject area, the grading process is just much more rigorous because answers in mathematics are predetermined- most students getting As on papers for their philosophy and English classes actually aren't very good at what they're doing, the standards are just lower.

middle right makes the most sense to me

>or does that person still need to put in some work?
They still need to practice. The only difference is that they will be able to practice faster.

middle right, yeah? the two blue objects are moving away from each other and are stopped by the edges of the box

If you get an answer for this, you're schizophrenic.

>Give someone 1000 integrals to do. I’m sure, at the end of it, they’ll be pretty fucking good at integration, and they’ll be faster than you.
It is also a wholly useless skill. Learning by rote memorization is not the same thing as actually understanding how and why the symbols at play relate to each other.

Wrong. Understanding how and why the things all relate to each other is nice if you want to study the method itself, but for actually doing the integrating your brain relies on learned heuristics anyway. So if you just want to do integrals, you'll end up training a subconscious "muscle memory" - recognizing the problem templates and rules of thumb intuitively - for it regardless of whether you actually studied the underlying theory or not. In essence, understanding the proofs and applying the formulae are two entirely different problems for the mind to tackle.

It's just how brains work, math puretards can go fuck themselves.

>Learning by rote memorization is not the same thing as actually understanding how and why the symbols at play relate to each other.

No.
t. person with ok IQ that has issues with math.

>ok IQ
define

Above my Major's average.

>my Major's average
define

top left

if it was following a pattern as is it too would be off the grid like the other boxes, but assuming it doesn't the best choice would be to say that it restarts it position in the middle, as the answer shows a divided line saying that the entities are split on the grid. So those two me are the only two logical answers that can follow the pattern.

*sorry bottom left

either that or its center left

the patter might expand, but it starts from the left, before expanding and starts expanding when after the two on the left shift and the right box can re-enter.

I don't think this has a solid answer. I cant find any kind of pattern. MAYBE bottom left or center right. but they don't really fit either.

Are people really this dumb or are you memeing me? It's obviously middle left because the movement wraps around edges, dumbasses.

I thought so too until I realized that most people can't figure the simplest problems and make up all sorts of stupid convoluted rules to explain them away.

Are you guys seriously having trouble with this? Wow, I guess I take for granted sometimes how nice it is to have a professionally tested WISC-IV IQ score of 157.

This is fucking stupid. I don't care if it's right. It's stupid.

As long as the rules are consistent, it's a valid answer.

above average non-brainlet should be able to complete all of their undergrad math without studying a single day just by going to class and listening to lectures.

High IQ should be able to finish grad school without even cracking a textbook.

if you have to study at all, you're basically a brainlet. Actual geniuses are getting their PhD dissertations without even showing up to lectures or even being enrolled in a class.

You're a fucking brainlet. True geniuses have never seen a university in their lives and still produce bleeding edge research papers.

Chin up lad, being a brainlet isn't the worst thing in the world.

Thanks. I'll remember this one for the next IQ test and get a higher score :)

I would guess that overlapping squares would cancel out, resulting in the top-left being the answer.

I feel like this is some sort of weird limit case where your IQ approaches infinity or some shit. Realistically even the most intelligent people have to study their asses off to be good at math. Great mathematical advancements aren't made because of "le 400 IQ". I would dare anyone on this board to name a prominent mathematical breakthrough made by someone who only did math for the lels as they lived an otherwise non-math oriented life.

If someone has a finely tuned neural architecture that optimizes problem solving abilities but hasn't been given the opportunity to learn the semantics of mathematics, you'd probably just consider them another brainlet.

Yes, they need to put in work to learn the language of maths... the amount of work they need to put in is less than other people, but it's still work.

>is that person instantly able to understand and do every math problem perfectly without needing to study or practice
Yes, if you are Von Neumann or Ramanujan.

>Actual geniuses are getting their PhD dissertations without even showing up to lectures or even being enrolled in a class.
Wittgenstein did that.

underrated

Middle Left or Bottom left work given the following
Boxes 4 5 6 are functions of 1 2 3.
Calling grey 0 and blue 1, you can rule out all solutions but center left which must be the answer.

Listing solutions as first row 1, 2, second row, 3, 4, etc., let's look at each one.

Our function we wish to understand is f(0, 0, 0). Assume an 'inverse' of an element is part of the binary set, i.e. (0,0,0) has an inverse of (1,1,1), (0,0,1) has inverse (1,0,0), etc.

#1: (0,0,1) According to the given, f(1,1,0) = (0,0,1), so this rules out #1.

#2: (1,0,1), according to given, f(0,1,1) = (0,1,0) so assuming the inverse relationship holds, f(1,0,0) = (0,1,0) so this rules out #2. Additionally, no given contradicts our inverse rule.

#3: there is no given set which results in (0, 1, 1) or (1,0,0) so we cannot rule this answer out.

#4: (1,1,0), given says f(1,1,0) = (0,0,1) so by inverse f (0,0,1) = (1,1,0) so #4 is ruled out.

#5: exact same arguement for #3

#6: given f (0,1,1) = (0,1,0). Rules out #6

Therefore, based on these assumptions, i.e. f(a,b,c) is one-to-one and the set it acts upon has an inverse, #3 or #5 work.
Of course you could define n-arbitrary rules to get any answer which is why this is a dumb question.

Sorry I meant to say middle left or bottom left in second line.

Yes, and the inverse is true, too.

You could "actually understand how and why the symbols at play relate to each other" and still suck at solving integrals, be slow, forget some tricks, etc.

I've only met one person in my life who can read textbooks on math/physics cover to cover without practicing and understand/apply the principles indefinitely thereafter. He told me he hit the score ceiling on a professional test (160s or something) and got 175 on an unprofessional Hoeflin test, so there you go.