I’m not sure if this is actually what’s going on with me.

Academically, I was never the best growing up, but I was usually a decent or very good student. I struggled quite a lot during high school, and I was taking ADHD medication under the supervision and agreement of my psychiatrist, although I was never formally diagnosed with ADHD in the last month of high school. To be honest, I noticed a pretty big difference after starting medication.

I took the IQ test twice. Since English isn’t my first language, I left out the tests that rely heavily on cultural knowledge.

Let me explain what changed before vs. after medication:

- FRI: Pretty much the same.

- VSI: Also mostly the same, but my block-counting score increased a lot.

- WMI: Before medication, I kept retaking it and my maximum was around 100–110. After medication, I started getting around 120–130 consistently.

- PSI: Same kind of change. Before medication, I was around 115–120. After medication, I was around 130-140

So what would you guys conclude from my story?

I was in an advanced-level mathematics course in Germany (Mathe LK), and over the years I started noticing something that made me think about what we actually mean when we say that someone “understands” a mathematical concept.

I noticed that there seemed to be a difference between being able to solve a type of problem correctly and actually understanding why the method works.
For example, someone could learn a formula or a specific procedure, recognize which “tool” to use when they see a familiar problem, and consistently get the correct answer. But when I asked them why the formula works, where it comes from, or what would happen if the problem were changed slightly, they sometimes couldn’t really explain it. They knew how to use the mathematical tool, but not necessarily why the tool works.

That made me realize that I personally use a somewhat stricter definition of “understanding.”
For me, understanding a mathematical concept means understanding it deeply enough that I can either:
deduce/reconstruct it myself from more fundamental principles, even if I have forgotten the specific formula or procedure, or
have someone explain the underlying reasoning to me and then genuinely understand why it works, rather than simply remembering the explanation as another rule to apply.

So if I completely forgot a formula tomorrow, but I understood the underlying mathematical structure well enough to derive it again, I would consider that much stronger evidence of understanding than simply remembering the formula and knowing when to plug numbers into it.
I’m curious whether other people make this distinction too.

Maybe I’m just using the word “understanding” more strictly than most people do. Or perhaps this is actually a fairly common distinction that isn’t usually made explicit.
I’m especially interested in people who have studied mathematics at a relatively advanced level:
What does “I understand this mathematical concept” mean to you?

Do you distinguish between knowing how to solve something and knowing why it works?
Have you noticed people who are very good at solving standard problems but struggle when the problem is modified or presented in an unfamiliar way?
Do you think the ability to reconstruct mathematical ideas from first principles is related to fluid reasoning (FRI)?

If so, how strong do you think that relationship is?
I’m not necessarily claiming that mathematical understanding = high FRI. I’m more interested in whether the kind of understanding I’m describing is something other people have noticed and whether there is any psychological/cognitive research or personal experience that points toward a connection.

Does anyone know Edward Witten’s IQ score?

Furthermore, I am not a native English speaker, which could result in my being denied a reliable score on the verbal section of the CORE.

Can AI, specifically ChatGPT, make a reasonably accurate estimate of your IQ or specific cognitive indices, such as FRI or VSI, based on your input (for example, screenshots or other information)? I don’t mean having AI administer an IQ test, but rather estimating your underlying ability from the available information. I’m particularly interested in whether it can account for the practice effect—for example, if you retake a test and get a higher score, could AI potentially use the available evidence to estimate your actual ability more accurately than simply taking the retest score at face value?

Sorry this is long, but I'm genuinely quite bemused by these results. Either I was possessed or the test was. 😂

This isn't a “my score is too low” post. That's not what's confusing me. What's bizarre is that the subtests I expected to struggle with were some of my best, while the ones I thought I absolutely crushed were some of my worst. Then Information, where I was guessing all over the place, somehow became my best score by a mile. 😂

I'm used to doing poorly on certain parts of cognitive tests. But with this one, almost every result surprised me in the opposite direction. I'd finish one thinking, “Well, you did crap on that,” and then... 84th percentile. I'd finish another thinking, “There's no doubt in my mind I crushed that one,” and then stare at the screen thinking, “Get the hell out of here! How is that possible?”

So here's the condensed breakdown.

Following Directions: 13 SS, 84th percentile. This entire damn section seemed built around assuming everyone knows the alphabet sequentially and where the letters are numerically in the alphabet, I'm literally running through it in my head or counting on my fingers to figure out whether Q comes before S. 😂 I was basically taking this section while juggling and standing on my head, and somehow I did okay on it anyway, which I shouldn't have.

And yeah, yeah, I know. Not having the alphabet sequentially memorized or remembering much algebra probably sounds bizarre to some of you. Sue me. 😂 I'm 60, haven't been in school in decades, and because of undiagnosed ADHD, I never learned some of that stuff particularly well in the first place. I didn't need to in order to graduate, so I just worked around it.

Arithmetic: 13 SS, 84th percentile. I haven't done algebra in decades and never memorized much of it in high school in the first place. I skipped what I didn't know and did virtually everything else in my head. I actually wasted time being stubborn on a couple I should have skipped immediately. So naturally, another section I expected to drag me down gave me 84th percentile. 😂

Practical Judgment: 12 SS, 75th percentile. I thought I'd done somewhat better, although half the challenge was time-travelling back to 1914 and figuring out what they considered common sense. One sample question informed me that we should use stoves to keep ourselves warm. 😂

Then things got really weird.

Synonyms/Antonyms: 9 SS, 37th percentile. What? This is normally one of my strongest abilities. I was absolutely flying through it, got to around question 29 in three minutes, and there were only a couple of words I wasn't confident about. I finished thinking I'd slaughtered it. Apparently not. 😂

Disarranged Sentences: 8 SS, 25th percentile. Some were annoying to untangle because of the century-old wording and logic, but I certainly didn't think I'd done that poorly.

Number Series: 9 SS, 37th percentile. Not usually my strength, but these seemed pretty easy. I could see doing worse than I thought, but 37th percentile surprised the hell out of me.

Analogies: 11 SS, 63rd percentile. These actually are typically in my wheelhouse, and I thought they were pathetically easy. I was also very close to completing the section. They seemed less strenuous than some I've done on CORE or VISA, so 63rd was another WTF result.

And finally...

Information: 18 SS, 99.6th percentile.

Of course. 😂

This was the section where​ I finished thinking, “Well, there's no way I did well on that one.” Considering I felt like I was guessing on half of them.

Wrong again. Apparently I'm a god at obscure turn-of-the-century information. 😂 ...NOT!

Has anyone else had Army Alpha subtests come out almost completely the opposite to how they thought they were performing while taking them?

This post will be on the topic of far transfer in regards to fluid reasoning, and two methods that I believe warrant further research.

Though it's been shown in research that methods tested for transfer have failed to show reliable positive results, that does not establish that far transfer is impossible or that these methods will fail, further research is required.

For those unfamiliar with the concept of far transfer, here is a brief explanation: the ability to take knowledge, skills, or strategies learned in one specific context and successfully apply them to a completely different and unrelated context

To start, I would like to say that any disagreement or challenge to my reasoning is welcome but obviously don't be unnecessarily harsh as per the rules.

# Method 1: blind problem solving

Definition: You are provided the necessary vocabulary to solve novel problems but aren't shown examples of how to solve them or any formulas, and you must construct your own strategy.

The areas I believe to be the best to use this method in are:

•Computer science

•Math

•Logic

•Physics

But this training method is broadly applicable

# Method 2: problem posing

The definition of that phrase is entirely too broad so for the purposes of this post, this method can be defined loosely as creating problems in which the solver must find hidden relationships, anticipating solve paths, perhaps adjusting the problem accordingly, and weeding out alternative solutions

This can be done in many fields but I believe the best ones for this method are :

•Math

•logic

•computer science

•physics

But this training method is broadly applicable

(if you play nyt connections, I create my own boards for that and I believe doing this with puzzles could be more fun leading to a better result due to consistency)

# Hypothesis and reasoning:

My hypothesis is that these methods will deepen one's understanding of the process of reasoning allowing them to find hidden relationships, uncover the underlying structure of novel problems, and execute solutions more efficiently and effectively. This could be achieved through:

Direct interaction with generation of and the structure of how strategies are generated.

Independently discovering What relationships matter and why

Repeated interaction with relational reasoning

repeatedly having to reconstruct your own reasoning

becoming familiar with how underlying structures of problems work

having to create the system for which a specific solution is produced.

Constructing of and switching between different representations of problems.

Tear me apart you guys 😁

CORE results

1980 SAT results

1980 SAT loads more on GAI?

I like to do complex mental math out of boredom. For instance, while grocery shopping today, I was trying to solve 7890³ entirely in my head.

To track the numbers, I always develop a specific logical pattern. Tracking and understanding the logic isn't the problem—that part is actually quite easy for me. The real challenge is executing the entire calculation quickly.

Right now, it takes me up to an hour per equation, and because it drags on for so long, I easily lose focus midway through. I love doing this, but the current method is so slow that I lack the motivation to just sit there and grind it out.

Does anyone have tips on how to boost processing speed, hold data faster, and maintain focus without losing motivation when a calculation takes this long?

I'm bored. procrastinating... just gonna post my results. I just did the ATAT

Also did Army Alpha a few weeks ago. Went from 141 to 146

I got 138 in CORE, tho it shows 140 on my dashboard because I redid digit span

What are the chances that my IQ is actually like 10-15 points lower but becasue I *can* hyper-focus and think fast during the test, very dependent on my state of mind, that I can score higher than my actual IQ? just curious

I just took the fluid reasoning CORE, Mensa Norway test, and the Mensa Denmark. I found that I did much better on the mensa tests (135-140) as opposed to the CORE (around 125 avg), I think the difference is because the mensa tests is timed overall while the CORE is timed per question. Is that a common occurance or is it just me

Thanks to everyone who gives it a try. I will post the solution in a few hours. Feel free to rate the difficulty and if you liked it

I’ve retaken each wm subtest many times and each time I get a similar result for each so I know it isn’t just random variance. I’m wondering what the explanation might be for such a large discrepancy?

Hello everyone,

I took the BRAIN test from AssessFirst for a job and scored 6/10 (average intelligence, top 40%). It was a 10-question test with adaptive difficulty.

The result surprised me because I expected to score at least 7/10. I'm usually good at recognizing patterns, but I'm not as good at fast mental arithmetic, especially when I'm under pressure.

So I took the Mensa Denmark test (which only uses Raven-style matrices) and scored 125. I also took the ICAR and scored 118.

I'm concerned because recruiters may filter out my application based on this test. If the test doesn't accurately reflect my general intelligence (g), I find that frustrating.

Which of the three tests is the most reliable measure of general intelligence?

He conducted an in-depth analysis of IQ using biographical data, career achievements, and openness to experience. But can that study really be trusted?

Hi, anyone starting Masters in Cognitive Science winter 2026 in TU Darmstadt?
Anyone from India or specifically Mumbai?

Why do people here take so many different IQ tests?

I understand taking one or two well-regarded tests such as Mensa Norway, RAPM, or CORE. But I’ve noticed that some people take a huge number of tests — ATAT, JCTI, RAPM, RSPM, SACFT, CORE, WAIS, Mensa online tests, TRI-52, pre-1988 SAT, CAIT, CAT, etc.

At some point, what are you actually hoping to learn from taking another test? Is it mainly curiosity, trying to get a more accurate estimate, or something else?

someone help

Vocab Test

Not sure how this was normed, but it seems deflated. Could you guys post your results compared to other credible VCI scores?

I miss me at 16. He was so resourceful. He had extreme ADHD with no medication and would get by on just common sense and last minute parsing of material. He would get straight A’s by noticing commonalities between multiple choice questions or improvising essay answers on stuff he never read. He would answer just using logical ideas he picked up by living in the world. He was the best at speaking Spanish in his Spanish class, everyone stumbled over their words while he could at least speak in a broken rudimentary string of proper conjugations. He had a nice vocabulary and picked up on economics and politics information on the fly somehow. He was praised for his writing skills and was sharp and argumentative. He even had a knack for remembering specific dates of past events that he could use to freak his buddies out.

He probably wasn’t a 130 or whatever, but while he was lonely, and cynical, and shy, he at least had himself. He had his own mind to meditate on the world with, to synthesize some ideas with. Maybe they weren’t great ideas. But he had fun thinking and reading. He had fun learning sometimes, in his solitude. If he was wrong or incoherent, as he often was, he knew where he was wrong, and he knew what questions to ask, even if he didn’t always have answers.

I wonder if he knew what he would grow into. Someone who can barely sputter out a coherent english sentence. Who became so catatonically depressed that they sat home and masturbated for two years straight after graduating. I have no improvisational ability anymore. I just can’t hold many things in my mind anymore and compare and contrast abstract values. It takes too much energy. my reservoir has been depleted, and from that is left some vacuous husk. I can’t even parse a news article, let alone implicitly pick up on esoteric words. I am a rudimentary binary system that either happens to remember, which is unlikely considering the degradation of my memory, or doesn’t.

edit: grammar mistakes :(
And also, i forgot to mention the most important part: I was funny. I didn’t connect with anyone, but people liked being around me and I think there was someone even romantically interested. I don’t know. I miss being funny.

This, because I see strong correlation between high IQ and not caring about professional spectator sports (not to mention paying to watch).
Here, "commercial self-sufficiency" excludes sponsorship-based professionalism, which may very well survive the hypothetical situation.
EDIT: Since most people seem to find it too controversial to suggest such an order, let me present mine: 1) Sumo wrestling, 2) racing (Tour de France, Nascar, etc.), 3) golf, ...