FOX - "The Ultimate IQ Test

101-109
Man, I was pulling maybe a 145 on the Mensa site.
This test is way harder than that.

It isn't really about being smart—it’s more a reflection of how much general knowledge someone has picked up along the way.

That thing on FOX was just some evening entertainment. It’s definitely not a real big intelligence test, regardless of whether it includes bits of actual testing—and I’m not saying that just because I had a rough time with 😁.

Some kid like Peter tending sheep out in the Rocky Mountains would look like a total fool if he took this, given the general knowledge and vocabulary requirements... Basically, it’s just a bit of fun, nothing more.

mellowjackal33 said:That segment on FOX was nothing more than evening entertainment. It isn’t a legitimate big intelligence test, regardless of how many standard components it tries to mimic (and I say that without any bitterness about my own subpar 😁 score).

A kid working ranch land out in the Rocky Mountains would look like an absolute fool trying this, given the heavy emphasis on general trivia and niche vocabulary... At its core, it's just mindless fun, nothing more.

Ah, so your argument is that there isn't some kid out on a ranch who happens to be reading because he's genuinely curious about the world. 🙄 Honestly, people like that really get under my skin. 🙄

Mad Scientist said:Intelligence tends to correlate positively with general knowledge. It’s not necessarily a direct line, but it's a fact—smarter people usually have a much deeper interest in the world around them. That’s actually why vocabulary tests are such a staple in most big intelligence tests.
Ultimately, Openness—one of those traits from the Big Five model—is also linked to intelligence.
****.
As for that veggie debate, from what I know, there are two main ways to look at it (the botanical vs. the agricultural). One definition says fruit comes from perennial plants while veggies come from annuals; the other says you eat the reproductive part in fruit and everything else in vegetables.

That makes sense. But looking at that FOX test? They went way overboard—way too many questions dedicated to that specific area compared to the rest of the exam.

Plus, "openness" is pretty subjective. If you design a test that focuses heavily on just one niche, you end up labeling someone a fool—like if someone is totally clueless about football, they might seem completely "closed" off, even though they've just shut the door on that specific topic.

It’s the same deal with sports.

Look, I love catching a good football game or a downhill ski race. But I couldn't care less about memorizing the names of the players—I want to watch the action, and then move on with my life.

And don't even get me started on the sports section of the paper, or those gossip rags filled with celebrity news. I can't bring myself to read any of it, let alone remember it. It all feels so shallow to me.

On the flip side, I’ll happily spend time studying wind currents or trying to figure out exactly when and why it's going to rain. I want to know how winds behave in a cyclone, where a hurricane's eye is located, what the temperature difference might be between a mountain peak and a city like Chicago or the Rocky Mountains, or whether I should head out for a hike in Jacksonville if it's raining in town and I've got a thermometer sitting on my windowsill...

So—it really comes down to both the quantity and the variety of general knowledge questions. Otherwise, you just hit a dead end.

Generally speaking, a general knowledge test has to be HEAVILY TAILORED TO THE SPECIFIC SOCIETY, ITS EDUCATION SYSTEM, THE STATE AND FOCUS OF THE MEDIA, THE LOCAL MINDSET AND CULTURE, AND EVEN THE AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS AND THE INTERNET... There are so many variables involved that creating a truly objective set of questions is incredibly difficult.

They didn't administer an actual big intelligence test because they're too afraid of embarrassing celebrities who are likely much dimmer than they appear. Take Ariana Grande, for example. 😁

crimsonmoose3 said:They didn't bother with a legitimate big intelligence test—they just don't want to embarrass celebrities who are probably way less bright than they let on. Take Ariana Grande, for example. 😁

Exactly. You're reading my mind. The whole test is just fun and games—nothing more than that.

Walter Chavez2 said:Oh, so you think there isn't some little Peter out there watching sheep who might actually READ because he's curious about things. 🙄 People like that really get under my skin. 🙄

No—it's just the fact that those little Peters guarding flocks can be incredibly smart people who, for the most part, simply don't bother with celebrity gossip or keeping up with the tabloids.

A big intelligence test needs to account for its "general" (un)culture by adjusting for the local environment and the specific group being tested. This quiz on FOX was clearly tailored to the folks sitting in the studio or perhaps just the broad American public at large.

One Peter, if he’s a bright guy, might know an absolute ton about sheep, their behavior, nature, animals, grazing patterns, or even how to make cheese...

Generally speaking—I'd much rather watch a show about a hardworking Peter than some fluff piece about what soccer player is dribbling where, his name, his cleat size, or how some pop star smiles on stages all over America.

On that note—I couldn't care less about when some "bread and circuses" type festival is happening. And then someone tries to sell that as "general culture" and claims it's a metric for measuring intelligence.

If that bugs you—hey, go for it. Buy yourself a Gloria and enjoy yourself. 😁

Sorry—I might be oversimplifying things here. But honestly, I think it’s pretty silly to view FOX's evening entertainment as some kind of serious tool for measuring intelligence.

says it's somewhere between 110 and 120... but honestly, this isn't even a real big intelligence test. there's way too many—as a ton of people have already pointed out—questions that are just testing how much random stuff you know.
the test is—aside from being a bit of a time sink—totally pointless...

pumpkin pie said:What do those puzzles actually have to do with IQ? It feels more like a test of perception...

when you factor in mental rotation...

iwchy said:haha, they just don't measure over 172 on their Mensa test😬

Don't talk nonsense. There is no such thing as a "Mensa test." Mensa doesn't have its own proprietary exam, nor could they really have one. Instead, Mensa uses the most standard, common, and widely recognized big intelligence test out there—Raven's Progressive Matrices.

This FOX test is absolute garbage. First off, it tests vocabulary using obscure words that nobody actually uses—I was sitting there wondering how on earth I'm supposed to know if "whirlygig" means brave or something else.
And that general knowledge section at the end totally bombed. Since when does knowing where the Olympics are held have anything to do with your IQ? Makes zero sense.

The way they set up their website is just stupid, too. The timer starts the second the instructions pop up, so most people don't even get a chance to actually read what they're supposed to do. I've taken plenty of different intelligence tests before, and they always give you a proper walkthrough with examples before the clock starts ticking. Honestly, this test has nothing to do with actual IQ.
Also, puzzles should be part of an intelligence test—I did something similar once where I had to identify the surface of a 3D geometric shape. But even those fail here because, again, there's no explanation of the task.

Anyway, I got a 101-109 on FOX, but on every other test I've ever taken, my score hasn't dropped below 130-150.

...scored a 164 on the Mensa big intelligence test, while folks around here usually land between 110 and 120 😬

It’s like once you actually start staring at that big intelligence test, your brain just completely shuts down.
Now they really ought to throw another one our way to see if we’re still this clueless 🙂 🙂

My score actually came out lower than what I usually see on standard tests, though the whole experience was pretty interesting—plus, someone had clearly hacked the site, haha.

Honestly, it’s a joke—there's no way you can call that a serious big intelligence test.

I tried tackling it while the show was airing, but the endless waiting between questions was so infuriating I just gave up. Plus, the questions felt ridiculously easy.

koksi said:Did anyone catch the "big intelligence test" on FOX this past Friday? I don't know, it felt way too easy to me. For those who missed it, you can actually take it online at www.rtl.hr/iqtest.
I’m curious to hear what people think who have actually taken a Mensa test before.

You see these kinds of tests everywhere—on TikTok, in various mobile games, and all that other junk.
If they can pull it off, why isn't FOX doing more of this stuff?

What a ridiculous test... I barely recognized half the words at first, so I was basically just clicking random answers 😁

Turns out it actually worked—I landed right in the 121-130 range 😬