Why do you think is the objective reason women fail this task? Concept of gravity is non existent in female brain?
Easy /thread
>>16389460Hard mode
>>16389460Women are generally smart enough to do this but they literally don’t care at all to the point that not even an iota of consciousness is dedicated to actually solving the problem. Basically they prefer to just put something random down and then let other people tell them if they did it wrong than actually bother solving the problem. This is a purely cultural thing imo
>>16389565Then why college students and toddler women identically fail this task, unlike their male counterparts?
>>16389565Btw this may be because they know on an intuitive level that it gratifies the man to correct them and explain the answer, especially if that man is the one presenting the problem to them. Being perceived as intelligent doesn’t matter to them so they probably don’t even read the problem and just play along with the man’s self gratification game
>>16389567? That doesn’t contradict what I said>>16389569This actually allows us to empirically test my hypothesis. Have another woman present the problem to them instead of a male. Then I guarantee they will be able to do it, especially if the woman presenting the problem acts as if she doesn’t know the answer because this will give the subject an opportunity to mother the other woman
>>16389575>Toddlers >Culture
>>16389575Cultural impact in toddlers is as large as among college students? Are you retarded?
>>16389527Is it in a vacuum?
>>16389577>>16389615what toddlers has this meme experiment been performed on?
>>16390334This test was designed for toddlers to test their intelligence and development. And researchers found that girls suck at this, then tested it on college students and found the same result
>>16389565>merely pretending
>>16389480>>16389482>>16389483>>16389496This stays up but all my replies criticizing Israel is taken down?
>>16389460The test itself is a red herring. What they are really looking for is the superior intelligence of the people who ask "Is the water liquid or frozen?"t. Was given this test, I asked that question, and now I am employed by the CIA to overthrow foreign governments while interns suck my dick under the desk.. Shit is so cash.
>>16390962This sounds interesting, got a link?
acording to what I read, males had to develop bigger spatial thinking skills, simply because they needed them to actually proper hunt animals in the forest.
Looks like it should be a little bit higher on the right one. Being on the same level the area of the water triangle is base times height times 1/2 where the base is less than twice the base on the left one making the area smaller than just base times height.
>>16389460Read Otto Weininger.
>>16391054Too many links, so I'll just post the name of this test, it's called Water-level task by Jean Piaget
>>16389460>women fail this taskShow us
>>16389460man, I hate 'tests' where the test creator was too stupid to notice that the problem is much more complex than he could imagine.
>>16391260>Water-level task by Jean PiagetThanks, seems there is a limited training effect, although architecture might naturally select for women with more competent brainshttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7567394/
>>16392545If there is no performance bias seen in 5th graders but there is in 12th graders that would imply pubertal brain development is the major determinanthttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pms.1976.42.3c.1323
>>16392551But there are differences before puberty, and we know that puberty hits girls earlier
>>16392528The water level doesn't matter for the test, it just checks that the water line is horizontal
>>16389460Women cannot abstract and they cannot read back abstract information, like a figure of a glass with water in it.
What is the difference between men and woman im bad at reading scientific papers
>>16389565>>16389569btw i just made this up
>>16392821You have a good intuition
>>16389460
>>16392934why would the distance from P to S which I guess is the center if the base be constant?
>>16391347This
>>16393002it's only "constant" in the condition where the water level is high enough, and the angle of tilt is low enough. just look at the image, if the distance from P to S changes, the total volume of water changes.
>>16393029>just look at the image(goddamn wrong image, plz no ban)
>>16393050stop replying to me.
>>16389565It's the opposite, they overthink everything and are distracted by their own social awareness. "Why are they having me do this test?" "What is the trick?" "It can't be that obvious" "What did they mean by rotate" "I better try hard" *pulls out the ruler* *treats it like a drawing exercise*
How can you tell at a glance if the water line is above or below the other edge?
>>16392809Women = stupid
>>16389460There's a pour spout on the side.Also, it's filled with piss.
>>16393066This. They think it has to be a trick question to make them seem stupid, because that is the only reason they'd ask someone else to do the test.
>>16389460wasn't the source of this claim just "trust me bro"?
>>16396079there have been multiple studies over the last 60 years
>>16392934I don't think your matrix P is correct. What's your origin?
>>16389460Women don't fundamentally understand nature and aren't fundamentally driven to gain mastery of the world through direct means like men. If there's no cookie cutter path with social proof involved like a master's degree, women aren't interested. Women can't grasp child-like concepts because they have no innate curiosity that extends beyond fulfilling their immediate needs and desires. They get this question wrong because they have literally never thought about how gravity works because they have no reason to think about it and don't care at all about intangible things like knowledge unless it benefits them directly in some obvious way. Men often have this delusion that "they're just like us!" because they're half of the human race and because pussy feel good, but the reality is that we do everything--build, create, invent, explore, conquer--and women, deep down, believe that we exist merely to serve them and nothing else.Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
>>16389495how do you know, if it's not a hatch? without the water, it might just not open in 'B'
>>16392934translate into english
>>16389460Women do not follow instructions. They read the text and most understand it but then the information from the text never makes it to the part of their brain that controls their actions so they default to automatically trying to continue the pattern.
This makes me curious. Are there cognitive tests men fail in a disproportional amount?
>>16396858According to some studies women seem to be generally better at remembering faces as well as recognizing emotions from facial expressions. Idk if you would exactly count that as a cognitive task, however.
>>16389625No it's a starahip
What temperature is the water?
>>16393050Please keep replying to me
>>16389460For what the hell should you know where the line could be? Sure you need an equal area with upper border limits by a parallel to the low line. But there are no measures given, neither the angle of B. So you need the typical academic social knowledge what the fuck the idiot made that test want.
>>16396866That's probably just higher prevalence of autism bringing the guys down, unless you specifically controlled for that. But I guess that's kind of circular reasoning: maybe men are more likely to be diagnosed as autistic because they're worse at recognizing faces.
>>16397346>t. Woman who answered like this
Studies that analyzed this showed that women who answered this made different assumptions than men. Men assumed static case after equilibrium. Women assumed dynamic case before equilibrium is reached. Unclear why.
>>16397490>>16397490>static case>dynamic caseWhat is that?
>>16392934>>16389460Go to your kitchen right now and fill two cups up with equal water. And tilt one. The water level will rise in one. Don't believe me? Try it.
>>16397559Are you stupid? Static means nothing is moving. Dynamic means the water is currently moving.
>>16397679Didnt happen here.
>>16397346>But there are no measures given, neither the angle of Bbro, just measure them in gimp
>>16393029>it's only "constant" in the condition where the water level is high enough, and the angle of tilt is low enough.no retardthe triangle of empty space left of P' corresponds exactly with the triangle of water right of P', so unless the water surface is hitting the bottom left corner it is valid for large angles toodunno why you drew some sin cos bullshit though when a geometric proof suffices
>>16392934What the fuck is this, lmao?
>>16397830whats' your point/?
>>16389460my mother didn't fail this test, but she was a computer programmer and has a very logical mind. i think most women fail this test because they don't conceptualize the world in objective, external terms, so when presented with a problem like this (and really any problem) they internally envision themselves tipping the glass, and what happens when you tip a glass with water in it? the water pours out.
>>16391347It's not true that "women" fail this task, but they do fail it at a higher rate than men. Around 2/5 of female, and 1/5 of male college students provided an unintended answer in a study. It's Piaget's water level task.
>>16397830Based common sense anon
>>16397679That's obvious (i hope) but you cannot "draw a lein to show where the level should be" because you cannot know where to draw (except above the A level but that is not where)>>16392934Nice but now set in r. h s R theta etc
>>16397830Genius
>>16392821btw I'm a grill
>>16389460I wonder how Kamala would answer this.
>>16392934this must be bait. it is too complicated. there is a much simple way with triangles.
>>16389460Here is a question: as you start tilting the right glass, the level in the tilted glass will be initially higher than in the left glas. But as you keep tilting it it will keep going down. Find the angle where the level is the same in both glasses.
>>16397830This guy wins btw
>>16399216Her iq is 81. She would fail
>>16397490In other words, they are stupid
>>16397870>It's not true that "women" fail this taskThis.All else you typed: irrelevant.>>16389460>Why do you think is the objective reason women fail this task?Fuck off, OP. Fuck the fuck off.
>>16392934looks about right
>>16397830i fucking love this site
>>16396858Color related stuff, some women actually see more colors as a portion of vision genome gets duplicated on the x chromosome
>>16392934So the test is about whether you draw the line higher than the non-tilted glass and that's what women fail at?I always thought they made this mistake: >>16389495 which always felt super retarded to me.
>>16392934I believe this answer is better.
because of how reproduction is, males are for combat. women are the bottleneck in birthrate because gestation takes 9 months, meanwhile a healthy man can impregnate a dozen women per day, so women are always useful back home making more people, not dying in any kind of fighttestosterone makes the brain smarter when it comes to spatial reasoning, it all stems from violence and the brain needing to calculate physics on an intuitive level to understand where this punch will end up or how to grapple with someone or throw a rock wellthis extends all the way to being better at calculating the trajectory of a bullet, being better at landing an airplane, driving a car, dogfighting in planes and jets, etc. funfact the term "dogfight" came from a play on "catfight", since planes were always flown by men. women flying planes is a modern affirmative action inventionmost women niggers and jews have a higher social intelligence than general intelligence. they literally use it to take from us what we gain by having actual intelligence, they use it to be parasites. the idea that we're equal in intelligence is a lie, demographics that have high social intelligence are actually just retards who evolved a way to steal from the rest of us by tricking us into thinking their smart or good with their words and mannerisms
>>16389565getting something right takes more effort when you're a retard. when a retard gives up because it takes too much effort it doesnt mean they're not retarded, and giving up doesnt mean they couldnt do it
>>16402697I looked up one of the original articles (The Water-Level Task: An Intriguing Puzzle, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1996). It's the second one."... a surprisingly large proportion of adolescents and adults draw slanting lines in the titled bottles (often with considerable confidence!), and are unable to articulate or identify the physical principle underlying the task."
>>16402829>higher social intelligence than general intelligence.They are neurologically the same. Overall IQ in both males and females is correlated with greater prefrontal cortex function, which is also responsible for social activity and inhibition. This is why niggers have unstable societies, because they're too impulsive and lack social conscience.
>>16393050>>16397270>Please keep replying to meI agree with that guy good explanations regardless if I can intuit the answer.
>>16391010free speech is dead
>>16399216"I was born in a middle class family...."
>>16397830Aha! But now if you tilt the glass back onto its base all your water will spill out.You've flown too close to the sun, anon!
It's been measured and known for quite some time that women have significantly worse spatial reasoning than men, and less intuitive understanding of basic physics (like throwing something)not sure why anyone is surprised by this
>women are sooo inferior..>us men are sooo superior..>me now tossing off about it to hentai in mommies basementIf women were more like men, then I'd be celibate & you'd all be raging poofters.>not like men.....yeh, thank God.
>>16405902Triggered roastie alert.
>>16406130eternal virgin "needs" to assert his value over the women who made him the broken little attention craving despot before us.
>>16406201^ woman can't draw line so they fite their gender war by insulting your weener
>>16406414lmao, if a female ever entered this thread; you homos would all piss your pants and pass out.
>>16406835No, the fenale would be beaten
>>16407297I believe you
>>16407336if one man beats you... okay? but if every man beats you, umm maybe it's you??
>>16406201>v-virgin>craving little de-DESPOT>I'm not triggered, sh-SHUT UP>*Whimpers in cornerYou almost completed it, you forgot to add "incel" like it means anything anymore.
>>16407390I'm NTA, dickhead.the only women here is you and this >>16407417 roastie virgin loser.
>>16405902Holy cope
>>16407417>roastieDo you even know what that is you faggot? If I was a roastie, I'd be saying the shit you are saying because my ego would have been trampled by the notions sex differences in cognition. Don't worry, women have better "verbal abilities" so hopefully that makes you feel better about yourself, you twat.
>>16408480Do you even know what that is you faggot? If I was a roastie, I'd be saying the shit you are saying because my ego would have been trampled by the notions sex differences in cognition. Don't worry, women have better "verbal abilities" so hopefully that makes you feel better about yourself, you twat.
>>16408480>>16408778Huh?
>>16391347>>16397870
>>16410899Do you even know what that is you faggot? If I was a roastie, I'd be saying the shit you are saying because my ego would have been trampled by the notions sex differences in cognition. Don't worry, women have better "verbal abilities" so hopefully that makes you feel better about yourself, you twat.
>>16410899Hauh?
>>16389565surreal levels of mental gymnastics
>>16391053Piaget didn't know windshield wipers.OP should have had "half-full glass" to rule out a thin film of water.
>>16411932Thank you chatgpt
>>16412270Shizo
>>16392573there's no way to deduce that from the way the test is posed. if the retard was aware of the ambiguity, he could have chosen a different water level or inclination angle, not exactly these that make the outcome ambiguous. whoever came up with this 'test' is a brainlet, or at best a troll. deserves painful death either way.
>>164154243 = 1 + (2)5 = 3 + 1 + (1)7 = 5 + 3 + 1 + (-1)x = 7 + 5 + 3 + 1 + (-4) = 121, 3, 5, 7, 12
>>16415424"I have serious autism": the post. Being able to infer from incomplete data is one of the hallmarks of intelligence.
>>16393050Those aren’t real right angles >:(
>>16415936Laughs in Sphere, "Figures! Yours you must learn. Study Fig. 6.13 and reflect on your sins!"
>>16399216Imagine instead of a debate, presidential candidates have to do a series of puzzles and trick questions like this on stage it would be like that "are you smarter than a 5th grader" show but it would be dressed up as a serious thing
>>16416163And the loser is killed and eaten by the winner, right?
>>16416269no the winner golden showers all over the loser. that seems fair
>>16416327I would watch and jerk to that, regardless of the election outcome.I would pay extra to have all nine members of the SCotUS join in as well.
>>16415424Dream
>>16415576>Being able to infer from incomplete datawell the obvious inference here would be that the test isn't asking for the inclination of the water because that would be retarded
>>16389460Women aren't interested in solving challenges, especially when they get nothing in return. Show a man an interesting problem and he will try to solve it. Show a woman an interesting problem and she will ask you why you are bothering her. So basically this >>16389565
>>16392934>>16397830I love the contrast between these two explanations.Gorgeous.
>>16418412Mate, this problem isn't hard, and is solving in 1 minute at max
>>16389460Is it fluoridated?
>>16415424This specific version is ambiguous, but there are also multiple choice versions of the test (with only one horizontal line option) which women still consistently get wrong
>>16393002Instead of volume think in terms of area (3rd axis "into" the picture is irrelevant). Take >>16389495 but seriously. Same area filled. Now just make water flat - move the filled triangle left of P' into the empty space right of P', and you have >>16392934Left: Water occupies "rectangle" base 2r, height h. Right: water must occupy the same area. Bottom is same 2r, distance s'-P' is same h, the dashed line is top of the rectangle. The triangle on the right of P' "filled" is exactly as much as the triangle on the left, "empty", so the area remains the same - volume remains the same.
>>16389565>>16389569feminist cope right here
>>16418614it's not even a "problem", you should just instantly know to draw a line
>>16419044It doesn't work for the usual fustrum-shaped glass hole.
>>16419168Yeah, we have to assume the glass is as depicted in cross-section and with no surprises in 3rd dimension.
>>16389565>This is a purely cultural thing imoSpatial ability sex differences are an international thing. Better luck next time.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-006-9168-6https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-008-9460-8
>>16392934>>16397830The duality of ma(th).
>>16419165>you should just instantly know to draw a lineThis is how you out yourself as a midwit, by the way - you think the solution is just to draw a line parallel to the ground at random height instead of calculating the exact water level in a tilted glass.
>>16419639>you think the solution is just to draw a line parallel to the ground at random height instead of calculating the exact water level in a tilted glassBut you literally just draw a line parallel to the ground through the center point of the starting water level. You don't have to calculate shit.
>>16419765This is not a trivial solution. You need to have a relatively high IQ to 'instantly' solve this, and people who possess this ability don't tend to spend their time bragging about their intelligence in bait threads on 4chan.
>>16419785See>>16397830>You need to have a relatively high IQ to 'instantly' solve thisThis might take you a bit if you're stuck with a compass and straight edge, but the problem is piss easy the second you introduce a square into the mix. And you definitely don't need to calculate jack shit like I said.If you just want to describe the answer, you should be able to solve it in seconds. This is square peg goes in square hole tier shit unless you deliberately overcomplicate it.
>>16419823>See >>16397830I see that it took half a thread for this post to appear and then someone called him a genius. Yes, it is a simple and elegant solution that seems obvious in retrospect, but it was not immediately apparent to a lot of anons here. And even though this board isn't exactly a MENSA convention, it still comprises people who are smarter and more experienced with math puzzles than the general population. My estimate is that it's a 'square peg goes in square hole tier shit' for less than 5% of a Americans/Europeans, and those who can solve it in seconds are either very smart or have prior experience with similar math puzzles (which also implies above average intelligence). I'm not doubting your intelligence, but I do doubt your understanding of other people's mental abilities.
>>16416163This is from 2012. In 2024 even an attempt to ask something like this could land you in jail for hate.
>>16419785This thread is about shitting on women
>>16419639>height instead of calculating the exact water level in a tilted glass.Using your spatial working memory doesn't require any calculation. Also this is an estimation task not a exact one.>You need to have a relatively high IQ to 'instantly' solve thisNo you really don't. In any case, the fact that this task and other spatial tasks have such large sex differences and are international as mentioned here >>16419291 means that any speculation that "women don't feel like it" and "Its because stereotypes/culture" are fundamentally flawed.
>>16420637>Using your spatial working memory doesn't require any calculationit does if you're a woman
>>16420637>Also this is an estimation task not a exact one.Where does it state that? My immediate question to anyone who asks me to do this would be “is the container a cylinder or a prism?”
>>16420715>it does if you're a womanDo you really think women have no spatial ability? They are just bad at it not fucking retarded.>>16420725>Where does it state that?Its implied when you infer calculation is required (it isn't). Its the difference between estimating a solution of an equation from a graph and manually calculating solutions.
>>16420131>stupid chud, the correct answer is 25>why>because.. ummm. well.. math? or something
>>16420836>Its implied when you infer calculation is requiredand where do I infer that? It doesn’t state “estimate the line”. Stop coping and admit that the humanities nigger who came up with this didn’t even think about it.
>>16420637>Using your spatial working memory doesn't require any calculation.This is arguing semantics. Yes, >>16397830 isn't what many people would call a calculation, but it is an application of math problem solving skills (finding that middle water level is invariant, finding a symmetry between two slices of water). Unless you've solved very similar geometric problems in the past or you are a math prodigy, it's going to take you more than a few seconds to find a solution. Again, let me remind you that it took half a thread of anons arguing and bringing out equations before that post appeared.>Also this is an estimation task not a exact one.Oh, so you 'don't feel like' solving it properly? Like a woman does? Let's be real - it's most likely that absolute majority of people who technically passed this task didn't even realize that the water level changed, they just drew a line at the same height. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but that's my prediction. This test is an ultimate midwit trap - a lot of people get to technically 'pass' it and wallow in their supposed intelligence when in reality they gave a fundamentally wrong result.
>>16420953That post is quintessential mathbrain. Mathbrain looks at this and goes “the area is preserved”. The superior physicsbrain goes “we are told this is a glass of water, so it’s a three-dimensional object. We are concerned with equal volume here, not equal area. But it’s impossible to tell the shape of the glass with a single projection. The object in question might as well be some weird prism with a rectangular face. So the problem cannot be solved without more information provided.”
>>16421046>The superior physicsbrain goes “we are told this is a glass of water, so it’s a three-dimensional object. We are concerned with equal volume here, not equal area. But it’s impossible to tell the shape of the glass with a single projection. The object in question might as well be some weird prism with a rectangular face. So the problem cannot be solved without more information provided.”Sounds like you have physicsbrain damage. A working physics brain would assume a spherical cow in a vacuum and just treat the glass as a rectangular prism.
>>16421046I never mentioned area, why did you bring it up? To solve this problem, you either need general intelligence or experience with math puzzles (at such simple level there is no point in differentiating between math, geometry, engineering and physics since they mostly utilize the same tools from high school). Such intelligence/experience also requires correctly assessing the problem and what's being asked of you. Trying to one-up the examiners in cleverness through nitpicking 'What if this wasn't a symmetrical setup? What if you turn the glass really fast? What's the gravitational constant?' isn't a sign of high intelligence, it's a sign of being annoying. Intelligent people don't need everything spelled out to them.
>>16421499Why not a cylinder? Both are equally likely. And past a certain critical angle, the shape of the base starts to matter.
>>16421507>I never mentioned area, why did you bring it up?You mentioned >>16397830, which solves this as an equal-area problem.>Such intelligence/experience also requires correctly assessing the problem and what's being asked of you.Intelligent people recognize that they're being asked to find an equal-volume solution instead of equal-area, because water isn't an infinitely thin plate irl. Then they also recognize that the shape of the container can influence the outcome. See >>16421512. All of this makes the problem impossible to solve. So why solve it?>What if you turn the glass really fast? What's the gravitational constant?An intelligent person would disregard both of these as nitpicky because the former question asks about a transient state, which is not interesting and depends on initial parameters not stated in the problem, while the latter doesn't change the answer at all. The shape of the contained does however change the answer and is a part of the statement, so you're asking me to answer your bullshit question using the same implicit assumptions you were making.tl;dr acting like hiveminded cattle doesn't make you smart. Prudent would be a better word.
>>16421521>which solves this as an equal-area problemNo it doesn’t. Did you genuinely not realise that it’s a 2D projection of a 3D object or are you trying to get a rise out of me? inb4 >’but what about other projections?’When you are being given a task, you are supplied with sufficient information to solve it. If you are not given other projections, it means that they don’t influence the solution. >So why solve it?That’s a great question, why should you even solve a test problem like that in the first place? It’s not like you are being paid or receive grades for your answer, so you could just hand in an empty solution to save yourself the effort (if we imagine ourselves in the classroom being tested for spatial reasoning) or you could ignore this thread on 4chan instead of spending your Friday afternoon arguing with strangers. As you can see, one of the first replies to this thread proposes this as a reason why a lot of females fail this task - they just don’t feel like expending effort. But you aren’t ignoring this thread, are you? So there must be a reason why you decided to argue about this problem. Now, the big question is: did you miss the simple fact that >>16397830 illustrates a proper equal-volume 3D solution for any symmetric bottle, or are you pretending that the possibility that the bottle is asymmetric is worth seriously considering and isn’t a nitpick? I’m honestly not sure which option would be more embarrassing.
>>16421512>Why not a cylinder?Assumes more detail.
>>16420888It doesn’t state “estimate the line”.It also doesn't say "Use trigonometry to figure out the proper angle of the line". Its implied dweeb.>>16420953>This is arguing semantics.Tell me how your brain knows instinctively that there are more dots on the right boxes then the left boxes without counting in picrel? Surely as a mathfag you would know that the ONLY way to figure out which boxes have more dots is by counting, but your brain has done it for you, how? And it didn't take long. You didn't have to do any calculation, your brain just did it. Now apply that same idea to the fucking task at hand.>Oh, so you 'don't feel like' solving it properly?Oh shut up you nigger, this is psychology not fucking mathematics. Cant wait to tell you that the brain doesn't actually count objects but estimates it using the approximate number system. Its an estimation task to probe how well your mind performs spatial tasks, stop acting like a fucking moron. The intended purpose is as clear as water.
>>16422660>Its implied dweeb.Humanities niggers assuming everyone is as dumb as them as always>It also doesn't say "Use trigonometry to figure out the proper angle of the line".You can solve this without trigonometry. That would just needlessly limit the test taker’s options
>>16422007>When you are being given a task, you are supplied with sufficient information to solve it.A very bold assumption. Especially when the person giving you this task may not even realize all the things I have mentioned and just thinks “we just want them to draw a line wherever and only care about you it being horizontal to the ground”. Like this nigger >>16422660 here.>It’s not like you are being paid or receive grades for your answerHumanities niggers overthinking and putting social aspects in this as always. My question was rhetorical. If someone asks you to solve something under his own unconscious assumptions he didn’t even think about, the fact that he can’t accurately formulate the problem isn’t my fault or responsibility. All it takes to make this into a valid question is to say “estimate” instead of “draw”. The latter implies a precise answer.
>>16422700>without trigonometryNTA, but, would someone internalize their trigonometry analysis? Just because you don't write it down doesn't mean you aren't using it. And if you aren't writing it down you may not be consciously acknowledging its use.
>be rapeable>protect infant>avoid accidental deathThis is the list of evolutionary pressures affecting the development of the female human's brain for most of forever. I don't see anything about logic or reasoning on the list.
>>16422835You can use Euclidean geometry to solve these problems without involving trigonometry. I am 100% certain that the people replying to me about trigonometry are all Americans, because you retards don’t have geometry as a subject and just do basic trigonometry as part of algebra.
>>16422700>Humanities niggers assuming everyone is as dumb as them as alwaysTranslation:>I have no argument and I must call anon a nigger.Good talk kike.
>>16422936>spend the entire post making an argument >”you have no argument lmao”kys
At this point it seems like two people with diametrically opposite opinions are both arguing with me.>>16422660I’m not sure why you’re insistent on arguing semantics of the world ‘calculate’ with me. The task of comparing the amount of dots in two pictures is calculation by definition, no matter what method you use. Predicting the movement of 2D shapes on the plane is also a calculation because is a part of mathematics called ‘geometry’. (In case the physics anon who’s also arguing with me reads this part, 3D figures in space are also geometry, sorry)> Surely as a mathfag you would know that the ONLY way to figure out which boxes have more dots is by countingYou could also draw a line connecting each point in the left box to a point in a right box not yet connected to another point. Whichever box ends up having unconnected points has more points. I think this is actually closer to what most people do when they solve it (they don’t literally draw lines, but they compare the amounts of points by checking which of the point clouds could ‘contain’ the other with extra points to spare).> Tell me how your brain knows instinctively that there are more dots on the right boxes then the left1. I notice that right boxes seem darker which implies they are filled with more points.2. I use the comparison procedure outlined above.3. I check more closely to make sure that nothing fishy is going on (i. e. right dots aren’t bigger and left dots aren’t overlapping each other). This is an estimate of how my brain solved this problem. You might’ve avoided the third part because you don’t care if you solve the problem incorrectly, but most likely you did the first and second. It’s possible that you didn’t actually realise that you did it and you thought your brain just magically provided you the right answer. It all doesn’t matter, of course. Short recap of our conversation:
1. Anon (who may or may not have been you) brags about how easy the problem is.2. I point out that he didn’t even realise the complexity of the problem.3. You say that you’re supposed to instantly solve the task with ‘spatial working memory’. First of all, it seems like a very bold guess on your part that ‘spatial working memory’ is what you specifically need to solve the task. Then you double down on your incorrect solution.4. I point out that you’re either unable or unwilling to solve the problem, which is ironic since this is a thread about why people (mostly females) are either unable or unwilling to solve the problem.5. Instead of introspecting, you triple down on providing the wrong answer because you don’t feel like you need to solve the problem, using arguments suspiciously similar to those in >>16389565At this point, we are on a brink of entering a loop, unless you explain to me how exactly you are solving a mathematical problem without doing mathematics.>>16422710Hello. You haven’t answered my question: did you not realise that >>16397830 illustrates a proper 3D solution, or do you think that the glass being asymmetric is a reasonable proposition to make here?
>>16424050>The task of comparing the amount of dots in two pictures is calculation by definition, no matter what method you use.No it really isn't. Its spatial intuition that humans have gathered upon thousands of being here on Earth. Its a fundamental concept that spatial ability and math are intertwined so much that 45% of people in the top percentage of spatial ability are STEM PhD's and less than 10% of STEM PhD's were below the top quarter of spatial ability, regardless of sex {1}. So it isn't a secret. If you manage to fail spatial tests like >>16389460 then your statistically never going to go into STEM anyway. So I assume you have done fine at the test but are still arguing that its "not accurate" as some sort of gotcha towards psychologists.{1} https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127>You might’ve avoided the third part because you don’t care if you solve the problem incorrectly, but most likely you did the first and second.The problem is simple, which square has more dots. Doing any calculation for this isn't necessary given your brain has already found the solution. In fact your brain can systematically distinguish if a box has 100 or 115 dots quite well. So your brain can sense a change of magnitude if that magnitude change is 15 dots.>You could also draw a line connecting each point in the left box to a point in a right box not yet connected to another point. Whichever box ends up having unconnected points has more points.What would be the point of that if it is infinitely more easier to let your brain automatically do the work? We aren't asking for exacts here, we're asking "what box has more not "how much more" or "The number of" just which has more.
>>16424051>. First of all, it seems like a very bold guess on your part that ‘spatial working memory’ is what you specifically need to solve the taskIts a psychological test. I don't know how many times I have to reiterate this but its a psychological test. It isn't a math puzzle, it isn't a physics task (though is linked with some aspects of how humans intuitively deal with mechanical problems). Its Piaget's water level test. Piaget was a psychologist, not a mathematician, not a physicist, a psychologist. And the task is measuring what Piaget wanted to measure at the time, which was spatial relationships and ability in human cognition. So because spatial ability is determined by an individuals spatial working memory, if you have a pretty good spatial working memory this task shouldn't be difficult.> I point out that you’re either unable or unwilling to solve the problem, which is ironic since this is a thread about why people (mostly females) are either unable or unwilling to solve the problem.I'm willing to solve it the way it was intended to be solved. Psychoanalytically.>mathematical problem without doing mathematics.This is a psychological test. If you are using mathematics to work it out you are doing in a way not intended to probe your spatial ability, which is what Piaget designed it to do.
>>16397830>>16392934geometry chads vs algebra virgins
Solid thread. Originally dismiss this as " female brains are different then mayo's, unlike the leading propaganda that things like sex or race don't corelate to different average and peak.Males dominate the peak, but there exists extremely rare individual women smarter than most men. Then insert a culture where wealth buys anything (including a high value female)... We need a dating app where males w/out rare desirable jobs can hook up with 50 year old fat black Singles, and! very fat 45+ latina single moms.I tried this myself, on FB Dating, 2 days before even having this idea.No matches so far? I resent popping a Cialis to reach normal status with this grandma, I resent sprinkling 'Body Powder " on an old heffer, and she resents that I'm not wealthy or Hot.
>>16419053Maybe women are just as smart if not smarter? Iq tests in new Zealand say women are actually smarter
>>16424051>did you not realise that >>16397830 # illustrates a proper 3D solution, or do you think that the glass being asymmetric is a reasonable proposition to make here?That’s not a given. And even if its base has rotational or Z_4 symmetry, the solution would still change when the water edge starts touching the base.
>>16429049>when the water edge starts touching the baseBut it doesn't. Nobody is arguing that that solution holds for all possible cases vis a vis glass shape and water level, just for all possible cases that could be represented by the OP without asymmetrical bullshit.
>>16429453>but it doesn’t so? It may. Decrease the amount of water, widen the base, or tilt it more and it will. You’re making so many implicit assumptions to trivilize this completely non-trivial problem. Once again, all that was needed was to replace “draw” with “estimate” and none of these considerations would have needed to be taken into account.
>>16429468>so?The fuck?>Ask a different question and you might need a different answerThe actual fuck?The question being asked is trivial. That it could be complicated is entirely irrelevant. Fucking 3^3 could be complicated if you changed it to 3^3^3^3^3.
