The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), developed in 2005 by psychologist and Yale School of Management professor Shane Frederick, is the world’s shortest IQ test, comprised of only three questions.

Before introducing the test to the world in 2005, Frederick tested the CRT on 3,428 respondents in 35 separate studies over a 26-month period beginning in January 2003. Only 17% of students from the top universities in the world (like Yale and Harvard) got a perfect score. People who score high are less vulnerable to biases in thinking.

## So how did you do?

H/t *FOTM*‘s josephbc69

Here’s something depressing about America’s college graduates:

See also:

- New study finds fluoride lowers IQ in children
- How smart or stupid is your country?
- Tweets reveal Americans really are getting more stupid
- America needs a voting test to screen out the abysmally stupid (2 men stumped by how long it takes to go 80 miles at 80 mph)

*~Eowyn*

Advertisements

Clever. Now I have a question….. If a respondent answers all three questions correctly, what is his/her IQ?

LikeLiked by 1 person

I know of a shorter IQ test.

Did you vote for Hillary Clinton?

LikeLiked by 6 people

LikeLiked by 1 person

Comment of the week!

LikeLiked by 2 people

thelonelyauthorblog . . . . I must admit the IQ test you devised shows your IQ is literally off the charts.

LikeLiked by 3 people

LOL The test works.

LikeLiked by 2 people

Ha-Ha-Ha-larious!

~ D-FensDogG

Ferret-Faced Fascist FriendsLikeLiked by 3 people

A Facebook reader of FOTM wrote this comment: ” Still don’t understand the ball and bat one unless they’re throwing in $0.05 for tax”

Here’s my answer:

“The bat (X) costs $1 MORE THAN the ball (Y) means that the bat costs $1 + Y. Both bat and ball together would then cost $1 + Y + Y (where $1+Y = cost of bat). Since we are told the cost of both bat and ball is $1.10, that means the bat (X) costs $1.05 and the ball (Y) costs $0.05, making bat(X)+ball(Y) = $1.10.”

LikeLiked by 1 person

To me the bat is Donald Trump, the ball is Killary Rotten Clinton, bases full, HOME RUN,!!

LikeLiked by 1 person

Pretty fun. The widget question is ambiguous, as it does not clearly state that five machines make five widgets in five minutes. My immediate question was “do they mean five minutes per widget, or five widgets each?”

LikeLiked by 1 person

Since there is no “each” in the phrase “If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets”, I understood it to mean exactly that — 5 machines took a total of 5 minutes to make a total of 5 widgets — which, in turn, means that each machine took 5 minutes to make 1 widget. That, in turn, means that no matter how many machines, each machine still takes 5 minutes to make 1 widget. Conclusion: It takes 100 machines 5 minutes to make 100 widgets.

The trap is the number “100” machines. It’s a distraction. Even if the question were “How long would it take 1 million machines to make 1 million widgets,” the answer would still be “5 minutes”.

LikeLike

That’s exactly right (the trap). You can just think logically about factories and industrialization for a common sense view: the whole idea about buying more machines or hiring more workers is to get more work done or product made in the same amount of time. Conversely, if you took the question to the absurd and asked “what about a million machines?”, it would be pretty clearly absurd to think it would then take a million minutes; why then would the owner buy a million machines? It’s always to

reducethe time required and/or to increase production.That said, one can’t definitively say from the question that a single machine can produce a widget in 5 minutes

unlesswe’re also told that all 5 machines were working simultaneously and started at the same time… which is the logical assumption. So you have to go to common sense and logic about what you know.BTW, my initial thought on the 1st question

was$0.10 for the ball, but a quick calculation showed that to be illogical. So I did a quick re-calc of $0.05 and $1.05 (after dismissing the possibility of $0.01 and $1.01), which worked. If it hadn’t, I was ready to do a little algebra as you showed… ;~)The 3rd question was easy for me, as I do a lot of base-2 math for computer stuff. It’s also involved in a pet peeve of mine, saying things multiply by “folds” as in “4-fold increase”. Which does NOT mean 4x more. It means, technically, 2^4, or 16x more. Each time you raise the n value in 2^n by one, you double the result. Just as when you fold a sheet of paper once (in half) — you now have 2 folds. Do it again and you have four. A third time and you have eight, thus doubling each fold… It’s a bit like compounded interest, a favorite of mine. So in the question above, the day before the pond was covered, it was exactly half covered.

LikeLiked by 1 person

I confused that one also; I presumed that each machine was producing 5 in 5 minutes. The other did take careful thought for me.

LikeLiked by 1 person

This test has been, uh, tested on thousands of people before it made it onto FOTM. This issue is likely an implicit element of the test.

LikeLike

“This issue is likely an implicit element of the test.”

Interesting point!

LikeLike

I’m always a little bit afraid to take tests like this, in case I disappoint myself. This was a pretty good little test, however, and fun. I’m going to try to remember these for dinner parties.

LikeLiked by 2 people

Don’t laugh.

Questions two and three I got easily, but I have to admit I blew the first one.

LOL – I guess that means I am dumb enough to get into Harvard. 😦

Full disclosure: I have heard the third question before.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reblogged this on kommonsentsjane and commented:

Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents.

For your information.

kommonsentsjane

LikeLiked by 1 person

i got the widget answer right but that’s about it lol

LikeLiked by 1 person

I got them all right, but

ONLYbecause I knew ahead of time that whatever the correct answers were, they’d be different from what seemed “obvious”. Because I was forewarned that “the questions make it easy for people to quickly jump to conclusions”, I actually thought longer about each question than I normally would have. Had I answered quickly and impulsively, I’d have gotten all 3 of them wrong.Math was always my worst subject. Followed by English. Over the years, I became a voracious reader and got a whole lot better at English. But my math still stinks.

~ D-FensDogG

STMcC Presents ‘Battle Of The Bands’LikeLiked by 1 person

“Math was always my worst subject.”

The world’s shortest IQ test isn’t really a test on Math, beyond simple addition and subtraction, but of one’s logical-analytical and reasoning skills.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Quite true, Dr. E. As demonstrated by the fact that I didn’t fail. Had it been true math, I’d undoubtedly have gone 0 for 3 and been sent back down to the minors. :o)

~ D-FensDogG

Stephen T. McCarthy Reviews…LikeLiked by 1 person

One of three right. Im an idiot.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Actually, the test isn’t so much of intelligence as it is of coming too hastily to a conclusion. 🙂

LikeLike

1 for 3. Duh.

Here’s a fun one

LikeLiked by 1 person