Filtering out invalid/unnecessary information could be part of their 'intelligence' measurement, so that part of the chamber design might actually be intended

@iamzsdawgy

7 ай бұрын

Exactly. They weren’t in the pursuit of making objectively good portal 2 maps. They were in the pursuit of creating portal 2 maps that correlated with intelligence measures

@the1barbarian781

7 ай бұрын

Yeah I feel like he was judging the puzzles based on conventional puzzle design rather than its purpose. It’s like playing a bhop practice map and complaining there is no puzzle

@prattoychanda3322

7 ай бұрын

Nonetheless there was definitely some execution difficulties and the last chamber with the hidden drop is just criminal in my opinion for non fps gamers, because how visually impairing fps games can be sometimes.

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

I address these concerns at 25:30 - 26:15 in my video

@mrhalfsaid1389

7 ай бұрын

While yes this is true to some degree, but perception checks are not a good way of seeing how intelligent people are unless there is some form of communication about said puzzle BEING a perception check, as even perceptive people will miss things if they don't have enough visual clues to find said perception check. Like someone who has never played the portal games could very easily see the fizzlers as walls due to how they are placed and that there is nothing telling them that it is indeed not a wall

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the red herrings and obtuse design were the point of the test's design. The red herrings seemed to have been taught like any other mechanic by slowly building up into more and more red herrings. When designing a game or puzzle, you'd want to subliminally teach design language to the player to keep them feeling like they're making progress with only their own mind, that's just pattern recognition. Having large white panels on a wall where their design slightly changes where a portal should be placed is a perfect example of that. Like you, I don't think these are really designed to be fun engaging puzzles, they're intended to make you think about every element and if they're actually required to get the solution. You could arguably say the pattern recognition tests they they also use do have red herrings too, they're all the other possible answers. And whenever I'm wracking my brain I'm often doing this specifically, trying to figure out what is the thing I actually should be focusing on since other things also need to be considered as a possible cause of the problem I'm facing, and often time's its a super lame and in my face thing that ends up fixing it. As expected, the red herrings and the obvious take away of the tests. I don't think the tests wouldn't be testing the same things without them. It also would've been nice to link the study and original workshop maps in the description since I wanted to test myself before watching the video but your version of test battery really wasn't an accurate version of it after having watched you play through the original tests. Now, I do think it would be interesting and cool if you'd could get consistent testing results with what the researchers got on your version the map, if that were to happen I'd gladly eat my words! Also, don't let this mean sounding comment sound like I don't like your videos either, I find them to be very interesting and always try to watch them when they come out, I just disagree with the takeaway in this one and wanted to say why. tldr: good/engaging puzzle design =/= what is trying to be tested here

@thedoczekpl

5 ай бұрын

Study can be found by googling the title in 0:23 Maps he played are the maps by user "NA DOTA LOL" (visible after typing "Portal Test Battery" in workshop), although I don't have 100% confidence these are the exact recreation of what's written in the study (the username clearly suggests they are not the original tests), and accessing the study costs $28

My hottest take: Considering the replication crisis, saying a psychology study is science is their biggest red herring 😆

Gotta love when the puzzles aren't puzzles but perception checks

So, that's how you promote low-quality test chamber and bad design by saying "its a IQ measurement science". Clever! Noted. Might as well I'll try that myself too.

This really is one of the more obscure things in the workshop, didn't expect actual studies to exist for that. However i would love seeing puzzle games like portal 2 used further for academic purposes. Could make the school and uni life a bit more creative in my eyes but that may only be my opinion. I willwatch the video after paying the testing battery remake to avoid spoilers and to clearely measure the IQ of my 2 still functioning braincells and the hamster in a wheel up there somewhere.

i kinda love how this is like the gamer version of some poindexter sitting down with an IQ test and acing everything instantly and criticizing it for not implementing the latest neuroscience research

Their 'introducing' of some new principles is downright comical. Introduction to laser: 'here is a giant wall of lasers that will give you visual overload and is much more complicated than is necessary to introduce you to the concept.' Introduction to light bridge: 'here are five in a level crammed full of other stuff so that you cannot make heads or tails of what is going on.' And the red herrings are honestly awful. I could see the cube stacking and cube fling through disabled fizzler being interesting as a standalone challenge where there are no red herrings so you will quickly arrive at the conclusion that the relevant mechanic is the only thing you can do, but using them as a core mechanic in multiple puzzles with red herrings all throughout seems dumb.

@michielhorikx9863

7 ай бұрын

I played through your remake - much nicer honestly. The scale of the rooms feels much better, no huge empty space for these tiny puzzles. No more red herrings, all the fluff has been cut out. Just the puzzles. Great job!

This is what I hate about intelligence tests, especially academic ones. They revolve almost entirely around overly-specific contexts, trick questions and sometimes even just get down to a matter of pure semantics, like a malevolent genie wrote it. They do not in any way shape or form measure actual intelligence, probably why Hawking said only losers know their IQ. I even argue that the entire purpose of all school systems, including college, have nothing to do with education or intelligence, but rather just serve as a mark of being able to complete aggressively extensive, mind-numbing and aggravating trials, to prove that you can do so in the real world, AKA put up with having a job. Maybe this is why most "software engineers" only know how to copypaste from StackOverflow.

@thewiseowl8804

7 ай бұрын

Why are you upset?

@SuitedGhost

7 ай бұрын

As a "software engineer" I see this as an absolute loss.

@ennayanne

7 ай бұрын

​@@thewiseowl8804Because we live under capitalism

@thewiseowl8804

7 ай бұрын

@@ennayanne Doesn’t the world just suck? GOD. I’m fed up with life.

@ennayanne

7 ай бұрын

@@thewiseowl8804 same. but you have to live to spite the cunts that want us dead

"Real science in Portal 2" yet it's the completely unscientific concept of IQ

This was definitely not what I expected. In my opinion it is acceptable to have red herring in the tests to measure intelligence but it wasn't really to the heart of the game. But I wasn't expecting such a strong reaction from Mike either, which has fascinated me more than the test itself. This just goes to show how regular test makers and player tend to think about the level design of the game. Trying to deceive the players as less as possible, taking the psychological factors out of the equation and getting them to catch on to the thread of logic by giving them the exact of tools to execute them. One of the reasons I liked portal 1 is that it did have that kind of clever level design but also had more than one way of solving it, added with slight obscurity and imperfection. Honestly that enhanced the experience because it challenged the player psychologically alongside just logic. So sometimes a little bit of deception can be fun. ;)

@prattoychanda3322

7 ай бұрын

Also I do think portal 1 can be a pretty good measure of intelligence, although not very "scientific". The pacing of the problem solving isn't obscured by the story telling as much as portal 2. It even starts with a really good introductory level which most players can pick up on and progress through learning. Yes there is some bits that does have a little difficulty of execution but not anywhere near to what I have seen in this "test battery". Timing the players can be a good measure of iq. I have watched a lot of blind let's play of portal 1 and observing their play time is actually not a bad measure of iq. But it's just my theory and experience of the game that fascinated me.

@benjaminlum5894

7 ай бұрын

I do agree that some red herrings are acceptable or even good if you're testing for it, but I also understand where Mike is coming from seeing how many of the maps in the battery have red herrings taking up 90% of the chamber

@prattoychanda3322

7 ай бұрын

Yeah definitely. It is much better to avoid red herring at all cost when you are creating a chamber dense with logic.@@benjaminlum5894

i beat your map in 7.76 minutes. edit: i accidentally found a way to softlock in your map. theres one chamber that introduces flinging a cube where the whole solution is to place 2 portals and thats it. i just placed both portals and ran to the stairs waiting for them to go up and got stuck inside them and this can happen probably in some other chambers in the map. (its not 100% chance to happen and theres probably no way for you to fix it other than removing the stairs which is not ideal.)

@edwardkingsley2081

7 ай бұрын

i launched myself onto the button😅

If faster solving = higher IQ, then timescale users can cheat for higher score. Or maybe it’s not cheating, and it’s actually those who resort to any means necessary to win that are inherently more intelligent. Or perhaps it is not the ability to solve hard puzzles, but rather ability to design that is a far better measure. IQ = opinion. I don’t believe in it, nor see the value in it (other than that value which people are able to convince themselves it has). It’s just a fun thing to think about, like MBTI or Enneagram. Or the chaotic-lawful good-evil chart. Or “which Disney princess would you marry.” A fun way to pass the time for those with high curiosity and/ or vanity traits.

Of course, they weren't trying to create good puzzles but good IQ tests, and the test subject has to discern useful and irrelevant elements (red herrings). But still, from the beginning the premise seemed like nonsense to me. Clearly, a player with 2000 hours of experience (or even just someone who has finished the main game) is going to have a significant advantage. That and things like cubes not always landing perfectly on buttons render this test meaningless, imo.

They deadass stated that they didn't want the test to be based on existing understanding of the game or the difficulty of performing the intended solution but the tests shown blatantly rely on _both_ of these things through the use of red herrings and janky unreliable solutions. This kind of design does not encourage the player to think outside of the box, it creates an atmosphere of distrust; I can't begin to fathom how this backstabbing game design tests intelligence. The only thing this tests as far as I can tell is your fucking patience.

This sounds like the kind of bullshit torture that you might expect Wheatley to have come up with if he had enough time.

I feel like the designer didnt fully comprehend the puzzlemaker at time of creating the tests, such as how the exit door can be kept sealed by input.

I’m just glad they didn’t get around to using aerial faith plates. Imagine all the fun they would have putting targets on the walls in places you can’t fling to because the faith plate that launches you there is actually inside a wall! 22:58 Also, no, canonically you play as Bendy the 2d stick figure in all community maps.

Red herrings aside the pixel perfect hope to get lucky cube flings are such a bad idea when you only have 5 min

I feel like the scientists didn't knew how to design the chambers, so they made people feel stupider

That final puzzle genuinely made me laugh out loud. not only is it the most obligatory trap I have ever seen in a non-troll map, but yet again the solution relies on random happenstance perception that is incredibly easy to miss and not necessarily obvious even when you DO see it, instead of actual logic and critical thinking skills. These are not tests of intelligence, they are tests of speed. Not timing, but speed. "How quickly can you root through the red herrings and pointless elements to get to the elements that actually matter?" is the only thing these maps are testing besides basic motor functions and understanding of relative space. I think that it is pretty obvious that the reason people tapped out after 7 was just because they got overwhelmed or hung up on frivolity. I am genuinely astonished that these scientists thought intelligence could be measured with these tests, even existing outside of the Portal community and not being familiar with basic map design guidelines.

can't trick me into watching puzzle design if I always expect you to talk about about it :D

I want to say that I am an 11 year old that is trying to begin creating videos for fun, based on my favourite series - portal. You are such an inspiring person and i aspire to be like you one day. I love your videos so much.

I'll defend 12 (the first cube climb one) as an accidentally epic troll map. Would be neat in an "unfair Portal" pack. The rest, eeehhh, what am I looking at... :D RE red herrings, I don't feel it's necessarily always bad to have one _in general,_ but _good_ red herrings are extremely difficult to design. Moreover, Portal/Portal 2 seems to actively resists them -- I _have_ seen good, satisfying red herrings in other games. Never in Portal. Ever. The difference between a bad and a good red herring is that a bad one makes the player think "wait, what was that for?" (once the puzzle is solved), while a good one makes the player think "oh you fucking bastard, holy shit". Minimum extra clutter, maximum extra misdirection. Somehow in Portal a red herring _always_ feels like way too much clutter, though, and I don't know why. (Though "you thought this item was for X, but it's actually for Y, while X is done completely differently" _does_ work, even in Portal. Since everything is used, nothing feels worthless.) RE quirky moves: I'd actually say the ghost cube move straddles the line a bit -- it has cool uses, but it's not something you can meaningfully figure out as an extension of the game's other mechanics without a map specifically teaching you. Once you're OK at the base game, ideally your ability to solve a given puzzle should depend on what you can _derive,_ not on what you can _discover by stumbling around._ (Although I guess "move the cube around the fizzler" can be derived logically, it's just very inelegant.) Cube respawning, flinging through a ceiling, pre-set portals not fizzling (in retrospect, chamber 9 in Portal 1 really didn't need a hole at all), null portals, etc, all technically "tricks" in comparison to the base game, but they are pretty much extensions of existing mechanics. That makes them feel legit, and trying to create new tricks of _this_ type... I feel that's good practice for designers. On the other hand, there's this crazy map (forgot the name) where one of the first puzzles involved shoving a laser cube through a floor portal to make it reflect a laser STRAIGHT UP. (It was to be placed on top of another cube, so no, you couldn't just tip it over, either.) Hats off for the discovery itself, but WTF, that should not have ever been an actual intended solution, LMAO.

@R.B.

7 ай бұрын

Consider some of the challenge maps in Portal 2. If you are going for minimum portals, there might be solutions which don't use some elements. If you solve the level the first time using an alternate means, does that mean some of the other cubes in the level are red herring? Is it perhaps more possible that these IQ levels were solved in ways which might not have been the intended solutions? I think that's especially true given that two of the chambers were solved the same way, walking the cube around the fizzler.

You should totally make your own IQ-Test battery.... FOR SCIENCE!!! (you monster)

We noticed the thing at the same time at 21:10. I can't 💀

[13:08] Unintended Solution: Cube toss is possible .. But, agreed red herrings are pointless. [17:08] Cube Climb, surprised you didn't spot it sooner. [18:13] Getting upset because your bored, 🤣 [21:43] Not sure why you didn't jump with the cube, enabling you to place it on the button, removing the need for chance.🤔You were probably too busy being upset about the red herring. 😅 Good video, thanks for putting it together.

The thing I take away from this the most is the importance of player testing

Kinda surprised I completed it in 6:13, which I'm highly doubted about my results. For me the most of my times are wasted on stacked cube climbing or jumping you name it. Since I'm not used to that strategy and leaving little spaces for me to jump.

A shame they were not enjoyable Portal Chambers :(

when you test people's inteligence with portal maps, but the bottleneck of the maps you've made is terrible mapping

4:36 They do this in University? They made us do this in 6th grade dude.

Wow. Just wow This video is so good. 🔥

can you provide the link to the chambers?

Now measure it with Isotope /j

New vid does not disappoint

First gave Mikes chamber a thumbs down for the cheese with using the blocks near the switch to jump up (something an experienced player might know, and something i learned now and somehow wished i've never learned), then i saw what he had to work with and changed it. What an improvement, especially doing away with most red herrings, reducing cheese and making it less spacious. It's still bad though. The problem with cheese is: you never know if it's the intended solution, and you lose all good will of the player. Once confronted with this the player will look for cheese in all further levels and a lot of it may not be by design. Also, am i supposed to solve e.g. an online/automated intelligence test by looking in the program/html for solutions or by hacking the scoring system? Sure, they want to test outside the box thinking, but Portal gives enough ingame mechanisms to do that without cheesing the game. Just play through Portal 2 to see how it's done properly. On the last map i only found those hidden holes because the map looked strange in the loading screen, i had given up on it before. It's the kind of stuff i want to strangle developers for. Another thing is time limits, even generous ones. I like puzzle games to give me time for thinking. It also differentiates more between experienced and not so experienced players, especially with all the red herrings. Experienced players will figure out what is possible and what isn't much, much quicker.

9-14 is not a red herring, but a way for newer player to discover the button on the top of the ramp. But still I wouldn’t argue that the level is designed well. The portal placements is not very clear.

Honestly I feel like these tests actually bring down the validity of the paper. These tests are not testing the same thing as the pattern recognition at all. It leans very hard towards the vetern players.

The i.Q. is kind of serene and high-speed on the Portal games. i.Q. Portal 게임에서는 속도가 빠르고 조용합니다.

On my fourth attempt, I finished the whole battery in 4:50 flat, clearly I am 15x smarter then the average person C:

First of all, I absolutely agree that these tests should not be considered a useful measure of intelligence. However, you only briefly touch on this at the end which I think is a shame. I find the way you describe the research and showcase the levels in this video to be incredibly misleading, even if it was unintentional. These tests do not "measure your IQ." Nor does the study claim that these tests provide a reliable measure of fluid intelligence. They only come to the conclusion that "tests such as these MAY be useful at assessing fluid intelligence." The researchers data showed a correlation between their measure of "Portal ability" and established measures of fluid intelligence which supports their conclusion. Even the tests they compared their results to are only measures of fluid intelligence and not IQ in general. Further, I would argue the notion of IQ is outdated and trying to create an intelligence test like this using Portal seems misguided at best. Nonetheless, I appreciated your insights on puzzle design and thought your advice for designers was more insightful than the conclusions of this study! I hope this video will encourage people to create fun and interesting puzzles rather than wasting time making potentially dubious "intelligence" tests.

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

Fair points! Indeed, the focus of the video was just to discuss some puzzle design principles and to dress up the narrative I had to enhance the truth a bit here and there. Possibly misleading (clickbait etc etc...), but ultimately not the main point of the video

Pretty sure the red herrings and weird solutions were the most important parts about these tests, hence why they kinda fail as good portal maps. I am no scientist myself but I'm pretty sure the whole idea behind this was to find the 1 good solution amongst an increasingly larger amount of fake or pointless things, hence the 5 minute time limit, since it doesn't matter how many "bad solutions" there are if you have infinite time to figure out the one good one. All in all I think these maps were less about solving the quirky solutions and more about not being bogged down by the red herrings. If I would have to guess the ones who failed to complete all of them failed because they recognized a red herring as the solution instead of going with a usually much simpler but weird right solution. Would be interesting to see the replays of the actual participants though. So yeah these maps kinda suck by portal 2 standards, but I think they are a good fit for the purpose of what they were testing for.

17:20 I love this solution. Amazing troll move. Now, I haven't made a Portal 2 map since..... well, a while, but I remember that the SDK had special blocks made for ensuring portals would line up in a certain way, and modifying the velocity of things passing through to ensure they reliably hit the targets. Like, in game, a portal close enough to under a cube dropper would be snapped to position. Chell or a cube passing thru a 45 degree portal at roughly X speed would be adjusted to exactly X speed to ensure they landed on whatever platform they needed. These mappers don't seem to have known about these features. Or how to make the maps feel right, instead of a big open mess.

Man, I finished your Test Battery Remastered in 7:52.49 it can't be this easy

Yeah when you restate the thesis that way. Yes, that kind of does make sense...

you sound so defeated, and i get it. holy hell that looks painful to play for a puzzle point of view.

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

Thank you for your sympathy :']

I honestly forgot about this video lol. So i finally watched it and well let me tell you my face is just as red as the herrings because i am atleast just as pissed of at some of these "tests" as you are. Some of them just feel like that joke test teaching you that you should read every exercise before starting a test if you know what i am referring to.

I beat all maps in like 3 minutes each.

Do you think linear difficulty curves are always best? My TUBER series alternates easier/harder because I liked the idea of having a simpler test as a break to help reset the player before tackling another difficult one. A lot of players seemed to think the order made no sense and I should have just done easiest to hardest (even though players had different ideas of what that order would be). Thoughts, Mr. Daas?

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

I think it depends on many factors. It makes sense to have a general increase in difficulty to keep the player engaged, and also because it is typically expected, and solving an easier puzzle after a hard one might give the player less satisfaction. But each time a new mechanic is introduced, it makes sense to have a bit of a gentle intermission to accomodate the player; so tl;dr it depends!

why did you not link the download to the chambers in the desc??

Given I already disagree with the premise of 'IQ' as an accurate or fair institutional way of measuring intelligence, this will be an interesting watch.

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

For the record, I don't believe too much in them either!

@Mate_Antal_Zoltan

7 ай бұрын

brown hands typed this

@snrken

7 ай бұрын

same

@DemonixTB

7 ай бұрын

​@@Mate_Antal_Zoltan Racism fail

@robuxyyyyyyyyyy4708

7 ай бұрын

​@@Mate_Antal_Zoltan Cheeto dusted hands typed your comment

they made an interesting attempt but they weren't level designers

The pattern matching puzzles you showed at around 4:40 also had red herrings in them so I think they were just trying to recreate that even if it makes for shitty puzzles in a videogame. The arrows on the paper test includes lots of possible incorrect answers and symbols that are never used anywhere in the test. If the only options were the correct one and some that don't make any sense then it would make the test easier since it would limit what conclusions you can come to. It's not very fun design but I can see the purpose.

@thomasko0947

7 ай бұрын

in my experience: Test with only possible answers are much harder than test with some answers that are just nonsense

u gonna share those original test maps?

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

It's not so easy to leave a link to them as they are not part of a single collection and I don't want to spam the whole description full of links. Also, I'm not too positive about them in the video so I'm not sure if I want to actively draw traffic to these tests :/

@ThrowTop

7 ай бұрын

@@Mikeastro ah fair. i played ur test map and got 6:12

@Skellitor301_VA

7 ай бұрын

@@Mikeastro I mean, shouldn't that be up to the people to decide if they're worth trying? I looked through the vid and wanted to try my hand to it. Even if it seems like it's not made with gameplay design choices in mind, it still looks somewhat interesting as it's part of a legitimate science experiement. That should count for something

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

@@Skellitor301_VA Perhaps; though if you really want to find them, a quick search in the steam workshop will suffice; they are not hidden or anything, just publicly available

@Skellitor301_VA

7 ай бұрын

@@Mikeastro Ye, I found them in the screens after you beat the levels :)

Making and publishing a positively ridiculous study sounds like excellent academic hijinks, I'm sure they had a laugh. I just wonder which of them yearned to be an opthalmologist instead.

It looks like there's another cube in test 14 that can be gotten (the two buttons at the start), but what's the point when cheese is there.

for the sake of Portal Science, I had to stop watching at 6:30.... but I whacked a like, dropped a sub, and added this to my "Watch Later" list. I need to play this one myself first.. (: just gotta re-download Portal 2 first.

PhDs can't make good Portal 2 maps. That's good to know.

2:07 1.7k hours and missing achievements? 👀

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

I know, very shameful! In fact, I've only played the Portal 2 campaign once when I got the game back in 2014...

how unexpected and pleasant

could you link the original test couse i literally cannot watch the video until ive completed the test myself XD

I would say that besides all of what the other people have said , that it’s not designed around the game itself and more around their tests, I think that you may just be beyond their intended subject range considering your extensive knowledge of portal mapmaking and not just familiarity with the game. I’m sure they meant for people to test who have played it before but haven’t really looked into the map principals or anything.

I mean, if you're good at any puzzle game there is a decent chance you're pretty clever yourself. And likewise, being good at solving puzzles does improve your overall cleverness as general puzzle solving skills are valueable skills to have, as many things are in essence just puzzles ...

Bro, if it's taken you over 2000 hours to play Portal 2, you might not be as good of a puzzle solver as you think.... I'm being sarcastic for anyone who didn't catch it.

where can i play the original test

Im not smart, I just wanted some cake!

Where i can download it?

did you ask the people who wrote the paper whether these chambers are actually what was used in the research? this looks like something made by a random dude who has nothing to do with it

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

I did not contact them but the descriptions of the chambers they give in the paper match the actual chambers that I played so I'm pretty sure they are very similar if not the same tests

Bills: an amount of money owed for goods supplied or services rendered, set out in a printed or written statement of charges.

"Almost no exceptions" to trapping the player- now I'm very curious, what do you consider those rare acceptable exceptions?

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

One example that I personally find an exception is in some blue funnel maps with goo, sometimes portal surfaces face the goo so travelling in the funnel would get you stuck over the goo against a wall or something. I personally find it sufficiently clear that this is to be avoided and that it can be left in a map, also because such configurations are so common that some maps would suddenly warrant multiple useless return paths just to avoid it by brute force. There's probably more edge cases but this is the one that came to mind first

Can we get the original puzzles?

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

Sure! They are publicly available on the workshop

VGPs are used to operate with given items without any thought: cube-button, white surface - portal, solved. To equalise the experience of nonVGP and VGP red herrings are needed! It breaks the familiar pattern and places you with new kind of challenge - exploring the environment and operating with something new - exactly what fluid intelligense is. I like the study and dislike the video. I disagree with everything he said, he wanted to stay in his comfort zone. (23:40 couldn't he jump himself with the cube to place it accurately on the first attempt? Hmmm)

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching! You are right about 23:40; I realised this too while editing haha

It's kinda funny how well this test showcases how unreliable "IQ Tests" really are. Yes, this is specifically for Fluid IQ, but this is so badly designed that it's practically rigged for people who don't know the game's design well enough, or are easily distracted or have easy doubt thanks to all the red herrings. The maps being massive also just wasted time, it's like having to do a colouring puzzle, but the pencils aren't actually sharpened so you gotta sharpen them up first, which has no significance to the test itself really and just makes it take longer due to bad design

If that screenshot of ur hours and achievements was accurate to today, then in your next video you must acquire the remaining achievements. Having 2,000 hours without all achievements is unacceptable 😢

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

Maybe you are right... I am ashamed

Ultimately, and I say this in response to any discussion regarding IQ or measuring intelligence, it's impossible to accurately measure intelligence because intelligence can be displayed in many different ways beyond just logic. Somebody may be emotionally intelligent and navigate their way through their social life effortlessly. An acrobat will have great physical intelligence, knowing how to move their body in ways that others can't. A skilled chessplayer displays strategic intelligence, knowing how to plan ahead and analyse their opponent. Somebody might be a good problem solver, able to take into account every factor to come up with an efficient solution. Everybody is intelligent in some areas, but struggle with others, so slapping a number on somebody can never be a true indicator of it. Ultimately, IQ tests exist only to measure a specific kind of intelligence, making it quite flawed.

Apperently I have 131 IQ

the horrible design is pretty fitting considering what their flawed goal is

Why am I being recommended so many videos with no more than 50 views? Is this some sort of sign? (I got recommended another video that linked to this one)

👍

Of course, it's a puzzle game

@Azure_Gust931

2 ай бұрын

15:40 "No!" I love it😂

@Azure_Gust931

2 ай бұрын

17:33

@Azure_Gust931

2 ай бұрын

Oh on, these puzzles are terrible

25:39 the original tests: _are literally about choosing the right answer out of multiple wrong ones_

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

Could you elaborate on how a multiple choice question would constitute a red herring? To me, the test would have contained red herrings if there were multiple lines or scribbles added to the pictures from which you had to deduce the pattern, but which were actually meaningless, did not follow a pattern whatsoever and only served as distractions. This is not the case for these tests

@litterbox019

7 ай бұрын

@@Mikeastro in the tests you are given multiple options to choose from, in which only one is correct in the portal tests you also get multiple options, of which you only need one and the rest are either unreachable or unnecessary is it not the same?

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

@@litterbox019 I see your point, but I don't think it's quite the same. The wrong answers for the logic tests are not distractions in my opinion; they are necessary because you can't ask people to actually draw the correct pattern by hand as an answer. You don't waste time and effort trying out each wrong answer; the only way to get to the right answer is to look at the pictures given, deducing the patterns and then picking the only option in which all these patterns continue to hold. Thanks for watching and for the input though!

@litterbox019

7 ай бұрын

@@Mikeastro you still have to look at every pattern, it does take way less effort but you're still checking for each option maybe to some extent the portal tests are just badly designed multiple choice questions, since that's what they're trying to compare it to

This study looks more like excuse for so called scientists to play their favorite game and to force others to play it. I love Portal 2, but I don't see how these test chambers are related to any real science.

soyence!!! I don't see the issue with red herrings. I mean, in real life you aren't just given the tools you need either, but instead need to even collect them yourself and determine whether they are useful or not. 20:22 That's regardless of game experience. Can't say I have not played Portal2, but I pretty much left any extra content alone and I still immediately saw the solution. None of this abusing game mechanics to the point of breaking the game either. You would know this, especially if you even took a basic university mathematics course. The only bad thing are the two you have mentioned: Having to rely on physics got push a button & getting trapped. THose "modern design principles" seem to dumb it down to the most stupid. I completely and vehemently disagree that red herrings are bad design.

@Mikeastro

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching! As it so happens, I have actually taken a basic university mathematics course. Why is that relevant here?

These people should be embarrassed lol

Jesus IS KING