Free Online IQ Test Questions and Answers
(PD) Francois Boucher — The Genies of Art
Copyright ©2012-2021 — updated February 10, 2021
The following 'IQ' test questions are designed for entertainment and to help illustrate your own personal talents in the several different types of intelligence. Except for the Einstein puzzle, the questions were created by myself, and to the best of my knowledge the questions do not mirror any questions found on proctored IQ tests. The third question is similar to one on the written SesquIQ SQ test. The questions purposefully do not have multiple choice answers: an individual must actually solve each question without hints and without having a high chance of guessing a correct answer. Individuals skilled in taking IQ tests know how to score well without effort, and the following questions will help to verify to the individuals that a high IQ score alone is not proof of high intelligence. This page currently has four questions with the answers towards the bottom. As time permits I will include additional questions.
A version of the fifth question may be used on a future intelligence test, and therefore it is necessary to not make the answer public. One of the reasons why the question is being presented here is to help each individual recognize for themselves the major differences in abstract reasoning. Variations of the third question are now standard on the new SQ tests. The third question has proven to be extremely valuable, and the results of some of the tests are now discussed in the Beyond Prodigies book.
IQ Question #1
A spherical object is traveling at a velocity equal to within 99.999% of 7 times the object's radius per second. A second spherical object of within 99.999% of the width as the first sphere is traveling 5% slower than the first object, and the second object is located in the same path as the first object. The first object cannot exceed the second object's speed by more than 20%, the first sphere's location is 3% of its width behind the second sphere, and the first object's maximum rate of acceleration is 6% per second of the first object's current velocity. The first and second spheres are both traveling a straight path through a sequence of stationary impenetrable/immovable rings that are of to within 99.999% of 101% of the diameter of the first sphere, the rings' thickness is .003% of the first sphere's width, and the rings are spaced apart at 16 times the first sphere's radius.
Describe the sequence by how the first object can locate itself in front of the second object while still traveling through the rings sequentially and without the first object touching nor altering the path of the second object nor any other object besides the first sphere.
The time limit for this question is two (2) seconds plus another twenty (20) seconds to write the solution. Start timing your response now.
IQ Answer #1
The sequence is for the first sphere/vehicle to slow its speed and to create a sufficient distance between the first and second spheres so that the first sphere can accelerate at maximum acceleration and achieve a maximum speed that will occur prior to the first sphere passing through a ring and before the first sphere touches the second sphere. Once past the ring, the first sphere alters it course to travel around the second sphere, and the first sphere returns to the original straight path after the first sphere's rear edge passes the second sphere's front edge.
Approximately one minute is required to write and solve the problem mathematically, but the innate human ability for analog-weighing logic can be capable of solving the problem almost instantly and without use of arithmetic.
In the real world, good drivers are capable of instantaneously analyzing and concluding the specific 'mathematical' calculations necessary to safely pass a slower vehicle in congested traffic without the driver exceeding speed limit laws. It is estimated that approximately 99% of humans are not capable of correctly estimating the simultaneous correlations of speed, rate of acceleration, distance of travel, length of vehicle, width of vehicle, and the kinetic variances (including ballistics) associated with an animate object relative to other animate and inanimate objects. An individual may learn how to calculate mathematics, but if the individual cannot apply the mathematics to real-world scenarios, then the individual cannot achieve genius: "The intellectual ability and application to correctly perceive sensorially and mentally, correctly analyze perceptions, and correctly react creatively to one's environment at a degree that is beyond the ability of the average human." (Myths, Facts, and Lies About Prodigies, an unfinished manuscript by Larry Gowdy.) An individual who is of a genius intellect may also have a high IQ score, but the IQ score is not the qualifier for genius.
In the real world, individuals like Jackie Stewart are evaluated, judged, and verified to be of a far greater useful intelligence than high IQers who cannot adequately operate a vehicle nor accurately shoot a gun. Individuals like William Sidis achieved high academic success, yet the individuals were reportedly clumsy with little eye-hand coordination. Jackie Stewart's difficulty with dyslexia and writing skills was not overly different than William Sidis' strained handwriting, but where Sidis excelled in academic thought, Stewart excelled in physical thought/actions. It is common throughout humanity for individuals to have different levels of intellectual ability, with some talents being above average and with other talents being below average. Sidis was 'smarter' than Stewart if the measurement were limited to that of speaking languages, but Stewart is 'smarter' than Sidis if the measurement were limited to that of applying one's intelligence to the real world.
Howard Gardner's list of eight different intelligences is useful: (1) Bodily-kinesthetic, (2) Interpersonal, (3) Intrapersonal, (4) Logical-mathematical, (5) Musical, (6) Naturalistic, (7) Verbal-linguistic, and (8) Visual-spatial. In the spirit of classifying different types of intellectual focus, I have referred to a ninth of my own suggestion, that of ethics.
Jackie Stewart's talents, those of driving and shooting, are in part made possible by what Gardner refers to as the bodily-kinesthetic and logical-mathematical intelligences, and what I choose to term as an analog-weighing.
Figure 1 : Possible intelligences of different individuals.
Within Howard Gardner's listing of multiple intelligences, the ability to accurately analyze numerous simultaneous variables might fit all types of intelligences including a small portion of linguistic intelligence, and the more interesting item is that IQ tests and IQ scoring heavily rely on linguistic intelligence, which is one of the lesser important intelligences in the real world.
It is important to emphasize that there is no such thing as a separate intelligence, and nor is it possible for any form of intelligence to exist singularly and alone by itself. All variances of exhibited intelligence are composed of the same attributes that enable all of the other intelligences, but with each different type of intelligence having different quantities and qualities of the attributes. Jackie Stewart's talents were, in part, made possible by his well-developed sense of bodily-kinesthetics and self-weighed analog mathematics. Mastery of a complex musical instrument will rely on similar talents, those of bodily-kinesthetics and self-weighed analog mathematics, but also with a greater need to be sensitive to the interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic attributes.
The intellectual ability to calculate numerous different variables simultaneously is an innate talent of varying degrees of development in all known creatures that possess a brain. I have observed a basketball player jump into the air, and just prior to his dropping back to the center of the court he raised his arms and tossed the ball directly into the distant loop. Yes, even ball players might exhibit different degrees and types of intelligence that are superior to individuals who might have a high IQ but do not have the intellectual ability to weigh and apply bodily-kinesthetics. More often than not, animals have been observed to have a greater intellectual skill of judging bodily-kinesthetics than many humans.
Sarah Sidis wrote in The Sidis Story: "That none of my family except myself was ever practical in one iota about the mechanics of living is perhaps due to vanity on my part. Boris couldn't drive a nail, and the only time I ever saw James try to drive a nail, he hit his thumb. So, naturally, Billy couldn't drive a nail." It is not uncommon for individuals to be highly skilled in one type of intelligence while being thoroughly inadequate in another.
One of the more important aspects of the intellectual ability is that it enables the sense of ethics and morals, even though the sense is created at the subconscious level for over 99% of all humans. Western philosophy's struggle to comprehend the nature of ethics and morals has primarily been attempted by individuals with talents in linguistics but with no sizable talent in the bodily-kinesthetic. Western philosophy illustrates how the linguistic intelligence by itself is not capable of useful capacities for simultaneous calculations and self-observed (intrapersonal) analyses.
The world's 'smartest' individuals will be those who can accurately drive and shoot (like a Stewart), who are self-aware of their innermost mind (like a Buddha), who are excellent with interpersonal skills, who are masters of mathematics, who have mastered a complex musical instrument, who consciously recognize the hundreds and thousands of events occurring simultaneously within his/her environment, who have reasonably mastered at least two languages, and who are highly skilled in sensorial perception.
An individual might score 200 on an IQ test, but if the person cannot adequately drive a vehicle — or a nail — then the individual has a low intelligence relative to individuals who are capable of interacting in natural real-world scenarios.
IQ Question #2
The Einstein Puzzle – Who Owns the Fish?
Begin timing yourself now.
There are 5 houses in 5 different colors. In each house lives a man with a different nationality. The 5 owners drink a certain type of beverage, smoke a certain brand of cigar, and keep a certain pet. No owners have the same pet, smoke the same brand of cigar, nor drink the same beverage.
The Brit lives in the red house.
The Swede keeps dogs as pets.
The Dane drinks tea.
The green house is on the left of the white house.
The green house's owner drinks coffee.
The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill.
The man living in the center house drinks milk.
The Norwegian lives in the first house.
The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
The man who keeps the horse lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
The owner who smokes Bluemasters drinks beer.
The German smokes Prince.
The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
The man who smokes Blends has a neighbor who drinks water.
Who owns the fish?
IQ Answer #2
Whether or not Einstein truly created the logics test is unknown, but the puzzle is a useful exercise in judging one's own speed of deduction as well as one's capacity for correlating and validating disconnected variables. It is popularly believed that approximately 98% of humans will not be able to solve the puzzle, regardless of the allotted time provided.
Of the known individuals who have completed the puzzle correctly, it appears that the time required to arrive at the correct answer may be roughly parallel to the person's IQ percentile range. A 98% IQ took approximately two hours, a 99% IQ took about an hour, and a 99.99+% IQ used roughly ten minutes (which included the 'showing one's work').
The answer is the green house.
There is a difference between the intellectual abilities of the individual who can only memorize and recite information, and the individual who has the capacity to dedicate his/herself to the effort required to figure-out a problem. Many of us remember students who scored perfect grades in school but were unable to apply the knowledge to the real-world. In my thoughts is the memory of a student who had memorized every electrical formula in the book, but who could not diagnose a simple open circuit. A similar difficulty is being found in many college graduates who, upon their graduation day, were discovered to be incapable of figuring-out how to connect a battery, bulb, and wire to create light. It is possible to score well on an IQ test while still not knowing how the knowledge applies to the real world, and the opposite applies as well, that an individual might possess high real-world intelligence and still not score well on an IQ test.
IQ Question #3
While holding your arms straight forward, and with both palms facing towards the other, if the left palm were the olfactory location of a common yellow dandelion flower, and the right palm were the olfactory location of a common dandelion leaf, describe the olfactory location of the scent of a common wood pencil. (You may substitute the flower and leaf for another genre if you have not personally been in close proximity to a dandelion in bloom.)
The time limit for this question is five (5) seconds plus another twenty (20) seconds to write the solution. Start timing your response now.
IQ Answer #3
SesquIQ SQ tests (Sensory Quotient) have verified that over 99% of all humans are unable to consciously weigh scents (as Richard Dawkins' book also spoke of), and fewer than one in one-million are able to mentally create a four dimensional structuring of olfaction.
If you were unable to almost immediately locate the positioning of the pencil's aroma in its relativity to a flower and leaf, don't let it worry you, your intelligence is normal for humans, your SQ is 90, and your IQ can be anywhere between 40 and 220.
In part, SQ scores illustrate an individual's talents in the intelligences of bodily-kinesthetic, logical-mathematical, musical, naturalistic, and visual-spatial.
IQ Question #4
Read the following paragraphs and then proceed to the answer below. The answer will be self-evident.
"A few years ago I rediscovered a thing that produces a specific effect of Nature that I had originally found when about nine years old. (At the time of the original discovery, everyone that I told of the thing replied that the thing was impossible, and so I put the thing away because it served no known usefulness and because its knowledge could not be shared.) Recently, while analyzing the thing's possible effect on human tissue, I discovered that the thing is capable of removing certain types of cataracts from the eyes within about two minutes, and without surgery, touch, or drugs. Using another item, I discovered that it can relieve about ninety percent of intense pain, swelling, and redness in a foot and leg that had hurt a lady for about a year, again within about five minutes and without surgery, touch, or drugs. I told a few individuals about the first item, but I received no interested response, and I have not yet spoken of the second, nor of any others.
I recently watched a portion of a video that spoke of how it is that modern science still has not discovered how it might be possible for birds to migrate thousands of miles to specific spots on earth, and that modern science still has no useful theory of how female penguins — after being absent for about ten weeks — return to their mates usually on the day that the new chick is hatched. As with my own discoveries, in past years I offered to share information about migration and sensed time of events, but no one was interested.
I am reminded of a comment in Imre Soos' The Rational Evolution of the Specie: "Lions ... do not procreate if a bad year (e.g. drought) is in coming. This foresight cannot be instinctive — pre-programmed -, only intuitive — psychically perceived -, and throws light onto another intelligent, healthy animal reaction: procreate only if the progeny has good chances for a normal, healthy life."
An unexpected but useful bit of information from page 418 of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion: "A dog that had never met capric acid would perhaps have no more trouble imagining its smell than we would have trouble imagining a trumpet playing one note higher than we have head a trumpet play before. It seems to me entirely reasonable to guess that a dog, or a rhinoceros, might treat mixtures of smells as harmonious chords. Perhaps there are discords. Probably not melodies, for melodies are built up of notes that start or stop abruptly with accurate timing, unlike smells." The book's words describe to me an attribute of normalcy, that of a normal human not being capable of self-creating a conscious sensation of higher and lower wave-frequencies of aromas, nor of a normal human recognizing the 'chords' within complex aromas.
The above book quote illustrates that the intellectual ability to self-create and analyze multiple dimensions of sensorial perceptions is not common, and more often than not it is believed by the public to be impossible because the ability is not understood by the public.
The Natural Laws helps to explain a bit of the reaction that humans typically exhibit when confronted with a thing that is not understood: "The uneasiness you now feel, it is an emotion, one that craves for deliverance, and for the common man who has no firsthand knowledge as yours, he has no opportunity to choose between belief and verification, for his only choice is already limited to believing in the philosophers, and he must choose to attack your words so as to alleviate the gnawing emotion." It is a normal human reaction to feel an anxiety when not comprehending a thing, and the anxiety may cause concern and a fear because of the thing not being capable of being understood, and the normal human reaction to fear is to either run and avoid the topic or else to hate and attack the topic."
IQ Answer #4
The reader is to ask his/herself whether or not the thoughts of the paragraphs are still present at this very moment in the consciousness; the thoughts of the discoveries, the thoughts of lions, the thoughts of humans' limited olfactory cognition, the thoughts of abstract olfactory analysis, and the thoughts of the causes and results of topics not being understood. Did the reader's mind consciously weigh each thought to the others? Were the logical conclusions of each topic consciously weighed to all other topics and conclusions? For several years I experimented by presenting information that was composed of three or more topics, and only rarely was I able to find an individual — regardless of IQ — who could consciously assemble more than two topics into a rational conclusion, and more rare was the individual who could analyze deductions through correlating and validating disconnected real-world variables (similar as to what The Einstein Puzzle illustrated on a simplistic scale).
The disinterest of olfaction, ethics, and other topics by humanity may possibly be the result of man's inability to hold thoughts in conscious memory and to sensorially perceive his own self, and in his numbness man is not able to feel his location upon the earth, and if he cannot feel his own perceptions, then it is natural that man will not recognize the origin of his own ethics.
IQ tests usually have questions that are separate and unrelated to the other, and the questions only require a simple answer that most healthy individuals could answer if the individuals had been instructed on how to answer the questions. Good chess players are capable of holding analyses of a game in conscious memory for hours (and recall the analyses years later), and some individuals may hold many analyses in conscious memory for days and years while analyzing various topics. An analogy is the difference between a single lane road where a string of cars must travel one behind the other (each thought is sequential and only connected to the one in front and the one in back), a multiple-lane highway where numerous strings of cars can travel side by side and at different speeds, a multiple-level multi-lane highway, and a multi-dimensional highway where vehicles can travel in all directions and speeds simultaneously. For some individuals it is believed that the ability to consciously retain and apply a depth of dimensional analyses is in part due to a well-developed self-referencing bodily-kinesthetics that enables the ability to hold and weigh numerous concepts simultaneously.
The primary purposes of question number four were to provide a means for the individual to know whether or not he/she uses conscious memories to analyze topics, and to illustrate one of the numerous differences in types of intellectual processing. It is not uncommon to hear individuals claim their belief that everyone thinks similarly and that the only differences between the average mind and the higher rated mind is that of knowledge, but the belief is very incorrect.
IQ Question #5
Describe the effect of a four dimensional field penetrating a two dimensional wave. You may refer to the field and wave as branes or any other term desired.
Comment: It has been said that only a very few individuals can think four dimensionally, and so question number five is being presented to illustrate one of the numerous differences of human intelligence. Regardless of one's talents with mathematics, languages, and memory, the talents are relatively insignificant if the abstract reasoning is limited to no more than two or three dimensions.
Analogy: Flatlanders live in a two-dimensional universe that only has width and length, but no height. Flatlanders believe that their science is true because their mathematics are formulated to only measure two dimensions, and every sum of their mathematics appears to verify that their observations must be true. Cubelanders live in a three-dimensional universe with width, length, and height, but nothing more. Cubelanders claim to know of eleven dimensions plus a dimension of time, but the Cubelanders merely repeat the same three dimensions of height, width, and length over and over while pretending that repeating the same dimension somehow creates more dimensions. Cubelanders insist that their science is true and that the science of Flatlanders must be false because the Cubelanders' three-dimensional mathematics appear to verify that the Cubelanders' observations must be true. Spherelanders point to Cubelanders' Pi and ask why Cubelanders attempt to measure a curve with two-dimensional linear mathematics. If caring and uncaring are opposites, then Fluidlanders, Etherlanders, and Wavelanders may not care because the act of choosing between only two choices implies a two-dimensional mind. Up and down, left and right, yes and no, true and false; dichotomies are the sophisms of Flatlander philosophy.