What does your IQ say about you?

Answer

Personality and IQ have traditionally been viewed as distinct domains of human functioning. However, research over the past three decades suggests that IQ is a personality trait. In an excellent book chapter in The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, personality neuroscientist Colin DeYoung points out that many personality traits involve cognitive processes and abilities. It's just that IQ is primarily measured with ability tests, whereas personality tests are primarily measured with questionnaires. But this is more a reflection of a lack of ingenuity on the part of psychologists than a real difference in domain of human functioning.

It's theoretically possible to measure personality traits through ability tests. For instance, agreeableness could be measured through tests of perspective taking, conscientiousness could be measured through tests of self-control, and neuroticism could be measured through measures of emotional self-regulation. Viewing IQ as a personality trait is helpful because it puts IQ in perspective. We can take a birds eye view of all the many fascinating ways we differ from one another in cognitive processing, emotion, and motivation, while seeing where IQ fits into that bigger picture.

To help us see that picture, I analyzed data from the Eugene-Springfield community sample, which consisted of 478 mostly White participants from Eugene and Springfield, Oregon. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 85 years, and spanned all levels of educational attainment. The sample consisted of 199 males and 279 females. While the sample isn't ethnically diverse, it does have a pretty good range of IQ and personality, so we can get some sense of how IQ relates to personality in the general population. The IQ test that participants took consisted of 15 multiple-choice items that measured knowledge and abstract reasoning. The personality testmeasured 45 dimensions of human personality.

Consistent with prior research, IQ was most strongly related to openness to experience. Out of 9 dimensions of openness to experience, 8 out of 9 were positively related to IQ: intellectual engagement, intellectual creativity, mental quickness, intellectual competence, introspection, ingenuity, intellectual depth, and imagination. Interestingly, IQ was much more strongly related to intellectual engagement and mental quickness than imagination, ingenuity, or intellectual depth, and IQ was not related to sensitivity to beauty.

Out of 45 dimensions of personality, 23 dimensions were not related to IQ. This included gregariousness, friendliness, assertiveness, poise, talkativeness, social understanding, warmth, pleasantness, empathy, cooperation, sympathy, conscientiousness, efficiency, dutifulness, purposefulness, cautiousness, rationality, perfectionism, calmness, impulse control, imperturbability, cool-headedness, and tranquility. These qualities were not directly relevant to IQ.

8 dimensions of personality outside the openness to experience domain were positively related to IQ, including organization, toughness, provocativeness, leadership, self-disclosure, emotional stability, moderation, and happiness-- although the correlations were much smaller than with intellectual engagement and mental quickness. IQ was negatively related to orderliness, morality, nurturance, tenderness, and sociability, but again, the negative correlations were much smaller than the relationships among IQ, intellectual engagement, and mental quickness.

Given this data, where does IQ fit into the personality puzzle? While this is just a single dataset, it is consistent with other studies suggesting that the most relevant personality domain is openness to experience, particularly the dimensions that reflect the ability and drive for conscious exploration of inner mental experience. This is certainly an important slice of personality, but at the same time these findings illustrate that there are many more ways we differ from each other in cognition, emotion, and motivation that are not well measured by IQ tests.

Note: Thanks to Colin DeYoung for providing me with the Eugene-Springfield dataset. For more correlations between IQ and personality, see the supplementary data [1, 2] for the paper "From madness to genius: The openness/intellect trait domains as a paradoxical simplex", authored by Colin DeYoung, Rachael Grazioplene, and Jordan Peterson.

If you're interested in the finer details of my analysis, see below. Correlations with IQ in parentheses. * = p < .05; ** = p < .01. Note that I changed some of the IPIP AB5Cfacet names to better reflect the content of the items.[1]

for more detailed tables you can check this How Does IQ Relate to Personality?

Footnotes

[1] How Does IQ Relate to Personality?

Does image streaming really increase IQ?

Answer

“Dr. Charles P. Reinert’ Study on Image-Streaming and IQ” said:

A special one quarter, 4 credit hour course was developed at Southwest State University in order to begin to understand the effect of a verbally described imagery process, generically referred to as Image Streaming, on the development of intellectual skills of university students. Most of the students in the course had been provisionally admitted to the University, with a measured I.Q. slightly below 95. Pretests and posttests of analytical skills, creativity, and learning style were administered. Students’ verbalization techniques were monitored during each class. Cerebral dominance was measured using eye, ear, and leg preference. Occasional feedback was solicited from students concerning health, the number of intuitive insights experienced and other factors.

Preliminary analysis of results suggests that students’ analytical skills rose with increasing hours in image streaming, with the largest rates being measured for the lowest initial analytical skills. The corresponding I.Q. gain per hour of practice ranged from a high of +2.3 I.Q. points per hour to a low of -0.9 I.Q. points per hour, with a standard deviation of 0.7. There was some indication that students with the highest I.Q. gain rates tended to be left cerebral dominant, those with intermediate gain rates were mixed dominant, and those with the lowest rates were right cerebral dominant. The average gain was 0.44. Increases in “artistic” creativity were also noted, with slightly larger increases noted for students with initially higher analytical skills. These students also reported more intuitive insights than the students with initially lower analytical skills. A modest decrease in “verbal” creativity was noted, this decrease being slightly greater for those students with initially higher analytical skills. As a whole, the group moved slightly toward preferences for “active experimentation” and “concrete experience”, as measured by Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory. Limitations of the study are discussed.

I. INTRODUCTION

In the winter 1988-89, this author undertook a first preliminary study of the effect of “Image Streaming” upon the performance of students in a general education level physics course at Southwest State University in Marshall, MN. (“Image Streaming” is a term coined by Dr. Win Wenger, president of the Institute of Visual Thinking of Gaithersburg, MD., who developed and refined the image streaming process. Strictly speaking, image streaming applies to only the imagery//verbal description process associated when no “trigger” is used, as described later.) In this first study, students with an average I.Q. of 106 were given initial instructions for image streaming, checked twice thereafter, but otherwise did all of their image streaming out of class, on their own time, and kept their own time records.

The results of the first study, suggested a positive correlation between hours of image streaming and an increase in students’ analytical skills, as measured by a simple 38 point test, the Whimbey Skills Inventory. This “WASI” test had previously been correlated with the Otis Lennon Mental Ability Test (A. Whimbey, private communication). On the basis of the correlation, the resulting I.Q. increase was found to be approximately 0.8 I.Q. point per hour of practice. It was also found that the average learning style of the students who image streamed moved toward a more “balanced” position, as measured by Kolbs Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1976). Later analysis of this data indicated that the I.Q. gain rate dropped somewhat with increasing initial I.Q.

In the fall of 1989, this author again attempted to measure the effect of image streaming, this time dedicating an entire 40 clock hour university course to the process. The course, remedial in nature, met for one hour each day, 4 days per week, in the same, comfortable room as used for one of the sections in the earlier study. The routine was approximately as follows: Relaxing music (“Crystal Suite” by Steven Halpern or similar) was used during each class, played by CD system through a stereophonic sound system, and at a level sufficiently low that students could easily converse above it. At the beginning.of the class, 5 minutes of simple stretching exercises were used to prepare the students for class. This was followed by a 20 minute period during which the students “image streamed”: The process was one of typically closing the eyes, then describing to a partner (each in turn), the images which appeared “before the eyes”. Specific instructions were given each class period that the description was to be very detailed, and that students were to attempt to describe using all five senses, and in the present tense. In approximately 1/3 of the class periods, a “trigger” was used to encourage the students to “get started”– for example, the students were invited to describe a “beautiful garden” as the first imagery exercise. In a later session, they were invited to image receiving a “letter from NASA”, with an invitation to participate in a voyage to Mars, etc. Students had the option of using the trigger or not; most did when it was suggested. Following the twenty minute period, students were asked to rate the experience on a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best). They were then to spend the next fifteen minutes writing about their imagery and and then fifteen more minutes sketching (with colored markers) their imagery. Attendance at the class sessions averaged approximately 75%. As “homework”, the students were to originate two more imagery sessions, done in the same way, with or without a trigger as they chose. Students kept track of their own time spent in the imagery process.

Occasionally during the ten week class, student feedback was solicited concerning physical/emotional health, attitude toward the class, and number of intuitive “insights” experienced recently.

II. RESULTS

A. Average Results:
1. Number of students assessed: 24
2. Average time in image streaming: 20.5 hours
3. Average attendance, percent: 70%
4. Average entry level I.Q.: 94
5. Average exit level I.Q.: 103
6. Average I.Q. gain rate: 0.44 IQ pt/hour
7. Entry level creativity scares:
Guilford “Decorations” 38.9
Guilford Expressional Fluency: 4.2
8. Exit level creativity scores:
Guilford “Decorations” 49.6
Guilford Expressional Fluency: 3.6
9. Entry level Kolb coordinates:
Active Experience – Reflective Observation: -1.2
Abstract Conceptualization – Concrete Experience: 0.8
10. Exit level Kolb coordinates:
Active Experience – Reflective Observation: 1.0
Abstract Conceptualization – Concrete Experience: -0.2

B. Analysis Of Trends

In an effort to sift the data for trends, the results were divided into two groups, based upon their rate of Increase of I.Q. with time. The 13 students with the highest rate of Increase with time (I.Q. gain rate) are identified as the “high 13”; those 11 students with the lowest rate of gain are identified as the “low 11” in the results following:

High 13 Low 11

1. Entry level I.Q.: <90 101
2. Cerebral Dominance: 5L, 5M, 2R 5L, 2M, 2R
3. Gender distribution: 7M, 6F 8M, 3F
4. Entry level “Decorations” 35.6 42.8
Entry level “Expressional Fluency” 4.1 4.4
Entry level Kolb L.S.I.: AE-RO: -2.8 0.9
Entry level Kolb L.S.I.: AC-CE: 2.3 -1.1
5. Exit level “Decorations” 54.8 45.2
Exit level “Expressional Fluency” 3.6 3.6
Exit level Kolb L.S.I.: AE-RO: 1.0 0.9
Exit level Kolb L.S.I.: AC-CE: 1.6 -2.3
6. Average I.Q. gain rate 0.7 0.2
7. I.Q. gain rate by linear regression No correlation 0.9 pts/hour

III. DISCUSSION

A. IQ GAIN RATE
The average rate of Increase in I.Q. as measured by the 38 point Whimbey Analytical Skills Inventory was found to be 0.44 IQ points per hour of image streaming practice. What may be more indicative, however, is a mathematical fit to the data. The functional fits of the IQ change versus hours of practice via linear regression analysis are as follows, for the two subgroups.

1.”Lower 11″:

WASI change (WC) versus I.S. hours (ISH):
WC = -12.3 + 0.62 ISH
Coefficient of determination = 0.25
Coefficient of correlation = 0.50
Standard deviation = 11.1

2. “Upper 13”: WC = 27.3 — 0.41 ISH

Coefficient of determination = 0.117
Coefficient of correlation = -0.34
Standard deviation = 9.86.

The correlation for the “lower 11” is considered to be sufficiently, high that one can place some trust in the fit. In this case and in view of the 1.5 ratio between IQ change and WASI change, the IQ gain rate becomes slightly over 0.9 IQ points per hour of practice. Note that the coefficient of determination is not large. (A COD of 1.0 would be “perfect”.) The mathematical slope of the function is 0.54, comparable to the value of 0.62 obtained with the 1988 study. The large value of the “constant”, -12.3 in the mathematical fit for the “lower 11” suggests that, in this case, about 13 hours of image streaming were required before any IQ gain began to show.

The correlation for the “higher 13” is seen to be negative, though of a lesser magnitude. and therefore less reliable. Note that the coefficient of determination in this case is only 0.117, and therefore the mathematical function cannot be considered very reliable.

B. CREATIVITY GAIN RATE

1. Change in “Decorations” (DECC) with image streaming hours (ISH)
For “lower 11”:
DECC = 0.18 + 0.71 ISH
COD = 0.1
COC = 0.32
SD = 16.4
For “upper 13”:
DECC= 9.02 – 0.03 ISH
COD = 7.7 x 10-4
COC = 0.03
SD = 6.7

2. Change in “Expressional Fluency” (EFC) with image streaming hours (ISH)
For “lower 11”:

EFC = 0.25 -0.023 ISH
COD = 0.01
COC = -0.11
SD = 1.3
For “upper 13”:
EFC = 0.75 -0.055 ISH
COD = 0.014
COC = -0.12
SD = 2.8

Evidentially, there is a modest correlation between image streaming hours and the “Decorations” score for the “lower 11” group, but a negligible correlation for the “upper 13” group. The correlation is negligible for both groups with the “Expressional Fluency” test.

IV. SUMMARY

At this stage of analysis, a model which fits all of the data has not suggested itself to this author. Simplistically speaking, however, I suggest the following for consideration:

A. For students with IQ’s above 100 (and perhaps the absence of clearly defined “learning difficulties”), there seems to be a reasonable, positive correlation between IQ gain as measured by the 38 point Whimbey Analytical Skills Inventory and the hours recorded by students as spent in image streaming. The rate of gain is in the vicinity of 0.9 IQ points per hour of image streaming practice, which is consistent with (even somewhat greater than!) the rate of gain measured in the author’s earlier work. (One should bear in mind that students normally spent some additional time in writing about, and in drawing, their Images following the image streaming exercise per se.)

B. For students with IQ’s below 100 (and perhaps additionally with “learning difficulties), there appears to be much more scatter in the data, though the larger IQ gains do appear in this group. The mathematical slope of the the “best fit” line is actually negative for this group, however the goodness of fit is much poorer than the the other group. Perhaps there was a good deal of experimentation, reorganizing, what have you, happening for these students.

C. There is a modest, positive correlation between creativity as measured by the artistically oriented “Decorations” test and image streaming hours for the “lower 11” group. This suggests that image streaming has a positive effect on some types of creativity for some IQ groups. On the other hand, the “upper 13” group (lowest entry level IQ’s) had no such correlation. Apparently, creativity gains for lower IQ’s do not change rapidly with image streaming practice. Following the suggestion of Win Wenger (personal communication), perhaps “what needs fixing worst gets fixed first”– It may be that IQ is the first quantity to change, and when this has increased sufficiently, positive changes in creativity begin to occur.

D. Clearly, much more work needs to be done. This author is presently compiling additional data from other classes where image streaming was used, and colleague Win Wenger has a major study in progress as well (personal communication). The limitations of this study are clear, at least to the author: IQ testing has been rudimentary and certainly not “standard”– the 38 point WASI is convenient but does not have high status in the field. Also, the creativity tests which were used are “old”, and there may be much better ones now available. Attendance data for this work was inadequate, as was the method of allowing students to monitor their own time investment. Additionally, the conditions under which the class was conducted are not typical– music and a generally low stress environment are, regrettably, not yet the classroom norm. (It is worth noting in this regard, however, that while student technique was closely monitored in this study, the image streaming in the earlier study was done entirely independently. Yet we achieved similar results in terms of the IQ gain per hour investment.) Finally, larger student numbers, and better data on student entry capabilities are in order.

From a personal perspective of working with approximately 200 students over 1 1/2 years, the author remains very impressed with not only the quantitative improvement, which seems to accompany the image streaming process, but also its ease of use. I have yet to work with a student who, when using proper technique, was unable to “get pictures”. Some are of course much better at the process than others, but it seems possible, and relatively easy, for all to successfully use this technique. Considering that, once the student has been taught the proper technique, no instructor seems really necessary thereafter, it is tempting to suggest that this technique may be a very useful one for assisting large numbers of students (e.g. thousands) in basic skills development. A basic 5 clock hour course in image streaming technique would seem more than sufficient to allow the motivated university freshman to continue skill his/her own skill development, perhaps to much higher levels than we are accustomed to thinking about for our students. Finally, the author is personally convinced that creativity increases do accompany the image streaming process, If for no other reason than from the accounts by surprised students of the intuitive insights which begin to occur after about the first 4 weeks of image streaming practice. Though difficult to measure, I’m convinced they are there. Image streaming may therefore be very useful in the inventive/problem solving process which we must value highly in this technological society. In view of at least suggestions that the gain may be larger for lower values, its use by the mentally impaired is also important to consider.[1]

Footnotes

[1] Dr. Charles P. Reinert's Study on Image-Streaming and IQ

Who has the highest recorded IQ of all time?

Answer

(William James Sidis IQ 250 – 300)

“MIRROR, mirror on the wall! Who is the smartest of us all?” is what many people today would like to ask the magic mirror that Snow White’s wicked step mum had.

Why? Well, simply because being smart and intelligent can give you more power than being simply beautiful.

We can’t look at someone’s brains to see who has the best, but we can test its grey cells to find out whose brain works the best. This is done through IQ tests.

IQ or intelligence quotient is a measure of relative intelligence determined by a standardised test. Simply put, it is an assessment of your ability to think and reason.

William James Sidis

A human calculator and linguistic genius, Sidis was born to Russian immigrant parents in America in 1898, and is estimated to have had an astounding IQ estimated between 250 and 300.

He went to a grammar school at six and graduated just within seven months, and by eight years of age he finished high school. He tried to join Harvard University but, being too young, he was advised to wait a couple of years and finally at 11, he became the youngest student to have ever enrolled at Harvard University. He graduated at the age of 16 and entered Harvard Law School at 18.

By this time he was probably sick and tired of being remarkable and he dropped out before completing his degree. He taught maths at a university for sometime but left that to do something ordinary and tried to become anonymous by being a bookkeeper, a clerk and doing other jobs that were incommensurate with his talents. All the attention he got due to his remarkable mind made him almost a recluse and he died lonely and poor at the young age of 46.[1]

more details support my answer:

William James Sidis - Wikipedia

A Genius Among Us: The Sad Story of William J. Sidis

Intelligence quotient: The world’s smartest people

Sidis Biography

The 10 Highest IQs in History

What percent of the population has IQ greater than 130?

Answer

“The first step on the gifted way”.

That step took place some 60,000 plus years ago. Some gifted person picked up a stone and realized it could be a tool. Another struck a rotted tree stump with a stick and discovered a rhythm that set hips swaying. A third created marks on the wall and made everyone laugh with excitement. A fourth picked up something shiny, saw the glint of desire in a young female’s eyes, and started looking for more and saving them.

Despite their massive contributions to the community, gifted adults have not typically been revered. They get known as the mad scientist, the crazy artist, the self-destructive performer, the anti-social geek. When they were young, they were often identified as special needs children.

Why? Because the great majority of the world doesn’t understand them. Raw intelligence is not the only factor governing giftedness but it is a factor. Anyone with an IQ over 130 is regarded as in the gifted domain.

Take a look at this figure:

The tiny percentage of population with IQs over 130

If you have an IQ over 130 – and you probably do if you’re reading this – you’re part of a tiny and rather lonely community.

You may also believe you really are crazy when, in fact, you’re just different and incomprehensible to the other 97.9 percent of the world. Or the other 99.85 percent if your IQ is over 145.

If you’re not already doing so, please start to honor yourself for your rarity and your enormous value to the world. Come back often. Select one of the feeds at the top right of this page so you’ll know when there’s something new to see.[1] [2]

Footnotes

[1] The Gifted Way: the population of gifted adults is a tiny percentage of the whole.

[2] IQ classification - Wikipedia

Does studying improve your IQ?

Answer

I am not expert to tell you trusted answer but those experts have the answer of your question.

5 Experts Answer: Can Your IQ Change?

Richard Nisbett, professor of psychology at the University of Michigan:

Yes, your IQ can change over time. But [IQ] tests give you the same answer to a very substantial extent, even over a period of year. The older you are, the more stable your test score will be.

Kevin McGrew, director of the Institute for Applied Psychometrics, visiting professor in Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota

It depends. First I think it is important to distinguish between at least three different meanings of the word intelligence. There is biological intelligence, or what is typically defined as neural efficiency. Then there's psychometric intelligence – your measured IQ score – which is an indirect and imperfect method of estimating biological intelligence.

Stephen Ceci, professor of developmental psychology at Cornell University:

Absolutely. And there's plenty of evidence documenting this.

An article in November in the journal Nature by Price and her colleagues is one example. It had 33 adolescents, who were 12- to 16-years-old when the study started. Price and her team gave them IQ tests, tracked them for four years, and then gave them IQ tests again.

Jack Naglieri, research professor at University of Virginia:

The answer to this question, like many others, depends on a number of factors. If you look at the research where they've made people smarter (i.e. improved their IQs), what they're really doing is to make people function better.

Alan S. Kaufman, clinical professor of psychology at the Yale University School of Medicine:

There's no such thing as "an" IQ. You have an IQ at a given point in time. That IQ has built-in error. It's not like stepping on a scale to determine how much you weigh.[1]

Footnotes

[1] 5 Experts Answer: Can Your IQ Change?

Can a few months smoking weed decrease your IQ?

I started when I was 17 and stopped when I was 17 too. I wasn't a daily smoker n I even took a break from it for a while so can it still lower my IQ by 8 points n if so can I reverse the damage?

Answer

This a good Question

I do not think so a few months will make you stupid. but for more information read the following:

Smoking has long been known to damage lungs and cause heart disease. But it could also lower your IQ, research has found.

Young people who smoke regularly are likely to have markedly lower intelligence levels than those who do not smoke, and, according to the study of 20,000 young adults, the heavier the smoker, the lower the IQ.

Those who smoke a pack or more of cigarettes a day averaged an IQ seven and a half points lower than that of those who do not smoke.

A typical 18 to 21-year-old smoker was found to have an IQ of 94, while non-smokers of the same age averaged 101.

Those who smoked more than a pack a day had particularly low IQs of around 90. An average intelligence IQ score ranges from 84 to 116 points.

Crucially, brothers scored differently depending on whether or not they smoked.

Despite similar environmental conditions, non-smoking siblings achieved higher IQs than their smoking brothers.

The results come from a study of 20,000 young men conducted by the Sheba Medical Center at the Tel Hashomer Hospital in Israel.

Dr. Mark Weiser, who led the research, said it is unclear whether smoking causes IQ levels to drop or whether less intelligent people are simply more inclined to smoke.

'It was really quite a straightforward study,' he said.

'We looked at cross-sectional data on IQ and smoking cigarettes, and looked at people's smoking status and their IQs.

'IQ scores are lower in male adolescents who smoke compared to non-smokers and in brothers who smoke compared to their non-smoking brothers. The IQs of adolescents who began smoking between ages 18 to 21 are lower than those of non-smokers.

'It's very clear that people with low IQs are the ones who choose to smoke. It's not just a matter of socioeconomic status - if they are poor or have less education,' he said.

Dr Weiser suggested the results could confirm a previously held conviction that those with lower IQs tend to make poorer decisions regarding their health – that they are more likely to take drugs, eat unhealthy food and exercise less.

The study could also be used to prevent smoking in young people by targeting those with lower IQs, Dr Weiser said.

Researchers found that 28per cent of the teenagers polled smoked one or more cigarettes a day, three per cent admitted to having smoked in the past, while 68 per cent of the young men had never smoked.

In 2004, researchers from the University of Aberdeen first found a possible link between smoking and reduced mental function.

Hundreds of volunteers who had taken part in the Scottish Mental Survey in 1947 aged 11, retook tests 53 years later.

Smokers performed worse than ex-smokers and those who had never smoked.

Scientists cannot yet conclusively explain the link between impaired lung function and cognitive ageing but it has been suggested that smoking could put the brain under oxidative stress, which causes DNA damage.[1]

Footnotes

[1] Is this proof smoking lowers your IQ? Study says those on 20 a day are less intelligent

Can a person with a higher IQ have a lower problem solving ability than someone with a lower IQ?

Answer

YES, and this may be the reason

“A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing”

1. Briefly:

Learn creative problem solving skills and techniques. Also a discussion on the process and theory behind powerful problem solving and creative thinking.

When you are problem solving you are doing one of two things. Either you are fixing something that is broken, or you are building something. If you are building something, it could be a completely new something, or it could be an improved something. Read on to discover how to do these effectively.

Some people are naturally good at problem solving. Others are not (yet). Most are somewhere in between. A lot of people underestimate just how good they are at problem solving. Many don't realise just how much problem solving they actually do. Problems are all around us and we solve them all the time, be it something as simple as deciding whether to put that extra blanket on the bed tonight, or something a little more difficult like constructing a plane out of old junk you've found in the garage.

Wherever you are at, you can improve your problem solving skills. With the right mindset, problem solving is not that difficult, and is quite fun. Fixing things and building things is always a rewarding task. The more you problem solve, the better you will get too.

2. In detail:

The Right Attitude

To be an awesome problem solver, first we need to start with the right attitude.

It can be good to write some of these down in places you will see them regularly so you are always reminding yourself.

Be Open Minded

Be open to the possibility that:

• The actual problem you have may be different to the problem you think you have.
• What you think is causing the problem may not actually be what is causing the problem.
• The best option may be to throw out your solution and start again in a different direction.
• Your beliefs on anything and everything could be wrong.

Great new ideas often come from challenging our assumptions about how things do or should work. Always be open to different opinions. I'm not saying you have to agree with them but you should take the time to appreciate and understand them.

Be Inquisitive

Always be looking around and noticing things. Try and notice everything, not just what is (or what you think is) directly related to the problem area. Often, things which you don't suspect have anything to do with what you are looking at actually do.

Look for:

• things that seem odd or stand out.
• any patterns.
• anything that is there that maybe shouldn't be.
• anything that is missing.

These are often good starting places to find clues.

A good way to develop inquisitiveness is to do a little activity when you are travelling (to or from work, school, etc). Look for things that stand out, or patterns, then ask yourself why they may have been done like that. eg. Why is that building 3 stories when all the others are two? Every third tree on this street is much wider than the others, why?

Ask the Right Questions

This is one of those things you get much better at with practice. Often when a student is stuck I find that I can get them unstuck by simply asking them the right questions.

I like to ask these general questions (about anything and everything):

• What is it actually doing?
• How is it actually doing it?
• How effectively is it performing its purpose?
• Why is it doing it/ what would happen if it was taken out?
• What is it's relationship with other components?
• What could I do to test that assumption?

You will also find that by asking these questions, new questions arise specific to the situation or problem. This is good. The more questions you can ask the better.

In answering these questions, always try and find proof or evidence. Try to rely as little as possible on assumptions.

Slow Down

It amazes me how often a student has asked for help in solving a problem and in the middle of explaining the problem to me they have realised the solution. I think it is largely because when you try to explain something to someone else you have to slow down. Speech is naturally a slower process than thought and you also tend to phrase it differently when you tell the problem to someone else rather than just thinking internally.

Slowing down can be difficult to do but can make a big difference.

Another approach to help slow things down is to come back to a problem. Leave it for a day or two (or an hour or two) and come back to it. You'll be surprised how much of a difference it can make.

Don't be Lazy

I see many students take the Where's Wally approach to problem solving. That is, they randomly, rapidly skim, hoping to find the solution. Effective problem solving is more like piecing together a jigsaw puzzle. We first look at all the pieces, trying to find the ones that stand out (such as corners and edges). Then we attack the problem from there and as the picture builds, the easier it gets. It's more work but the outcome is always much better.

Technology is great. Alas, it has also made us lazy. The result of search engines like Google and devices that increasingly hide the processing away from us is that we just expect the answers and results to be at our fingertips. Many people are just seeking that silver bullet so they don't actually have to do any work.

Effective problem solving doesn't work like that however. Don't be lazy. Read all the material, don't just skim it. Often the difference between something working and not is a little detail you have missed. You may get something that works by skimming but if you don't understand why it works then you won't be able to adapt it easily to other scenarios.

Don't Panic

Panic is the initial reaction to many when faced with a problem. The seasoned problem solver however is calm and relaxed in the face of problems as they know that solutions always exist and with the right approach (outlined below) they will triumph.

(The exception to this is velociraptors. If you find yourself looking into the steely cold eyes of one or more of these I don't like your chances. Unless, of course, Chuck Norris happens to be standing next to you.)

When you are calm you are able to think clearer and more creatively.

Make Sure You are Solving the Right Problem

When you start looking at a problem and it seems really simple, you don’t really understand the complexity of the problem. Then you get into the problem, and you see that it’s really complicated, and you come up with all these convoluted solutions. That’s sort of the middle, and that’s where most people stop…

But the really great person will keep on going and find the key, the underlying principle of the problem — and come up with an elegant, really beautiful solution that works.

Steve Jobs

Sometimes the problem you initially see is not the problem at all. It is a symptom of the actual problem. If you solve the symptom you aren't solving the real problem, you're just putting a band-aid on it.

A great tool to help in identifying the Underlying Princple is Concept Triptychs.

Another good approach for this is to continually ask why until you can't really go any further without getting silly or adversely impacting other areas. eg:

My bike wheel keeps getting punctures. I initially thought the problem was that the innertube was dodgy.

Why is it getting a puncture?

Ah, because there is a dent in the rim that has become sharp.

Why is there a dent in the rim?

It should be able to take a fair bit of force without doing that. And my shock absorber should take a lot of that force too. Maybe my shock absorber is damaged, oh hey it is.

Why is my shock absorber not working?

Ah, there's a pebble got lodged in it. Now it is removed I have found the actual cause of the problem and it should be properly fixed. Not only that but my ride is now much smoother.

Or another situation. This time it has been proposed that an intranet would improve the running of the company.

How will the intranet improve the running of the company?

It will allow us to share information easier.

How will the sharing of information improve things?

It will allow expertise to be put to better use.

What means do we currently have for information sharing and why is an intranet better than them?

We currently have various means but they are not being used very much.

Why are they not being used very much?

People are worried that if they help others they will increase their workload while making someone else life easier.

And how would an intranet solve this?

Ah, it probably wouldn't and may become just another unused tool. Maybe the actual problem is not lack of communication tools but a management style and work culture that doesn't fit with the way we want employees to work and interact. Changing that would be much more effective than introducing an intranet.

The Process

Assess the Situation

So we have become a zen master and resisted the urge to panic. Awesome! Now we need to assess the situation. It will be one of the following:

• We are fixing a problem
• We are creating something new

If you are fixing a problem then you need to find as much information as possible to help you work out what has gone wrong and why. Read any error messages carefully. If there is any output, look over it to see if there are any useful clues.

If you are creating something then you should consider what resources you have available to build with. Consider all resources, even if can't see how they would be useful. Sometimes with a bit of creativity you can find great uses for seemingly unneeded resources.

Sometimes we may need to do some testing to help assess the situation.

• If I change the input do I get similar error messages or output?
• Are there other things I could do which will give me other information to compare the output against to better understand it?
• Can I break my solution down into several steps and verify that each step is behaving as intended?

Create a Hypothesis

Once we have looked at the situation we hopefully have some clues to help us understand it better. Now we need to make a guess at what we need to do to get closer to an acceptable solution.

There is a reasonable chance (especially to begin with) that your hypothesis will be incorrect. That is ok, we have to start somewhere. With experience you will get better at assessing the situation and working out what needs to be done however.

It is a good idea to start at the very bottom, with the most obvious culprits, and work your way up. eg. Maybe our internet is not working. First we may check another web page. Then we may check our network cable is plugged in. etc. and work our way up.

Test Your Hypothesis

Go ahead and put your idea into practice. Think also about how you may work out if it worked as intended or not. This will be similar to step 1 where we assessed the situation.

Rinse and Repeat

Once you've put your hypothesis into practice you will get a result. If the result is what you were after then great. If not then we need to go back to step 1 and assess the situation. We need to discover why our hypothesis was wrong then learn from that and create and test a new hypothesis. With each iteration we should discover a little more and that extra knowledge will help us get closer next time.

Even if we get a favorable result, sometimes it can be good to still have another go or two. Often our first successful attempt is a little bit messy and there is room for improvement. With a few more iterations we may get a cleaner solution and we'll also increase our knowledge. Both will help us with future problem solving.

Function over Purpose

A common trait of those that are really good problem solvers is that they can find creative new ways to use existing items. So for instance, a hammer is not just for hitting nails. It could also be used as a doorstop, or a paperweight. It could be used as an instrument if you bang it against the right object. Maybe, if the end is the right size, it can be used to plug a hole. etc.

It is common for people to see items and only see them for their intended purpose. The reality is there is nothing stopping you, and it's perfectly fine, to use almost anything in almost any way you can imagine. What you need to do is stop thinking about items in terms of their purpose and start thinking about them in terms of their characteristics.

The technology we have around us today is especially flexible in how it can be used. Sometimes this can be hard to appreciate as the functioning of the software is hidden from us and the functions they perform are often abstract. We need to take the time to appreciate what the software is actually doing and how it does it. The naming of software can also sometimes work against us. For example on the Unix command line there is a command mv which is used to move a file. It's name implies that it's function is to only move files. When we understand how it works however we then come to realize that it can also be used to rename files, and in conjunction with other aspects of Unix, make files either hidden or not hidden.

Develop this thinking habit

A simple way to develop this habit of thinking is to play a game. This game can be played by yourself of with friends. All you need to do is pick a simple everyday item (it could be anything, a shoe or a pen for example) then try and come up with as many different uses as you can for it (beyond it's normal intended usage).

When playing with friends you can take it in turns and see who can come up with the most creative idea or who is the first person to not be able to come up with an idea.

Relationships Between Things

Related to the previous bit is the idea of relationships. What we are talking about here is how the actions of one thing affect that of other things. Being able to see these relationships is very important to problem solving.

• Fixing something is often the case of identifying the relationship between what is causing the problem and what is displaying the symptoms, then instigating actions to either reduce or counter those effects.
• Creating something is often the case of putting things together to create new relationships which achieve the desired outcome.

In both situations, discovering the relationships may not be easy. The right attitude, combined with the right process is very useful however.

General Tips

Break the problem down

It is much easier to solve a series of small problems as opposed to one large problem. Often we try to just solve the problem in one go as we think this will be quicker and involve less work. This can come back to bite you however as you end up spending more time, trying to figure out where you went wrong, than you gained.

There are two ways I like to tackle this. Both will work nicely, it's just a matter of which you prefer or which suits the particular problem better.

• Break the problem in 1/2. Then break each of those problems in 1/2. Keep doing this until the problems are nice and manageable.
• Identify the easiest thing you can do which will get you closer to the solution and do that. Now identify the next easiest step and do that. Repeat until you have a fully working solution.

For both of these approaches you may need a few attempts before you get it right. For instance you may break the problem in 1/2 in a way that makes it more difficult as both sides rely upon parts of the other side. Don't be afraid to throw it out and have another go if it doesn't seem right.

Do the easiest step you can to get you closer to the solution. Then the next easiest. Repeat until done.

At least 3 solutions

Whenever you're about to do something of a reasonable level of complexity you should always try and consider at least 3 different ways of solving it. Those solutions should ideally be as diverse as possible.

Whenever we tackle a problem, our mind first tries to think of similar situations we have encountered in the past and work off those experiences. Often there are better solutions and by considering alternatives rather than just diving in with your first impression you'll discover a lot more.

The Uninterested Observer

Once you get really stuck into a problem your mind has a tendency to get focused. This can be bad as you easily miss things that should be obvious. It's very easy to get hung up on a particular line of thinking and completely miss alternatives.

Telling or showing another person your problem can be a great source of inspiration. Things that you have overlooked or decided not to consider will appear obvious to them. They are also not personally attached to the problem and so will see it from a different point of view to you.

Have you ever written an assignment and proof read it several times convinced it is perfect. Then a friend has glanced at it and instantly spotted a typo or mistake?

Dive In

There is a lot to be said for thinking before you act. Sometimes however, the best way to start moving towards a solution is to dive in and start trying things. The first thing (or things) you try may not work out but they will help you understand the problem better, find out what works and what doesn't, and progress towards an ideal solution. Don't get stuck in analysis paralysis.

Computing Specific Tips

• If you write some code, make sure you run it. Make sure you test it with different input to check if all the different branches operate as intended.
• If data is written into a file, make sure you look at the contents of the file and that those contents seem reasonable to you.
• The computer will do exactly what we tell it to do. The problem is that sometimes what we asked the computer to do and what we think we asked the computer to do are very different things.
• Just because you didn't get an error message doesn't necessarily mean it worked as intended. Make sure the output is what you expect it to be.
• Print variables out at different points to make sure they are behaving as intended?

Check for Typos or Silly Little Mistakes

They are easy to make and can be the difference between something working exactly as intended or spewing forth a screen full of error messages. If you feel confident that what you have entered is correct then spelling errors are one of the first places you should look. Check further up in your code too. Sometimes the computer is telling you there is an error on line 57 but the actual error is a missing semicolon ( ; ) or closing bracket ( } ) on line 24.

Writing clean indented code is one of the easiest ways to avoid these problems. Use a text editor that does syntax highlighting too as that also makes errors easy to detect.

Formatting can also be important when writing code or commands. Sometimes something as simple as the presence or absence of a space can break your solution entirely.

Logic and Creativity Games

Two more important skills to develop for problem solving are logical and creative thinking. Creative thinking allows us to discover new approaches which may be beneficial to us. Logical thinking then helps us to proceed down that path. Some people are naturally good at logical and creative thinking but if you are not then don't worry. Everyone can improve both of these and it's not too difficult.

One of the best ways to improve these skills is through practice. The more problems you tackle and persevere with to find solutions, the better you will become. The more you learn the more resources you will also have at your disposal to use in different ways so working through the tutorials you'll find on this site is good for you too.

Another great way to enhance these skills is through games. Games are fun and you learn best when you're having fun. Below you will find some good games to play. There are many more out there though so these are just to get you started.

• Mastermind - Good for developing logical thinking.
• Set - Develop your powers of observation.
• Creativity Games - many fun and quick word games.
• 2048 - can you plan far enough ahead?
• Petals around the rose - another good observation puzzle.
• Ultimate Tic Tac Toe - again, good for planning ahead.
• Sudoku
• Chess
• Rubiks Cube

Keep it varied. The more different games you play the better.

If you have any suggestions for other games that could be listed here then let us know too.

Learning Theory

I know we're talking about problem solving here but learning and problem solving actually overlap quite a bit. Solving a problem often involves learning more about the particular problem area. There's quite a bit we can talk about in terms of learning theory but I think one of the most important is the stages we go through in terms of our development.

Blooms Taxonomy is a way of distinguishing different levels in terms of a persons general ability or skill level. Here is my summarised version tailored to problem solving.

• Level 0 - I can identify what the actual problem is and what's causing it.
• Level 1 - I can find/ identify an existing solution (created by someone else) and am able to apply it.
• Level 2 - I can take a pre-made solution and tweak it to better suit this particular problem.
• Level 3 - I can create my own solutions and don't need the help of others.
• Level 4 - I can evaluate a solution and identify how good/ robust/ elegant it is.

You will probably progress through these levels as you get better at problem solving (particularly in a particular area of expertise). Level 0 is beginner and Level 4 is mastery.

People often get to Level 3 and think they have arrived, they are Grand Masters and all should look in awe upon their brilliance. Don't let this be you. Many catastrophes have been caused by people who were at Level 3 but really needed to be at Level 4.[1]

you can check this too

Problem Solving Skills

Footnotes

[1] Problem Solving Skills