On CORE, why does the figure weight section feel so heavily inflated?
On core, I scored a 16 scaled score in figure weights, and I find myself curious as to why I could. In my WMI & VSI, a noticeable pattern appeared, I was relatively below average in WMI and low average in VSI — which, I mean, it explains why my matrix reasoning is average and all. But when I delved into figure weights, I saw that it required me to hold shapes — and I was confident I was gonna fail, as similar to my working memory, but I was mistaken? The questions were relatively easy, and I moved through most of the questions with ease. Eventually, I did hit a noticeable working memory bottleneck, where I had to keep a lot more rules than earlier questions, but I was still relatively surprised at a 16 scaled score for something that seems to rely more on VSI & WMI, compared to matrix reasoning. Maybe I had a bad day on the WMI? In the QRI, I did score an 11 on the arthimethic section, but that may be just because I've always been exceptional at math — usually finding math relatively easy my entire life ( though, I've always struggled with fractions and division — you could ask me what 3/7 minus 5/2, and I honestly could not provide you an answer. ) So, the arthimethic section may be inflated because of my superior mathematical abilities, specifically multiplication. I've always had a superior processing speed for multiplication — often outpacing everyone in my class, even the teacher, when I was 8, 12 & 15 — with relative ease ( multiplication table & arthimethic ). Though, that may be because of my processing speed index, as I scored a 115 on one of the subtests ( horrible memory, as I can't remember which one of the two it was.... ), with a 100 on the other one. I think it'd put me slightly above average. I've tried testing my working memory in other online resources, and the result has always been apparent — getting an 84 on the old GRE-A, and below average on the logical inference section on the 1926 SAT ( which I think relies heavily on WMI more than it did on fluid reasoning. ) But I think the pattern is relatively consistent, with WMI probably being my biggest bottleneck for these sections. Currently, my only answer is that I diluted the working memory bottleneck by remembering the sum of the weights instead of the individual weights.