Path dependence and Skinner's box

Today, I suddenly thought, what if the previous method I used to solve IQ puzzles was actually wrong (I've never seen the answers to IQ tests before, so I don't know)? I mean, whenever there are 9 shapes, I keep looking at overall numbers: 3 of each, times 3, usually arranged in a diagonal way similar to calculating a determinant in mathematics. Certainly that couldn't be right? I mean, isn't this more like witchcraft than actual patterns? Such method is just classical superstition: exactly like those pigeons in Skinner's box. Especially, consider this: If IQ tests really have anything to do with real-life implications, doesn't this mean I keep trying to solve real-life problems through some kind of superstition?

And so I switched to another philosophy of solving IQ puzzles. And guess what, I got a significantly lower score than ever before.

I was confused, and went on YouTube to see the explanation of the puzzles.

To my absolute astonishment, my "witchcraft" method was right all along!

What the actual ffffffffffff???????????

Well, I guess the IQ test was invented by a very special kind of idiots. The same kind of idiot I am. We just happened to think in a similar way. --If a puzzle was designed by a lunatic, then of course the correct answer is insane.

The implication is: if you get so used to thinking in this one way, you might end up path dependent, and get wrecked in real life if either: 1) the pattern changed significantly; or 2) there is a trap set specifically targeting the one pattern you are familiar with.

And if you really want to get smart in life, you'd better try and explore all different kinds of paths. There are just so many ways of thinking, resulting in totally different conclusions. But in real life situations, depending on different situations, some paths are wrong and others are right, and they change. For example, under situation X, path A is right and path B is wrong; but under situation Y, the reverse is true. In many cases, you cannot explain it only in logic; sometimes the best move is not logical, but algebraic, or statistical; while the logical move is a big blunder.