/sci/ - Science & Math

What fucking bullshit is this?

>>8235600
Are you unable to read?

>>8235600
Nice words, anon.

>>8235591
>Average: 327ms
>Predicted 74 IQ
Well boys time to go kill myself

This just in, proffesional athletes are now the smartest people in the world! Like honestly did you think for even 3 fucking seconds about this?

>It should be noted that Bruce Charlton believes one’s best reaction time scores are more meaningful than one’s average scores

I beat the highest mark of his pseudo-scientific scale.

>reaction time: 351 ms
>muh IQ is 160+
bullshit

>>8235678
Update.

Seems it correlates

170+ reporting in

>>8235591
i get really easily overwhelmed and have a longer processing time than most people, but I still excel in academia. and i really don't try that much.

>>8235682
Another update. Cranking out better and better scores as time goes. Grothendieck and Tao ain't got shit on me.

Pretty sure this test is bollocks.

Lol this makes me feel slightly less horrible my horrendous reaction time.
DESU I always thought the correlation went the other way around, since lower reaction time is 'better'.
Knowing that the correlation is positive actually makes me consider that it might be less "genetic".

...Isn't an IQ test a literal test of reaction time? If you don't solve the problems fast enough you get a low score.


this is a tautology

>>8235591
>"While an average human reaction time may fall between 200-250ms, your computer could be adding 10-50ms on top. Some modern TVs add as much as 150ms!"

>>8235710
I think there are other factors too

>>8235687
>>8235683
>>8235682

Goes by an average of 5-20 scores. The inference of one's highest score implies a test that cannot result from mashing guess clicks.

>reaction time: 351 ms
>muh IQ is 160+
>bullshit

The relationship is inverse. 351ms average means your IQ is roughly 70.

>This just in, proffesional athletes are now the smartest people in the world! Like honestly did you think for even 3 fucking seconds about this?

You're assuming professional* athletes have 160ms reaction times. Have a 40ms quicker reaction is not a significant advantage in sports; physicality and muscle memory is.

>>8235591
Are you all fucking stupid? This site is not taking into consideration the input lag, not even the output lag. To properly measure your reaction time, you need to run a program built on ASM or at least C, not this retarded internet browser shit. Then you need to measure the time difference between the output and the stopwatch, then the time difference between a click and its computation, considering that these are constants, and subtract them in the algorithm.

Or you can just ask a friend to drop a ruler between your fingers before you catch it. The measurement relates with the time.

>>8235725
>Goes by an average of 5-20 scores. The inference of one's highest score implies a test that cannot result from mashing guess clicks.

Example: the 96ms score in the OP is negligible. The real score was something around 192ms average.

>>8235728
>Are you all fucking stupid? This site is not taking into consideration the input lag

If you read the website there is mention of this. Hence:

>>8235716

>>8235736
>10-50ms
Not really, I am getting a noticeable input delay that is at least 100ms

>>8235751
Is your computer monitor a theatre screen?

>>8235591
>370-379 ms (about IQ 54)
Reporting in

320-329 ms (about IQ 80)

>>8235780
>>8235768
>>8235681
>>8235672

Hilarious that /pol/'s average IQ is 130 while /sci/'s is below 100.

>>8235786
/pol/ is a social construct

>>8235786
Scored 180 average (5/5 attempts). That should bring up the average a bit. (155 IQ)

>>8235786
I think the reaction time difference is due to the difference in the amount of H.F. autistic people.

I'm smarter than the average bear (not for sci), but my reaction time is sluggish and I'm very clumsy, etc.

waddup plebs

>>8235796
>I'm smarter than the average bear, but my reaction time is sluggish and I'm very clumsy, etc.
i'm similar, my reactions are slow, but my reflexes are pretty good. i was always great in dodgeball and during the 4th of july i was playing baseball slow pitching from like 30 ft away and someone pinged it right at my dome and i was able to dodge it. but im clumsy as fuck and my avg time in this thing was like 360 ms.

>>8235591

Fastest score was 270... Hmm

B-b-but I'm smart guys, I swear.

It's this damn mouse! Yeah, that's it.

>>8235725
Was saying my tested IQ irl is 160+ lul

I tried it, is it ever address in the statistics the amount of registered times each individual has "clicked" too soon among the times they saved their scores?

Because I notice that it does not count the "too soon" clicks in the number of tries.

>>8235838
I've seen a 1 and a 0 go away.

>>8235591
>all those brainlets itt
Step it up, fags.

>>8235678
>>8235682
>>8235687
>>8235811
>over 30ms
kys

>>8235591
this test bullshit it's heavily dependent on the browser
180ms in firefox
open chrome
suddenly 75 ms

>>8235848

>>8236454
could not experienced that - but what about screen refresh rate?

>>8235826
>>8235780
>>8235768
>>8235672
don't worry guys. this shit is bullshit, thus strongly depentent on your hardware and software even if the correlation seems legit. My best 180ms and average 233ms despite i am like the fucking smartest person in the entire universe.

Avg 217 out of 18 tries

Light information going trough less synaptic connections - hence faster reaction wouldn't imply a dumber person?

>>8236454
>Using one score instead multiple for an average

This board really is retarded

>>8235591
This method for testing IQ is massively flawed. There may be a correlation between IQ and reaction time. But this will never replace traditional methods.

Example, I am pretty sure Stephen Hawking would test pretty low using this method.

>>8235591
It's kinda bad of a test since your monitor alone can add around 50ms. If you are using some stupid post processing shit one enjoy 150ms lag.

>>8236588
It shows it depends heavily on your equipment dipshit.

>>8236606
>believes 75ms is a legit reaction time

>>8235725
Everyone knows that the smartest people alive are martial artists, airline pilots, policemen, soldiers, and competitive gamers. Scientists are pretty dumb because they're all a bunch of nerds.

>>8235813
A lot of actual working reaction time has to do more with awareness than with how fast your spinal cord can deliver an impulse.

> Computing $400.
what is a scheduling timeslice?

>>8235591
>Scientists are pretty dumb because they're all a bunch of nerds.

There are a lot of low-IQ scientists out there. Keep in mind that a majority of science done is just useless, time-passing studies. A 100 IQ individual can study hard, works for years obtaining a PhD (or Bach.) then do the easy studies that so many do. The only scientists you can really attach a high IQ to are ones that have been proven to further science in a drastic fashion. With this in mind a lot of competitive gamers are indeed much more intelligent than a majority of scientists. This is based on requiring intelligence instead of just rote memorization to succeed.

>>8236484
gg no re nerds

>math student
>score lower than average when it comes to number memory
okay

>>8236677
There are a ton of cheaters for the number and tile memory games. Considering that your scores are not bad

>>8236659
>be scientist
>4k mmr irregular dota player
feelsgoodman.jpg

>>8235710
No. Not even close.
First of all, there are several IQ tests.
This is common knowledge.
Secondly, reaction time has almost no bearing on IQ.
There are plenty of elderly people with high IQs that can't jump-press buttons.

Also to the side:
- Not everyone has the same mouse
- Not everyone has the same speed computer
- Not everyone has the same internet connection speed
- Etc.

The "one test proves IQ" concept is completely false, and any idiot that would fall for this doesn't understand anything about intelligence nor IQ tests.

>>8236696
>There are plenty of elderly people with high IQs that can't jump-press buttons.

You have no idea whether or not this is true. This is along with the example of Hawking.

>Not everyone has the same internet connection speed

Internet speed has no relevance with the test.

>- Not everyone has the same mouse
>- Not everyone has the same speed computer

Given today's average computer this holds small relevance. The main difference is in the speed of one's monitor.

>>8236665
>no re
Faggot please.

>>8235725
>the smartest people on earth are professional COD players and black belts

>>8236702
>You have no idea whether or not this is true. This is along with the example of Hawking.
Yes I do; It's common knowledge.
With age comes decreased mobility and flexibility.

>Internet speed has no relevance with the test.
All internet applications that rely on speed also rely on internet connection speed.
In example: Online MMOFPS

>- Not everyone has the same mouse
>- Not everyone has the same speed computer

>Given today's average computer this holds small relevance.
Prove it empirically.

>The main difference is in the speed of one's monitor.
Prove it empirically.

PC: 300
iPod: 30
Test is bullshit.

>>8236716
>Prove it empirically.
>Yes I do; It's common knowledge.

Flash player doesn't depend on internet speed when the program is already fully-loaded. Also even IF that were the case latency would be the issue and not connection speed.

>>8236712
Woah! You're IQ must be atleast 100

>>8235725
>The relationship is inverse. 351ms average means your IQ is roughly 70.

That's simply not true though.
I'm scoring in the 300 ms range, and the site clearly state I'm in the top 13%.
Also an IQ of 70 is borderline retarded (if not retarded) and I surely couldn't type this if that was the case.

Furthermore, I've had my IQ tested multiple times before, and I have an IQ above average; in the gifted range.

So the test is boloney.

There are dozens of rational reasons why people would not be the fasted clickers in the world.

>>8236722
That has nothing to do with sending and receiving the information; the "program" doesn't include the signal to change color.
It isn't localized. Check the sourcecode.

>>8236736
>That has nothing to do with sending and receiving the information; the "program" doesn't include the signal to change color.
>It isn't localized. Check the sourcecode.

Including ping into the average score the website average would hover around 350-400ms. Information is only sent somewhere when you hit the 'Save' button. You're probably one of those over-educated, retarded individuals. Example is your use of semicolons yet still use the word "it".

Right.
There's also a ton of "academics" at that support these tests as well, and companies "swear by them" and there are also papers on them over at the NCBI.
But they're bullshit.
Clicking fast doesn't mean you're good at math.
It doesn't mean you're good at science.
In fact, all it means is that you're good at clicking things quicking.
That's all it means.
If anything this is a NEET thread where F students come to placate their egos via confirmation bias.

>>8236745
>Uses it
>Must be a total pleb
...and yet I've been tested with an IQ of 280.

>>8236749
>"If anything this is a NEET thread where F students come to placate their egos via confirmation bias."

>Being this upset
>Thinking grades equate to IQ

Looks like someone scored low

Correlation does not equal causation.
I thought I was on the /sci/ board.

>>8236755
Top score of -100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ms actually.
Am I god now?

>>8236757
>Correlation does not equal causation.
>I thought I was on the /sci/ board.

Clearly you are also on the borderline-retarded board

>>8235786
>>8236611
>>8236755
Oh look, it's a /pol/tard peddling debunked science.
What a coincidence.
Tell me racism is scientific now, even though it's been debunked.

>>8236763
>Oh look, it's a /pol/tard peddling debunked science.
>What a coincidence.
>Tell me racism is scientific now, even though it's been debunked.

wut

>>8235591
I question any such singular metric as intelligence manifest in different ways. And even is such a thing actually existed the very use if it would lead to an over use of such metrics, thus invalidating them as any sensible economic model should tell you.

When I am feeling smart my time is ~300ms, but when I am feeling dumb my time is ~250ms.

This is one anecdotal data point that suggests what mode my mind is in has a very significant impact on my reaction speed.

>>8236774
>When I am feeling smart my time is ~300ms, but when I am feeling dumb my time is ~250ms.

One of the explanations for a slow reaction time is that the brain processes information through barriers. This includes over-thinking, having mental barriers, and just overall lowly efficient thinking patterns. So while you may believe you are "thinking smart" you're putting too much thinking strain into easily understandable concepts, such as a blinking color, which makes your reaction slower.

>>8236736
>Check the sourcecode.
Ok

>>8236781
Well I when I was feeling dumb I was just clicking.

As I wasn't contemplating novel market application of OLED and how the different band gap breakdown of OLED vs LED would effect unit life cycles for end application which translates to market share and profit potential compared to the new potential market with competitor effects factored in of course, like I did when I was feeling smart. Also that 3 year band wear difference over simulated 100 year life cycle can add to a lot of money for longer term field applications like you find in military gear, someone should warn the pentagon, unless they plan to increase field rotation rates with the projected defense budget, as battery replacement has better of set returns.

But small thoughts like that happen whenever I see a blinking LED powered pixel, and my computer has a lot of them, which can get distracting at times. And people do say I tend to think too much.

So the idea that all those thoughts slow me down is very likely to be true, but I would argue that such over thinking doesn't warrant the implied negative as it seems to serve me very well, even in reaction oriented cases like racing.

>>8236736
>>8236782
Sure, the time is local.

But that doesn't mean that there isn't a delay between the app telling firefox "Hey, i just started a timer, turn green, please." and then fire fox telling your GPU "hey, turn green please" and then your GPU saying "huh, i have to process 100000 pixels." and then the gpu saying "okay, LCD, here's your data at a delay of 16 milliseconds" and the LCD saying "okay, i'll display it in like a millisecond." and then your brain doing its 200ms thing, and then your mouse going "OH SHIT, we've been clicked." and sending a signal, either through air or through wire to the USB controller, where the USB controller goes "Uhhh, hey, north bridge, ive got some data at this port." and then the north bridge going "Uhhh, hey CPU. there's data here. can you tell me what to do with it?" and then the CPU going "Okay, ram, tell me where to tick this data" and then the ram going "just move the curor register" and then the cpu going "okay, north bridge, grab that data and send it to me" and then the north bridge sending it, and then the cpu sending the data into memory.
aaaaannnd then the cpu updates firefox and looks for any triggers and firefox goes all "tell me if there's been a mouse click, please." and then the cpu goes "oh, i think i just updated that info, let me check." and then it passes the click into to firefox, who then talks back to its app and says "Hey, we got a mouse click, here you go." and then the app gets the click and is all like "Wow, took fucking long enough."

250 milliseconds later.

>>8236797
300ms is 300ms. Your IQ is 76-105. Sorry, buddy.

>>8235591
this post is proof that caffeine increases IQ.

>>8236808
>tl;dr

The test mentions that 10-50ms can be added on via the computer. This is also taken into account with the averages in the OP.

>>8236809
Actually my comprehensive IQ tests have been 140, 136, 138. They were very thorough (they better be for all those hours of testing and all the money my parents paid) as everyone was afraid I had some mental issues, in the end they labeled me "undefined disability" which as been a real problem, especially now that I live one my own as a legal adult.

You would not believe how broken our legal system is at defining my rights as an individual, took my 8 months of bureaucratic red tape to get my drivers licenses.
Yet my instructed suggest I go pro after not only getting 100%, but also handling a flash ice storm that stopped everyone else. Seriously the coefficient of friction on the tires and ice are well known as well as phase change from loaded pressure as defined by the cars weight. And the cars mass is a relatively constant, adjusting for fuel loss as predefined for my maneuvers. I don't know why other Floridians had such a hard time with that odd storm, it is basic physics.

am i retarded?

>>8236727
>I'm scoring in the 300 ms range, and the site clearly state I'm in the top 13%
Jesus, you're stupid.

>>8235591

Well looks like my IQ is 80

Fuckin' cya

>>8235591
I knew playing all those video games would make me a genius!

>>8238503
This.
Reaction time is something that changes with training, IQ doesn't.

>>8235591

It's the 'NEURAL REACTION TIME' you fucking retard, not the exterior.

>>8235591
219 ms. Seems like this is 135 IQ, which is clearly bullshit.

I have done Mensa level IQ tests and I usually get 120 give or take, not 135.

>>8238549
>I have done Mensa level IQ tests and I usually get 120 give or take, not 135.
Retake the MENSA test perhaps?

>Reaction time is something that changes with training, IQ doesn't.
Muscle memory changes not one's reaction time. Also, the opposite is true of your post. FPS games and the Portal games have shown to increase IQ in players.

>>8236712

What did you fucking blink? IQ 70-80 by my estimate.

>>8238644
>FPS increases IQ
Yeah, Xbox live is just filled with geniuses.

>>8235591
i managed like 80 ms after like the third attempt when my brain started picking up the pattern of when it goes green. i guess i'm a genius

>>8238739
Goes by an average of 5-20. Also this is a test of reaction time and not for the purpose of muscle memory. This board is stupid. Have fun being scientists and engineers with your knuckle-draggingly retarded IQ levels. Castrate yourselves and work menial jobs instead of studying 5-6 hours a day to keep up in science/engineering, please. You'll do the world a favor.

>>8238747
it's actually funny because when i play video games that rely on twitch reflexes, i tend to substitute my mediocre reflexes with pure muscle memory and intuition. i can't react fast enough to another player swinging a sword at me, but i can somehow just tell when he's going to do that like 80-90% of the time. it's like a sixth sense, my brain feels all tingly when it seems like someone is about to attack me or something

but what was all that stuff about castration? lol dude relax

If you want to test your IQ, take an IQ test.

>>8238758
>but what was all that stuff about castration? lol dude relax
A majority of science/engineering students are morons who study 5-6 hours a day. After graduation they're going to have to be either carried in the workplace or not be employed for too long. This theme is cancerous going along the notion that education is the only important factor and while intelligence is negligible. Without intelligence one is going to be a shit scientist and/or engineer.

>>8238773
Further: STEM is extremely over-saturated as is. Doesn't help that a majority of the high GPA students are low intelligence, pill popping overachievers entering a specific workforce which is reliant on intelligence. Go into law or something which plays into one's "skill" of rote memorization and over studying. Gtfo my major fkn REEEEEEEEEEEEE

I am in MENSA and scoring 310ms average, what is wrong with me ?

>>8235786
God this board is so fucking shitty. Why do /pol/tards come here now? At least before election year all we had to deal with was pop-sci and gorilla shitposting. But you faggots invade every thread we have here now. Fuck off.

>>8238509
>IQ doesn't
Pretty sure that's not true, though training your reaction time would probably not increase the results considerably.

So taking recreational stimulants makes me smarter? I FUCKING KNEW IT

>493

what would my iq be?

>>8239368
IQ = -112

>>8239370
fuck

Lmfao do you even read your sources?

"in groups of unskilled workers, mostly of below average, borderline, or retarded mental ability, selected in the United States and in India."

No.8235591

>>8235786
>citing a self reported """"""""survey""""""""""
I browse /pol/ too but you have to be a dumb ass to believe either was accurate.

hurrrr

>>8236822
Its usually much longer because Firefox has become a trainwreck of a browser but okay
>tfw still no multicore rendering while there are octacores in the consumer market
Fuck me...

>>8235786
Lets see how many SJWtard invaders are shitposting on /sci/ right now

weppp

Im natural tho.

And OP, how much is ones ability to go out of set and change code that measures this and trick it into negative score worth, what's my IQ then?

How the fuck do you faggots score so low?
I literally can't go any lower than 250ms.

>>8241051
Anything under ~150 is people guessing and clicking preemptively.

>smartes people in the world play chess
>games that last up to hours, if not days or weeks

>this test
>legit
pick one

227ms legit one try

>NOTE: The IQ conversions I discuss are just my own personal conjecture and have not been endorsed by humanbenchmark.com (a website I have no connection to)
what a joke

>>8235591
The real interesting thing would be to measure correllation between IQ and how responsivity to emotional triggering.

>Asians at the top of the scoreboard
So this is just a test of who is best at videogames?

>>8238981
>taking for granted that what anonymous people write on the internet must be true.

D-did I do good?

>>8241212
>Not realizing the top of the leaderboard is resulted via cheating. Scores at or below 100 aren't counted, #1 is 101ms which isn't humanly achievable through averages.

Is this due to the season being summer or has /sci/ always been this retarded. This thread is a catastrophe of butt-mad dunces

>>8241257
Why would someone be so autistic as to cheat on an online click test?

You can also improve your reaction time by practicing things such as fast-paced games which won't necessarily improve your IQ and you can improve your IQ by practicing things like the puzzles you commonly see on IQ tests or simply with education in general, which won't necessarily improve reaction time. I'll definitely believe that they are correlated but I have a hard time believing that the correlation is very strong.

>>8241235
Looks great anon. Good job! :)

>>8241264
Some sad people in this world derive pleasure from other peoples frustrations and fear of inadequacy. I know it can be difficult to believe that people would be so primitive and insecure but I have found it to be true.

>>8236727
>Also an IQ of 70 is borderline retarded (if not retarded) and I surely couldn't type this if that was the case.
Yes, 70 IQ individuals can type. Take a look at tumblr.

>>8241275
Thank you

>>8241293
Your fallacy today is:
>false dichotomy
This has been a public service announcement from the AIAF.
>AnonIsAFaggot

>>8241293
Could be bots which pretend to be stupid and just spam shit to make others seem stupid by association.

You scored 246.0. You're currently in the top 75 percentile for this test!

t. /pol/

>>8237782
>Well looks like my IQ is 80
Just move to Africa and become minister of science.

>>8241054
This. My IQ is ~154 and can only score an average of around 175ms while using a 144Hz monitor. Top 10 or so on the leaderboard are cheated scores.

>>8241392
Reiterate: Example; the #1 spot has a history where he consistently has about 240ms scores. The dude used something known as a trigger mouse. The 140ms scores may be legit. That would mean their IQ's would be upward-bounds of 175 IQ. Having a 100ms average you would need a 200+ IQ and the best equipment available.

I have 420 avg ms

the reason for this is simply because i have access to ESP.

Don't fret plebians, it's a very exclusive ability.

>>8241403
Using words like "reiterate" makes you look not smart but more like a pretentious faggot however.

>>8241411
that sentence syntax gave me a brain hemorhhage
project much?
god I hate this website

a-at least i have something to be proud of

mentally ill with slowed brain for a long time though, so i feel like i can do better once im healthy

>>8241409

I thank my esp.

>>8241429
That's inverse. You're slower than 88% of the testers.

>>8241411
...wow. LOL You must be severely stupid. In case that's another two-syllable word that confuses you -- severely means 'extremely'.

>>8241442
It did not confuse me much. I was like you once. If you are like I was back then, then you will probably realize one day how you came across, and you will be sad that you didn't realize earlier how it hindered your communication with others.

So does this test prove that Stephen Hawkins is a complete retard then?

>>8241452
Unlike you my sentence structure online resembles my stream of consciousness. There's a difference of spending 5 minutes on a few sentences pretending to be smart and actually being intelligent. Notice how I've used zero SAT-tier words and you still think I'm attempting to seem overly intelligent. You're projecting as the other poster mentioned.

>>8238988
It's been good for me. I barely fucking come on /sci/ anymore due to the shitposting from /pol/.

>>8241426
I'm happy to be mentally ill in the other direction. I am emotionally immune to the signals you are trying to send me. Probably why I'm so good at technical things. Almost all emotional attempts to distract just wash off and I can focus on all the cool theory and tech.

>>8241460
I don't even know what SAT is. Not a native english-speaker. I'm not projecting. I've seen that behavior when I studied technology in school and it can give some really nasty social patterns for people.

>>8241473
as a non native english speaker who has worked a lot with english speaking people, we just come off as rude 80% of the time.

>>8241473
>non-native English speaker
>calling someone pretentious for using "big" words like 'reiterate'

Are you being serious?

>>8235591
ITT: /sci/ and /pol/ can't into computers.

I can't get why he didn't hop in and save her when he had the chance. 95% of guys would have, I swear!

>>8241493
Fuck off /g/ay. You have no life/friends/gf

>>8241330
You scored 168.0. You're currently in the top 99 percentile for this test!
First try btw.
t. nigger from africa

>>8241511

thats why this test fails.

niggers, factually have lower IQ's. Yet, they have more white twitch muscles, because they evolved to become faster to run from predators.

How is this test even accurate?

>>8241530
Snailbrain detected

>>8241530
Lots of stuff on this site is for laughs and to see who can manage to fool who.

>>8241535

not an argument.

>>8241530
It doesn't take a lot of muscle to click a mouse button

>>8241555
No but the nervous system needs be able to send the signals fast to the muscles to escape tha mighty lion.

>>8241563
So do black people have more fast twitch muscles or faster nerves?

>>8241555

To click it fast, you need to white muscle fibers.

it's a reflex muscle.

negros have plenty of it, hence good at basketball and running.

>>8241511
I just tried it again, this time with a shitty laptop mouse pad. Turns out the test doesn't mean shit without taking the "mouse reaction time" into account.
Still better than average though.

>>8235591
Find: return e.prototype.enterGoPhase

Console inject:

var time = undefined;
Object.defineProperty(this, 'turnedGreenTime', {
get: function() {
return time;
},
set: function(value) {
time = value;
this.reactionClick();
}
});


Must have infinitive IQ being a pro coder eh?

Maybe we can trigger him with employed being lots of more incompetent than him. Somethings gotta work.

>>8241585
What kinda pleb board does not have code tags?
Sure has math tag, but hey its sci, seems resonable to have code tag too hmm

Dat captcha tho, old man on it

That website is more a test of your computer monitor than your reaction time.

If this doesn't do it, then I really don't know what will. Should be so painful right now he should be fucking screaming.

>>8241590
>>8241683
What are these posts

>>8241695
Feedback for some weird experiment probably.

>tfw IQ 70
feels subhuman man

I keep getting like 300ms. Did I fuck my brain up from browsing 4chin all the time? I used to program and felt generally like a genius. Also it seriously doesn't feel like its taking me anywhere near 300ms. I'm worried my sense of time is speeding up.

>>8241727
"Tests with Air force pilots have shown, that they could identify the plane on a flashed picture that was flashed only for 1/220th of a second. That is identifying. So it's pretty safe to say, that recognizing, that SOME light was there is possible with 1/300th of a second."

Your eyes won't notice the difference between 200ms and 500ms roughly.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

>>8235591
480ms. Oh well..

fastest was 110
avg around 210
"good" runs in 190-200
"bad" runs in the 250s

>>8241205
Do it 20 times, and then do the average. That's what you're supposed to do.

This thread went full retard. The correlation is moderate and you're supposed to do it 20 times and then calculate the average, not "dude 198 ms lmao I'm a genius Xd" for one try.

>>8235591
this doesn't work well on my old laptop and hard-to-press mouse :(

>>8235591

only thing i have is pattern recognition ;_;

>>8236763
>Racism
>debunked

>>8236763
>that low IQ drama

>>8236763
Do you concede that black americans are, on average, better than white americans at basketball? Congrats, you already fit the definition of racist.
Now how about asian americans being, on average, better than latinos at math?
What about blacks being on average more violent than whites?
Racial discrepancies exist. That's statistical fact. Some can be put down to cultural and socioeconomic differences, but not all.
This leaves one with a difficult decision to make. Believe what is nice, or believe what is true.

>>8235786
>/pol/ can lie

>>8235591
>gets 694 ms
>has motor nerve problems

>>8236712
is that planck time ???
>mah nigga :)

>>8242636
>some can be put down to cultural and socioeconomic differences, but not all.
Here's one flaw in your reasoning, invalidating your first four sentences, edgelord.
While phenotypical differences obviously do exist within different populations, admitting they're genetic doesn't mean we attribute a value to them. I'm pretty sure most people don't give a shit about Tibetans having better oxygenation in high altitudes or European being lactose-tolerant, cause those differences are quite negligible and aren't advantages in normal situations. Not enough to call for a civil war.
Also correct me if I'm wrong, but the gap in IQ, on the other hand, has never been proven to be due to genetics to my knowledge, and I'm pretty sure the concept of IQ in itself has little to no scientific value.

According to this test, my iq is roughly 3
Great test OP

>>8242636

> Do you concede that black americans are, on average, better than white americans at basketball?

But Basketball isn't the only "sport" you idiot. American blacks maybe better on average at basketball for example but American whites are better on average at swimming or winter sports.

The fact we have dumb asses like you advocating an entire spectrum of activities to one race because they excel at one or several facets of it is ridiculous.

"Oh look east asians really excel at mathematics on the academic/ testing level. I guess that means they are on average excel in math in general!"

No, you idiot it just means they excel at math in academics/ testing. Which can translate to other facets of math but not all or enough to qualify them as better in the entire spectrum of math itself.

>But muh American asians being better at math than Latinos!
>But muh blacks being more violent than whites!

Once again, they excel in facets but not the entire spectrums. Last time I check blacks didn't fuck engulf 70% of the entire planet into fucking war. They didn't create machine guns, or tanks or fucking atomic bombs (although a few did participate in the research of it). No, your blacks being more violent stem from a higher amount urban gang violence and tribal warfare that at the smaller scale.

But gang violence and tribal warfare is not the only facets to violence and do not make them qualified to excel in the entire spectrum of violence itself.

>get 0ms because i clicked out of pure luck
so what am i

>>8235591
Terrible anon.
If anyone believes this then consider this fact:
If we gave chimps this exact same task, they would be exceptionally intelligent. Why? Their reaction time (especially after instruction of specific motor movement tasks) is much faster than ours.
So, by this test you are sharing are you willing to accept this logic and believe chimpanzees are more intelligent than you? If I'm not mistaken their average RT is around 150ms, if not less.

Look, ive never had my IQ tested because im not an autistic shit bag that feels the need to run around spouting off the number to people.

But I'm pretty sure that its higher than 40

>>8235591
a person with the strongest iq would write a script to select the box automatically in an instanst

>>8247120
>a monkey
FTFY

>>8241607
wtf how do you have those old captchas.
I fucking hate the image recognition ones

>>8235591
Does it take it's users output and input lag into consideration?

>>8235591
204 from the test result minus the average screen lag(30) = 174.

How much IQ does that equate?

>>8235591
204 here.

>>8241392
I'm using a 60 Hz.

>>8241020
lol make sure when you're editing the html to edit the average score too

>>8248110
>file name
>think you got a bad score
The calculations go that you're roughly 145 IQ.

>>8247029
>If we gave chimps this exact same task, they would be exceptionally intelligent. Why? Their reaction time (especially after instruction of specific motor movement tasks) is much faster than ours.
Wrong. Chimps have much slower reaction time than humans.

>>8247120
>>8241585
Samefag

>>8248110
20 TIMES

OUT OF 20 TIMES

Then do the average

>>8235591
Blacks confirmed for highest IQ
:^)
not that IQ matters, but for those who believe in this arbitrary metric of pattern learning/matching speed, i'm sure you'll note this

Ok, I have IQ 80 and 188. Hmmmm

>>8243332
"Most academic books on the subject emphasise the characteristic multi-racialism of Bermuda's Black population (at least those who might be defined as ethnically Bermudian, as opposed to those resulting from recent immigration), and it has been pointed out in other publications that, if those Black Bermudians who have White ancestry were numbered instead with the White population, the Black population of Bermuda would be negligible."
Oh well, don't bother changing your theory, I'm sure one day the evidence will support it.

>>8248592
I have ?I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.Although, I've done more than 20 clicks, but only 20 were repeated in a consecutive manner.

>>8248284
I thought it was 142?

>>8235591
>average is always around 260 or so
>lowest is like 229

Please tell me I just have a shit mouse or that being a fat fuck reduces reaction time.

>>8235591
so terence tao's reaction time should be about 30ms, and Mochizuki's -42ms?

aboriginal reaction time should be around 0.5s

>>8235786
>all these replies

Wow, /sci/ really is thick

>have 140 IQ
>Have 300ms reaction time

>>8252582
>so terence tao
>assuming he's a genius

>>8252136
>according to a genome-wide study by Bryc et al. (2009), the overall ancestry of African Americans was formed through historic admixture between West/Central Africans (more frequently females) and Europeans (more frequently males). Consequently, the 365 African Americans in their sample have a genome-wide average of 78.1% West African ancestry and 18.5% European ancestry
Stop acting like a retard.
Also, even assuming they're more mixed than they are in the US, one still would expect them to score lower than non-mixed people because of their higher prevalence of "black specific" alleles. Pic related shows they don't.

>>8235591
This test is inherently flawed as a measure between individuals because it cannot factor out different internet connection qualities, screen response time, hardware response time, if the user has their monitor routed through a secondary unit such as using HDMI to a receiver to pass audio, etc.etc.etc.

You'd have to test everyone on the same machine.
Nothing in this thread matters and hardly anything on the website is meaningful to any degree.

>>8235591
>http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime
Site is weird. Shouldn't there be a tempo calibration before the test starts? So the input lag/latency is at least close to 0?

>>8253528
yes, they don't actually care

Seems hardware latency is a bitch.

When I do it without seeing the green at all the lowest I can get is 33ms. Even with Fraps recording, I don't see it appear frame by frame when getting anything under 50ms. Seems anything below 50ms is actually a lucky misclick.

Also, seems IQ and Reaction time are not correlative enough to matter.

>>8252572
Your screen, OS, hardware drivers, and mouse play a massive role in something so twitchy. For instance, if you have a wireless mouse, you are pretty much fucked for stuff like this. You'd notice the difference only in shit like bullet hell shumps when you try using wired vs wireless mice. You'd die a lot more using wireless.

correlation is not causation

>>8253033
>sample size of 365
>meanwhile the sample size for the IQ tests was over 80% of the islands population
People lie about their ethnicity and claim to be black to avoid social ostracism. What more likely, that the data acquired was bunk because of misreported ethnicity or that the theory that 99.99% of the data is invalidated because one island's test results? i hate to break it to you but one study's questionable results does not change the fact that literally everywhere else in the world there exists enormous gaps in IQ between races.
Btw here's a photo of the son of a "black" Bermudan

>>8235591
I don't trust the results of this website

I feel no difference in timing between some clicks, yet the website says there's over a 100ms difference.

I think there is significant lag being introduced by the network or client computer.

How 2 control for lag?

>>8236749
Fast reaction times imply faster processing of information by the brain.

i think this test is bullshit. i've been drinking and smoking weed and i got in the 97% percentile.

>>8254237
>Im drunk and high yet I le got into 97% XXDD
>Imagine if I was sober, I must be a genius RITE?

>>8254241
I was seriously kinda out of it I think i gotta a strategy for it though. You just gotta memorize half the boxes per one hand and do it as fast as possible. The faster you do it the easier it is to do.

whatever

>>8236712
wew lad

>get around 90 from all and 100%+ on verbal
>fuck up at visual
i barely go outside, so there are not many ways i can practise visual, i played a ton of fps'es so i became good at reaction, verbal is there because of books, numbers are easy for me but I still can't remember my phone number, i think i am autistic

This just tests how much white matter you have.

Autists will do worse on this.

>>8247300
go to the settings in quotes and replies and check the legacy captcha box

Does this mean I'm retarded..?

>math major
>average: 220 ms

i knew math was harder for me than everyone else
brb kms

>>8235591

>360 ms, IQ of 60
How am I able to write this sentence?