/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9674197
I've been drinking. I got 361 m/s with 5% error. So you did pretty well anon

241 ms on the one box space bar
356 on the multi choice

0% error rate cause I am not a scrub. All those video game playing paid off it seems.

425 ms with 0% error
300 ms on simple reaction

just for reference, I have a 103 IQ

>>9674760
oh and I'm 26. i remember age affecting this.

>tfw below average

>>9674760
>I have a 103 IQ

How did you find this out?

>>9674806
WAIS-IV at age 19

>>9674811
What was your SAT score?

I got 1150 on mine, and I figured out to just treat the XCBNM like they're electrodes on your finger, and you'll get a better score, so I'm at 350 with 5% failure rate

The weird thing is that it's 117 IQ, but if you're 103 IQ and I can't best you, that means I'm probably 95-105 IQ too

>>9674824
I got an 1190 on my SAT

specifically 600 and 590 on math and verbal, respectively.

>>9674197
>muscle memory is related to intelligence

No.

>>9674829
Retard.

>>9674829
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/clocking-the-mind-mental-chronometry-and-individual-differences.pdf

>>9674829
studies show that choice reaction time is a better predictor of IQ than head circumference and forehead size.

>>9674827
Are you sure the 103 is accurate for you?

19 is kind of young to be able to take something like that without a shit-load of pressure.

I've actually bombed internet tests over stress

469ms 15% error kek
Don't know my IQ

>>9674824
Not him, but I increased my SAT score from 1290 to 1520.

710 verbal 580 math originally, after a year and a half of going through /sci/ memebooks like the gelfand and serge lang books, and reading more in general: 730 and 790. it's pretty trainable, unlike the old SAT, where a lot of the IQ-SAT studies got their datasets from.
I took a general battery intelligence exam when I was getting diagnosed for ADD and came back as 127, if you care to know.

>r=0.5
wow its fucking nothing

>>9674838
What do you get on the choice reaction in this thread?

That's pretty incredible

>>9674834
Well, I've always taken it to be accurate. It's possible I might have an attention related disorder since I bombed the working memory subtest, and got a below average score on the processing speed section.

>>9674842
>r = .5
>Nothing

a 1:1 is perfect "Just give him this test to find out how smart he is"

With .5, you get an idea of how smart you are

If you soar way over everyone else, you're probably smart.

If you're just like everyone else, you're probably average.

>>9674843
Damn. I fucked up bad on the choice.

>>9674846
>bombed something that gets fried under pressure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_stress_on_memory

People take real IQ tests and jump 10 points all of the time.

I feel like I'm rationalizing your IQ score to make-up for my deficits in CRT, but you know better than I do if you did your best possible on the WAIS

>>9674842
>0.5 is fucking nothing
Here's the correlation between brain volume and g.

>>9674760
>>9674851
These are two totally different intelligence levels, but they're similar CRT scores.

>>9674859
To be fair, I didn't do good on the vocab section and general knowledge subtest either, both of which are pretty g-loaded. I probably would have done better if I was slightly less nervous, and I'm sure I'd do better now on meds.

>>9674863
One of them also has ADD

>>9674197
protip: monitor refresh rate increases your reaction time

anecdotally evident in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjci8cMu3DI
but it also makes sense
there are no studies i found on reaction time and monitor refresh rate in my short google but i also switched monitors for this reaction test and improved 50ms on both ish

>>9674868
this

>>9674868
I'm
>>9674851
And this is my refresh rate.

>>9674868
>tfw OP and 60hz monitor

Huh

Guess I can cut 34 ms off of my scores.

I must be grease lightning and not even know it.

>>9674873
I think I just realized something major as the OP

If you're not approaching the CRT the right way, you won't get an accurate score.

You need to treat the slots in front of your eyes like they're representations of your fingers on the keyboard, or you will get a bad score.

I just got this 316 on a 60 Hz monitor without any error due to practice, and that's in direct defiance of any g loading.

Seems like bullshit. My IQ is somewhere in the 140s and I'm doing fine in undergrad.

>>9674897
what was your original score?

>>9674904
You might actually be retarded

>>9674904
Surprisingly accurate

>>9674905
It was
>>9674197

That's a gap that's too big to ignore.
This means a lot of people in this thread are at a huge disadvantage because they approached this the wrong way

>>9674862
it's also fucking nothing

>>9674912
i'm
>>9674760
and that's how I initially approached it

I still flub it since my right hand is more dominant than my left. nice work. you could probably break sub-300.

>>9674913
>Measured head circumference
>Got 573 mm
>Measured CRT reaction time
>The raw score is 284 ms
>Fastest recorded reaction ever is .194 ms on an iphone

Does anyone know if .5 x .5 means anything at all?

I think I'm average

>>9674935
You got 284 on choice? damn

>>9674935
>tfw 558 mm head circumference
>CRT ITT was 312 w/ 5% error
f-fuck

>>9674935
funnily enough, head circumference is r=0.26, as opposed to the 0.4 for brain volume

>>9674940
>>9674943
That's because my monitor is 60 Hz
You guys probably have the same kind.

Just subtract 30 ms to get to 144 Hz

It's always funny to see just how insecure /sci/ can get when it comes to IQ.

I'd bet if a study came out saying that toe webbing width had an r=.42 correlation with g, you'd have autists here pull out their calipers and take the average of 5 different measurements.

>>9674197
I love shit like this.

>>9674904
Reaction time and intelligence don't perfectly correlate

It's plausible you could have a really bad reaction time and be a genius, but it's more likely that you at least have an average reaction time.

There's a lot of evidence that proves that sport stars are in the upper echelon of intelligence for their respective race.

>>9674897
I might try again with that in mind.

>>9674197
Mine is like 80 ms but then again I am a second degree blackbelt in Taekwon-do.

>>9674197
Simple: 245ms 0%error
Choice: 411ms 15% error (autism)

>>9676637
2nd try
325 0%
364 5%

156, 0% @ Single choice
241, 0% @ Mutliple choice

>>9674197
IQ of about 22 I feel like, never tested though.

>>9676737
IQ?

>>9676793
184

>>9676798
nice
i'm 167 and barely sentient

>>9676798
>>9676804
And how did you get tested for these IQs?

>this is where funding for psychology goes

even someone with 68 chromosomes could tell you that choosing from zero things is faster and easier than choosing from four things

>>9676867
by paying

>>9676793

Formally tested thrice.

SB IQ170, Wechsler IQ166, and a relatively poor score following with a Cattel IQ190...

>>9676867
Psychologist

>>9676867
>>9677525

Let it be said that I do not believe IQ is an accurate representation of a person's facilitation for excellence nor their overall intellect, wisdom, or skillset.

It's merely a number marker for a person's ability to achieve results within the specific constraints of the testing scheme.

That it apparently necessitates greatness is something I contest to; I would postulate that IQ is actually a byproduct of other factors (genetic, environment, psychological) which contribute to the acheievement of 'greater' feats.

>>9677528
Wow, you are smart

200/300 after 2 15% beers, almost falling asleep in my chair

>>9677539
IQ?

>>9674197
here's the results lads
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21287123

for the 18-25 gap, they chose university of edinburgh students and city of edinburgh residents

you could probably reliably estimate your IQ from these results

>>9674197
>r = .5

>>9674832
>a better predictor of IQ than phrenology
...next you'll claim it's better than palmistry?
BLASPHEMY

>>9676605
aptitude + training

>>9677539
>15% beers
wat

273ms, 0% error
372ms, 5% error
I'm 30.

>>9678013
You'll get better with effort

>>9677669
Apparently the 18-25 mean (IQ of 100) on CRT is .381 ms

>>9679250
>>9677525
I just did some basic math (if the 160 IQ man is for real), and I found this

IQ 160

.241 CRT

IQ 130

.311 CRT

IQ 100

.381 CRT

This is really interesting.

>>9679290
also keep in mind that the 18-25 people are mostly university students, and thus smarter.
this is also seen from their higher than average WAIS-IV matrix scores.

2nd try

609mm head circumference, ~115 IQ based off mensa online tests, pic related = first and only attempt results

>>9679290
How is this score effected by the type of moniter you use? Cause I'm actually using a oled tv

2nd try

Is it safe to say my Iq is like 105-110? I'm okay with this...

>>9674197
Simple task: 301ms (error rate: 0%)
Multiple choice task: 479 (error rate: 0%)

I did the test with a handicap though -- it's almost 4 in the morning and I am very sleepy.

>>9674824
>The weird thing is that it's 117 IQ, but if you're 103 IQ and I can't best you, that means I'm probably 95-105 IQ too
That's not how correlations work.

>>9678005
>being this uneducated

>>9678009
My IQ is like 104 too, but the last time I took the test was in 8th grade lol.

>>9679768
Oh, and my IQ is 140.

>people actually think is connected to iq

>>9679955
t. slow brainlet arguing against legitimate research

>>9680022
I didn't read the instructions and fucked up part 2

i did ok :
220 ms on simple and like 500+ ms on the choice although i was doing it inefficiently.


i got a 720 on the SAT Verbal(critical reading) and a 680 on the math, no real amount of studying. attending a decent university

>>9680176
also i talk pretty fast and can do arithmetic reasonably fast as well, and im definitely in a better state cognitively than i was when i took the SAT, so im surprised i was such a laggard on this test , but oh well

237, 0% for SRT
308, 0% for CRT

This was my first try, though, I think I got slightly higher numbers my first time.

Tired but 247 ms, 334 ms. The problem with this test is that it depends on individual hardware. Keyboards all have wonky response times and can be 10-60 ms difference in response time. You would need to test everyone on the same hardware.

>>9679579
Take off 30ms if you've got a 60 Hz monitor to get your raw reaction time, but those scores are grabbed from a 60 Hz monitor

Anyone else ambidextrous posting here? I'm interested in the connection between these test results and left/right brain aptitude, given that the choice test depends on using both hands and the simple can use either hand. I scored 322 on simple and 325 0% error on choice and I feel like it's because I can use both hands equally. Did anyone who is right handed notice a significant increase in difficulty when pressing X or C, or did anyone who is left handed have more difficulty pressing B or N?

Also if youre tall, youre at disadvantage, since the nerves to your hands are longer

267 SRT on 60 HZ monitor after 12+ hours awake and 10 $ keyboard (took me three tries to actually remain focused for more than 20 sec). Wont do the other one because i have ADD and am tired

>>9681515
Also. Mensa.no IQ test gives me 131, meanwhile hitting the upper limit on the Cambridge one. Alas, i tend to dominate on FPS and Hero shooters

>>9674197
221 ms with 0%, 335 with 10%

>>9681289
If those scores are grabbed from a 60hz monitor then why would I take off 30ms if I have a 60hz monitor?

>>9681535
how do I unsubscribe from your blog