[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 117 KB, 347x346, brain-763982-11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2080521 No.2080521 [Reply] [Original]

http://cambridgebrainsciences.com/play/rotation-task

How the FUCK do people, that are not rain man style autistic savants, manage to score 400-600 on this?

This doesn't make any sense.
What's your score on this /sci/?

>> No.2080539

78
feels batman :(

>> No.2080544

150-something in the first try.

>> No.2080545

120, I don't really see a problem however.

>> No.2080546

I dunno, hackers maybe?

>> No.2080547

made 116

>> No.2080548

107.
I honestly don't care though. Good for you if you can rotate puzzles rapidly and ultra-efficiently.

>> No.2080549

170 for the first time.
I didn't know what to do at first though, so I think I could get 200.

>> No.2080550
File: 156 KB, 1366x768, mfw.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2080550

I thought I did alright

>> No.2080557

125, was pretty slow though.

Is there some way to see the averages on the site?

>> No.2080561

132

>> No.2080567

>How the FUCK do people, that are not rain man style autistic savants, manage to score 400-600 on this?

packet senders

>> No.2080568

second attempt: 184

>> No.2080570

200 first time

21 year old virgin

definitely a correlation

>> No.2080578

181

going through nicotine withdrawal so my focus is a little off right now.

>> No.2080589

215 here. Did it in class.

>> No.2080592

>>2080578
wow that means you are EVEN BETTER in a few days/weeks.
i'm really impressed!!

>> No.2080594

>>2080592
Not if I can find a cigarette before then.

>> No.2080606

43

im high

>> No.2080642

tried a few times. 90ish the first time, 244 the last time. i actually get faster when they get 'harder'

>> No.2081496

154.
Shit was cahs

>> No.2081563

111

>> No.2081838

157
ok.

>> No.2081850

213 and i'm stupid

>> No.2081900

55

drunk

>> No.2081908

I got 600. Just drank 50 shots so that might have lowered the score.

>> No.2081920

124

>> No.2081921

195, not bad. Did anyone else find themselves not always bothering to rotate the shapes mentally though? At times I would just look and realize there was an obvious difference and click.

>> No.2081927

156

>> No.2081928

>>2081921
I lol'ed good show sir good show.

>> No.2081930

>>2081921
>>2081921
i did this many times

>> No.2081937

Scored 109.

I have no excuses. I must be an idiot.

>> No.2081945

Is the website down, or just really really slow?

>> No.2081962

>>2081945
Not loading for me either. Must be all the /sci/fags f5ing the test to get a score high enough to justify their overestimation of their own intelligence.

lolumaditrollu

>> No.2081984

I guess playing high twitch FPS games helps in this test.

>> No.2081988

>>2081962

>mental rotation

>intelligence

Current psychometric attempts to quantify intelligence involve problem solving and memory. They don't attempt to assess a minor executive function.

>> No.2082014
File: 30 KB, 731x508, Screenshot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2082014

Fun. I think I'm going to write a program to do this.

>> No.2082017

118, u 'mirin'?

>> No.2082038

277, I wasn't concentrating very hard so I could have done better.

>> No.2082056

>>2081988

assuming that something as general and all-encompassing as "general intelligence" even exists, let alone accurately quantified.

>> No.2082057

321, was watching TV at the same time so I could have scored higher.

>> No.2082058
File: 32 KB, 726x517, Screenshot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2082058

Meh.

>> No.2082067

693

I was fucking your mother at the time, so I could have scored higher.

>> No.2082071
File: 107 KB, 706x863, sshot-80.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2082071

feelsfineman
I feel no great need to be rainman.

>> No.2082094

Without Binaural beats: 53
With Binaural beats: 257

>> No.2082102

77

rotation isn't worth shit

>> No.2082109
File: 29 KB, 179x178, no.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2082109

>though i was doing good
>68
>mfw

>> No.2082120

>>2082109
I got a better score by just clicking yes. Better to go slow if you make a lot of errors.

>> No.2082128

>>2082094
i lol'd

>> No.2082139
File: 58 KB, 671x502, sshot-81.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2082139

I'm average at rotation. I kick ass at spatial search, though. Beat 14. (Without cheating and using pencil and paper, faggots)

(you have to register to take this one)

>> No.2082193

>>2082139
Got to 11.

>> No.2082203

>>2082094
Are you trolling or serious?

>> No.2082219

138 first time drunk

>> No.2082221

first time, and drunk I mean

>> No.2082243

>>2080521
take a mental image, rotate it, see if it fits rinse&repeat for an hour

>> No.2082255

This shit is just a RAM test for your brain

>> No.2082263

62, then 151 with music.

Don't see how this can be related to intelligence though... Maybe to perception or some shit like that.

captcha: attached royardow

>> No.2082370

157, but i tried this a few weeks ago too. I just took thing's slow and only made one stupid mistake.

>> No.2082458

If you do this test a lot will it actually improve anything? Like your pattern recognization skills or something?

>> No.2082595

derp

>> No.2082702

i got a 18, then i got a 22.

>> No.2082732

88 reporting in

>> No.2082750

59. No excuses. Possibly retarded.

>> No.2082757

>>2082458
there is no pattern recognizing involved, if you use patern recognizing you will get a score like this guy
>>2082702

>> No.2082767

106. It took me a minute to figure out how to play lol.

>> No.2082779

94 first shot.

goin at it again

>> No.2082784

119
what does this test mean anyway?

>> No.2082786

>>2082784
Looks to be a test of mental imagery and spatial manipulation.

>> No.2082789

116

which is odd because I usually suck at stuff like this

>> No.2082790

107, if i start doing it often i could push the score up, but is that right?

>> No.2082793

78 high as balls

>> No.2082798

went from 30 -> 50 -> 78 -> 157

>> No.2082804

35

96

130

what does it measure anyway?

>> No.2082807

OCD here
35 1st try, 92 2nd try
now I just keep getting 0 :(

>> No.2082811

First 49, then 59, now 94..

Whats the point?

Btw, this isn't the real mental rotation test, it's just some retarded 2D shit.

>> No.2082820
File: 11 KB, 404x334, mentalrotationtest_thumb.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2082820

>>2082811
<<==

>> No.2082821

>>2082811
Mental rotation doesn't have to be 3D.

>> No.2082822

177

umad?

>> No.2082824

171

>> No.2082825

>>2082821
This >>2082820 is the classic mental rotation test. It's better because it's more difficult than just guessing red and green square patterns. You really have to mental-rotate.

The bbest part is that women suck at this.

>> No.2082829

189 first try, 213 second try,

>> No.2082832

157

I'm a tad slow perhaps since I approach it in a 3 phase process, first determining if the green blocks are in the proper patterns relative to each other, followed by red followed by whether their in the right positions when rotated.

This approach leads to recognizing a mismatch almost immediately but significantly delays identifying a match.

>> No.2082834

317, third try.

>> No.2082835

>>2082825
The original researcher who designed the test used 2D and 3D objects. The results suggested that it actually took people longer on the 2D mental imagery test than the 3D one.

>> No.2082838

best way to do it:

edge square patterns, inwards

pick one edge and go in from it

I take about 0.5 seconds to pick the edge for each one

>> No.2082840

>>2082835
Which reseacrher?

>> No.2082843

>>2082840
Roger Shepard and Jacqueline Metzler (1971).

>> No.2082850

>>2082843 here.
Here's the full citation if you want to look for the article:

Shepard, R.N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701-703.

>> No.2082855

>>2082820
NOPE
Also i got a 268
I just look at clusters and match them

>> No.2082859

132 at third time

>> No.2082861

>>2080570
173 first try.
Also a 21 year old virgin
high five!!

>> No.2082872

Scored 188, Wasn't really rotating them though - just checking if the patterns matched at all

>> No.2082873

213

>> No.2082876

so what is average and what is good? I don't believe the chart on the website.

>> No.2082878

>>2082850
>>2082843
Thanks. I read the article but they say something else. They say that it took more time for subjects to process rotations in which both objects had different axes, than when they knew beforehand that the axes were similar. Haven't found any mention of a 2D:3D comparison yet.

>> No.2082899

>>2082878
The experiment looked at how the degree of rotation has an effect on reaction time. Basically, the larger the difference in degree, the longer the reaction time. In the graph, you'll notice that the mean reaction time for 2D shapes are longer for the same degree of rotation on the 3D test. I don't think they offer any explanation for why.

>> No.2082901
File: 33 KB, 590x439, Shepard_Metzler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2082901

>>2082899
Of course, I forgot the graph.

>> No.2082923

>>2082878
You know what, after having actually taken the time to reading the article. I think you're right; I was mistaken. The shapes were 3D. The difference between the a) and b) is that: in a), the object is rotated on a plane/2D; in b), the object is rotated along the "y-axis" or depth. Shows how much I pay attention, huh.

>> No.2082938

Careful if you guys do the challenge, the memory test in it is exceedingly boring.

>> No.2082939

338 after trying it about 15 times.

I found it helpful to try to rotate the first image in your mind before looking at the second one.

>> No.2082957
File: 88 KB, 699x509, Rotationscambridge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2082957

Fourth try, I think I'm done now.

lol pattern recognition.

>> No.2082959

251 :D

>> No.2082986

>>2082957
How fast are you doing them to get that kind of score?

>> No.2083041

i OWN at pattern recognition.

>> No.2083056

You don't even need to rotate. Sometimes it's logic puzzles (hey there aren't enough greens it doesn't match)

120-something first try. Well second. I didn't know what I was doing the first time and read the F1

>> No.2084473

Got to 330

>> No.2084507

131 first try. Had no clue what to expect..
Could probably get that up a fair b it if I was a bit more awake/now that I know what to expect, but I'll stick with my original score.

>> No.2084515
File: 39 KB, 801x541, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2084515

>>2084473
Me again.

>> No.2084521

>>2084515
Come forth, he who dares challenge me!

>> No.2084531

damn squares
137 here

>> No.2084541

157, then started failing, got 138
But it's 6 am and i didn't sleep at all lol, still a pretty low score imo

>> No.2084552

121 first try
213 second
don't panic, be slow
a wrong one and a right one is worse than getting 1 right one in the same time

>> No.2084561

1st 69
2nd 109
3rd 98

I'll try again when I'm not hungover

>> No.2084566 [DELETED] 
File: 26 KB, 801x541, ekwin2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2084566

come get some.

>> No.2084568
File: 25 KB, 771x533, ekwin2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2084568

come get some

>> No.2084601

69. And i'm apparently in the 97th percentile for spatial awareness :*(.

Never considered myself a quick thinker though. I'm more thorough (stfu the excuse is working for me:p).

>> No.2084608

48.

The fact that I consistently score terribly in just about every IQ type test, yet still am demonstrably far more intelligent than most other individuals I meet would suggest to me that such measures are effectively useless in assessing an individual's worth.

>> No.2084610

<----------- check it bitches.

>> No.2084620

>>2084608

Having said this, I once fell forehead first onto the corner of a cinder block as a small child, I still have the scar on my forehead.

Could a blow to this part of the head impair some functionality of logical/mathematical/spatial reasoning regions?

>> No.2084624

157, not a single one wrong, but i took too long, uncomfortable too long. D:

then again, it is 10:20 pm and i have batshit crazy lethargy and depression.

>> No.2084629

>>2084624

198 second try.

still not happy at results

>> No.2084630

118

And I'm from /sp/.

Fucking losers, are you niggers?

>> No.2084632

Top Score: 230 / Last Score: 230 / Performance Rating: 92%

Imokwiththis.jpg

If I practiced this all day, I can probably get up to the 300's.

>> No.2084645

got over 200. keep practicing and you'll get a lot higher.

meh.

>> No.2084651

327

>> No.2084674

>>2084608

They are nowhere near useless: they're remarkably accurate about 90% of the time and IQ is the best predictor of future success:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq#Validity_and_social_significance

We only hear of the 10% of cases where it goes wrong, sometimes drastically (as with Marilyn Vos Savant and Richard Feynman).

>> No.2084676

Restarted several times, got to like 15 seconds remaining. My highest was around 40. I didn't even bother 'rotating it in my head', I just simply assumed from what I saw. I can't visualize patterns or pretty much anything in detail at all. My dreams rarely ever contain actual spaces, just relevant objects and they're often amorphous. I just don't think visually at all.

>> No.2084679

>>2084674
>IQ is the best predictor of future success:

Regardless of what else you said; this is ridiculous.
A person's background/upbringing is a much better predictor for future success.

>> No.2084687

156

>> No.2084705

213 first time.

I don't really see it as a rotation test, more of a pattern test but then again you are in a sense rotating the patters.

>> No.2084711

>>2084679

A person's background/upbringing determines their IQ.

>> No.2084721

243 first try.400 should be manageable with some training.

>> No.2084758

296

>> No.2084792

>>2084711
There may be a strong correlation but this correlation is not nearly as strong as the correlation between background and predicted success. I can predict the outcome of billions of people success just on the fact that they live in third world countries.
If you wanted to know how likely someone was to be "successful", would you rather know that they come from a 3rd world country or that they have an IQ of 80?

>> No.2084823
File: 28 KB, 420x236, harubored.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2084823

92. But I was distracted.

>> No.2084831

179, it was very interesting

>> No.2084836

Suddenly everyone in /sci/ is drunk? Just go ahead and make a number up instead of shitty excuses.

>> No.2084845

>>2084823
>low score
>shitty excuse
>anime reaction image

how cute, he thinks he's smart. dumbshit.

>> No.2084848
File: 34 KB, 347x347, sweetumad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2084848

>>2084845

>> No.2084859

>>2084610
no, pic. retard.

>> No.2084869

>>2084674
if IQ is over 115 ish, you should be able to work anywhere you want, it may just be more work. mine is 146, im a mechanical engineering student, and their are poeple in my class much more slow then me, so it just takes them longer to come up with the same solutions.

>> No.2084876

am i still the best?
no challenges?
oh well...
>>2084568

>> No.2084879

>>2084679

>Let's ignore the evidence and repeat dogma instead

Christ, I know I linked to a wikipedia article, but that section had enough citations for a thorough refutation to be needed rather than a simple "that's bullshit".

>>2084792

It's the best predictor for future success for people living *in the same country*. I didn't say that because I assumed that would be assumed by anyone who wasn't trying to be deliberately difficult.

>> No.2084906

got 94 last night.

did it this morning when i'm not tired.

got 170.

this confirms my hypothesis that I'm effectively retarded when I'm tired.

>> No.2084950

Phd in mathematics
600
any score i want

>> No.2084953

>>2084879

Learn to Sociology 101.

>> No.2084955

I made 130.
The bar was about 3/4 of the way.
Can you even score 400-600?
Because at 130 the bar was almost all the way up.

>> No.2084957

I scored 421.
True story.

>> No.2084969

172 after a few tries.

>> No.2084991

I got 97, didn't realize wtf I was supposed to be doing at first lol.

>> No.2085213

213
Not that hard.

>> No.2085243

142.. but i am bad at these kind of things, in general.

>> No.2085261

>mfw I got top 1-3% on both object reasoning and odd one out after 5 tries

lol patterns.

>> No.2085451

146 on first try

>> No.2085871

>>2084957
screencap result?

>> No.2085917

Tried once and got 147.
Don't care enough to try again.

>> No.2085943

109 :/

I thought I was good at this stuff

>> No.2085967

122
i'm kinda okay

>> No.2085976

ITT: everyone is high and drunk