Post your benchmark Sup Forums

Post your benchmark Sup Forums

humanbenchmark.com/dashboard

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci
mt.artofmemory.com/wiki/How_to_Build_a_Memory_Palace
mindtools.com/pages/article/newTIM_05.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic_major_system#Example_words
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

requires cookies
0/10

...

I got 96%, 54%, 92%, and 95%.
My reaction time sucks I guess. I think that I should have gotten higher for the second two due to misclicks, but maybe not enough to actually move my percentile up.

What's you're IQ?

the reaction time score is fucked

subtract about 100ms and it should be accurate

...

fuck i might be an actual retard

...

After taking multiple online IQ tests I can confidently say that it is >140.

No but seriously, IQ means nothing unless you're retarded. There is little to no correlation between "high IQ" and "lifetime accomplishment" at the PhD level, for example. Just work hard and think long about stuff that matters to you. Caring about IQ just helps to validate those circle-jerkers at Mensa.

97 / 66 / 92 / 92

doesn't help that it's 2AM, but ayy that verbal memory tho.

these tests don't count latency from things like your monitor and input devices so yea, actual reaction time is lower

All IQ is is a measure of problem solving skills. Basically if you're better at "Thinking outside the box" and examining a problem from multiple angles.

In general, IQ isn't even a good measure of problem-solving skills. There are all sorts of plausible ways to interpret patterns and sequences, and trying to choose which of those is the correct, clever answer is done via some arbitrary standard.
The IQ measure is entirely useless.

I think the most useful definition of ‘intelligence’, and certainly one that is tested heavily in the IQ metrics, is the ability to recognize patterns.

Fundamentally, pattern recognition is all we do - smarter people are simply better at recognizing patterns that others miss. The capability for abstract thought is also just a form of pattern recognition ability - you can recognize meta-patterns, essentially.

tl;dr pattern recognition is key to anything and everything we do, so test for it

SLAYER

could easily improve number and verbal but too tedious to redo

>pattern recognition is key to anything and everything we do, so test for it
There are an unbelievably large number of patterns one could infer from a given set of images or numbers. The problem is that no one identified "pattern" is universally correct. These things depend on your interests and your upbringing, and are hardly inherent.
Consider the following sequences:
>2,3,5,7,...
>1,1/2,1/6,...
For the first sequence, you might say, "This is a sequence of prime numbers!'" However, these numbers also begin the integer partition sequence (for integers greater than 1). Neither answer is more correct, and a person who gives the latter is not "more intelligent" than the other person, they've just heard of integer partitions before or spent a lot of time on the question.
For the second sequence, you might say, "This is a sequence whose elements are of the form 1/n! for n > 0!" However, these numbers also begin sequence of the first Bernoulli numbers. As before, neither answer is more correct - all you can say about the person who provided the second answer is that they have heard of Bernoulli numbers before or they spent a long, long time working with the sequence.
You might say, "But surely someone who would know many possible ways to interpret these sequences is more intelligent than the average person!" However, such an interpretation biases the notion of intelligence towards those who recognize number sequences. We can say something similar about those who are "better" at seeing shape patterns or just have a large vocabulary. IQ tests also have a difficult time measuring "wisdom," and the ability to make a good judgement is also relevant to intelligence.
There is a lot of circle-jerking that occurs when discussing IQ. I encourage you to look at some of the ridiculous periodicals that some of the high IQ organizations put out. Something that matters much more, I think, is the recognition of the role that hard work plays in accomplishment.

There is no objective truth to anything in reality, but we consider people more intelligent who are capable of logical thought, which is really no different than the simplistic number sequences you are using in your analogy.

People like einstein, newton, leibniz, maxwell etc. were really doing nothing else than observing nature and seeing patterns underlying it, which are what gave rise to our understanding of relativity, gravity, calculus, electromechanics etc.

Other people simply didn't see those patterns. Sure, there's nothing saying it's “objectively correct”, but nothing in life is. All mathematics, logic, abstract thought is constructed from human perception of patterns that we recognize in reality. We see a patch of brown and green photons and think “tree”. Heck, we see a pattern of photons and think “brown”, “green”.

We are trained analytical machines doing nothing but recognizing patterns in nature. Every single word that I use to type this is nothing but a pattern that I have learned to recognize. (e.g. by hearing other people use it, and through repetition learning to associate the word with the stimulus)

That is why I think intelligence is nothing but pattern matching. There is nothing objectively correct about it, but I also didn't say there was anything objective about the word ‘intelligence’. We simply use it to describe people who are more successful at recognizing patterns than others.

Also, you scoff at sequences like “2,3,5,7,...” but I bet you gladly accept and recognize patterns like “8 = 3·x + 5”, “1 = 7·x + 1”, “5 = 0.3·x - 9” or “-3 = -5·x + 3” as all having the same structure “y = m·x + c”.

You reject the idea that “2,3,5,7...” is continued with 11, but you accept the idea that all linear equations have the same pattern of solution. Is there really any more rationale for accepting one as logical conclusion and the other as arbitrary choice?

All our mathematics is done by choice as well. We choose to believe in axioms that make sense to us, and base our mathematical patterns like “linear equation” on these; hailing people who are able to recognize and apply these patterns while criticizing those who aren't capable of seeing the similary between the above equations.

But our axiomatic systems are just as arbitrarily assigned as one could assign a certain objective truth to a continuation of a sequence.

pretty happy with the scores considering I've been up almost 24 hours

interested to see how much improvement there would be (if any) after I sleep

People like Einstein, Newton, Lebniz, Maxwell, etc. were working their asses off constantly. They didn't just observe and notice these patterns, they were actively and methodically looking for them. Not only that, but they also drew from the great efforts of many others who you probably haven't heard of. It's a great shame that western culture overlooks those things.
I'd also say that they were looking for stuff more than just patterns; what they were doing is stuff far beyond what any IQ test would ever cover. The weren't matching phenomena to "patterns," but instead to "laws" and "theories." By the way, mathematics/logic is objectively correct if you do it correctly.
>We simply use [intelligence] to describe people who are more successful at recognizing patterns than others.
Here is my problem: those who create IQ tests have no authority to determine what is "successful" pattern-matching.

>you scoff at
I am scoffing at nothing. Also, it's not good form to make bets on another user's opinions when you know little about that user, and worse still to claim I reject an idea and accept some other when you have no basis for saying that.. Certainly, those equations are all linear in one variable. They match our definition of linear, which we made when we realized that linear equations are common and interesting enough to merit their own study. A sequence like 2,3,5,7 might be continued with 11,13 if it's a sequence of primes. But we could also justifiably continue the sequence with many other numbers, 11,15 among them (if it's the number of partitions of an integer). Neither is more correct than the other universally. I think you've mischaracterized me.
[cont'd]

I am not sure you are familiar with how mathematics evolved and is evolving, though. Axioms and definitions go to great lengths to not be arbitrary. We recognize commonalities in structures and notions, and try to generalize. As we generalize more and more, the rabbit hole goes quite deep. At some point, there is very little for us to work with. All of set theory, for instance, is based on the premise that there is a notion of "nothing" and a notion of "sets." The resulting axioms then exist to resolve any paradoxes we might otherwise encounter.
As far as definitions go, they may seem arbitrary to the naive reader but if one follows history, they are anything but. A very good example is the notion of "compactness" on a subset of a metric space. When first introduced, it seems to come out of left field. But it turns out that the structures we have studied in history which are compact exhibit some interesting properties, and so eventually we defined the word "compact."
Any "criticism" in math comes from a lack of logic and/or rigor - first/second order logic is not arbitrary.

tl;dr Mathematics goes to great lengths to not be arbitrary. Axioms are hardly arbitrary, and anything following from axioms is just logic. Definitions arise for structures we use frequently or find particularly interesting.

I am not sure what you were trying to say with your post; my post (the one you responded to) was just saying the IQ measure is nonsense because it is trying to lasso a sperm whale with a piece of floss, and there are many more creatures in the ocean.

these are all first tries.

>tfw literal brain damage
Number memory: 18%
Reaction time: 11%
Verbal memory: 72%
Visual memory: 84%

Is your shirt around the right way?
Did you remember to breathe?

You kind of hit a nerve with both of those.

Number Memory
11 digits / 90%

Reaction Time
241 ms / 76%

Verbal Memory
97 points / 95%

Visual Memory
10526 points / 50%

>T. Sub-100 iq

The IQ test I did last year gave me a score of 117.

...

numbers were harder than i expected wtf

accidentally the wrong number

Not even half decent

Just woke up.

Okay I guess. Need to test this again sometime.

first try

i'm done

...

>tfw your memory of tetris blocks is great but then they start putting single blocks all over the place

...

to be fair I haven't slept in 2 days and I'm on heavy anti psychotics a major ingredient of which is tranquilizers

Maybe I should retake the first two.
I did them in order, so I probably needed a warm up time.

I blame my IPS monitor for the shitty reaction times

the verbal memory test was literally the easiest shit in the world

Is verbal memory just too easy or is that a special trait of your typical Sup Forums autist? There are way too many 95%+ of that one here

>the verbal memory test was literally the easiest shit in the world
>literally
so this means it's easier than counting to 5, and since you got 99% on that it means you could not successfully count to five

if it was so easy why is your score shit

eh

I also think the numbers are generally too high. Maybe many people are cheating, so when somebody new realizes he's too low he doesn't post his stats but tries until he gets to a higher level (social pressure).

Also they are mostly doing it from home, you get some performance boost if you are not under stress (experiment situation) but feel very comfortable.

>can't even remember 11 digits numbers
>blames others for being shit
lmaoing @ your life

It's really easy, try it out, I am really not smart and easily got 130+

it only gets difficult once they start sneaking in very similar words like assent and ascent or balmy and barmy and you're not paying 100% attention

...

>tfw intelligent enought to subdue my ego and not blog on an anonymous imageboard

>low verbal memory
clearly autist

How the fuck could you improve verbal if you got 100%?

###################
# CAIMEO v0.23.521 #
###################

Response: 200 Successful
Status: active
Access: all

Maybe he is not a english speaking faggot.

get more pointz

Lel
31/7/94/12

>enought

Well you're not as intelligent as you think you are hahaha

being motorically challenged isn't really an iq thing

100% just means you are in the top

69% 82% 71% 92%

10/324/84/14505
It's funny how I got a 92% in verbal memory and I'm not even English kek

Took a while to improve my visual memory score. The rest are first time. I need to work on my reaction time holy shit

Depends a lot on your mouse, 2bh..

>32 ms reaction time
dwarf detected

in the same boat as u bro after a heroin OD
visual memory was hard as fuck for me

I think I'm retarded

ask me how I know half of you fucks wrote down the numbers while they were on screen

if you're on windows you automatically have the disadvantage of vsynced desktop

i got banned from this site a few years ago for writing a script that would get perfect 100ms reaction time (if you go lower than that it wont show up in the high scores because of anti cheating shit)

Is it because you're insecure?

I unironically did this for my army test..

I had to remember some special morse signals and click something whenever one of those signs appeared. I just wrote it on the paper on the desk. When I had a score of 99.99% and they were totally exited I realized I should have remembered it instead of writing it down.. oops.

no one would cheat on this site user

don't memorize it as individual numbers, memorize it as a sequence of 4-digit numbers

>235675681089
hard
>2356 - 7568 - 1089
easy

Did that about a month ago when someone posted it on Sup Forums.

...

>all these low T turds with under 90% visual memory
ayylmao

guess my verbal memory makes up for my reaction time :L

It's called "chunking" and it doesn't have to be the same amount of digits..

hard:
386124891150

easy:
386 --> "my first pc"
1248 --> "2^x until 8"
9/11 5 0 -->"at nine-eleven the pentagon was attacked but we got zero proof"


You turned 12 numbers into 3 chunks.
The problem is to do this under stress. Either you have a numbers that's good for chunking or not:

good:
9876789235

--> "9 goes down until 7 and back again to 9" + "23 and 5 are the illuminati numbers"

medium:
37284619003

--> "3+7, 2+8, 4+6, 1+9 all ad up to 10" --> "3_2_4_1_" --> "3 ..and the rest to 10 for each"
--> 003 --> "three digit number of 3"

You only have two chunks, but they are medium-tier hard. You have to remember you enryption-algorithm as well as the sequence of the seed.

bad:
9276528612

It's not easy to find a pattern here.

So this is how autistic people think about things?
neat

this doesn't mean shit. besides on memory tests online people can just write the shit down on paper and inflate the scores.

these tests are bullshit. honestly programming and reading are more of a brain exercise then this stuff.

Nah, that's only one thing.

Real neards use the method of loci (a.k.a memory palace):
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci
>mt.artofmemory.com/wiki/How_to_Build_a_Memory_Palace

Or the journey technique, which is similar:
>mindtools.com/pages/article/newTIM_05.htm


The trick is to zip your information and add more content to retrieve it better. We are not build to store numbers, but we are built to store emotional content, becauses emotions indicate something is important (fear --> "oh shit, remeber to not poke this big hariy cats with a stick", pleasure --> "remember grilled meat tastes much better than raw meat").

not technology retarded
fuck off back to Sup Forums

...

>shitty visual memory
>tfw always losing myself and over relying on GPS

>People like Einstein, Newton, Lebniz, Maxwell, etc. were working their asses off constantly. They didn't just observe and notice these patterns, they were actively and methodically looking for them.
There is nothing active and methodological about the human body. We are passive leafs the stream. We don't choose to have thoughts, they simply happen. Same with intelligence. You can't actively do something, it's just your brain deciding to do it and you thinking you made a choice. But whatever, that's sort of beside the point.

>The weren't matching phenomena to "patterns," but instead to "laws" and "theories." By the way, mathematics/logic is objectively correct if you do it correctly.
Laws and theories are human abstractions that we impose on top of our environments. There is nothing objective about them. There is also nothing objective about mathematics. It's simply our understanding of nature written down with human abstractions. You can't define the words you use to define the words you use to define the words, user. Once you can figure out that existential problem, you can start talking about objectivity in anything, including mathematics.

As it is, our entire of mathematics is based on top of human logical intuition, which is formed entirely by our environments and the way we perceive the universe operating. We have a concept of cause and effect, “if X then B” because these are patterns that we see within the stream of meaningless inputs that we call the arrow of time. Structures that happen over and over again. We were trained from day 1 to recognize them, to link every other stimulus in terms of them, indeed to think in terms of them.

But yes, in our “western culture” our understanding of the universe puts us as lords in the center and claims we have the ability to achieve absolute knowledge and become masters of our environments. Such an arrogant and naive point of view if you ask me.

>Here is my problem: those who create IQ tests have no authority to determine what is "successful" pattern-matching.
What a meaningless statement. Nobody has “authority” to do anything in life. The concept of authority is a made-up human abstraction that has simply evolved due to efficiency.

There's as little basis on which you can prove that the people who make IQ tests have *no* authority as there is a basis that you could use to prove they *do* have authority. It's both trivially impossible.

Heck, if we go back to using science; it's the same shit - einstein doesn't have any “authority” to decide how the universe obeys. At the end of the day, he's just writing down a pattern that he observed in nature. Same shit with people who make IQ tests.

If you feel unsatisfied with their work, feel free to stop using it or make a better one, but don't blame them for trying.

>I am not sure you are familiar with how mathematics evolved and is evolving, though. Axioms and definitions go to great lengths to not be arbitrary.
I spend a great deal of time thinking about mathematics and mathematical philosophy, and that's a load of horse shit. Axioms are entirely arbitrary. Heck, we can't even ‘agree’ on what axioms seem right.

Take the axiom of choice, for example. What's arbitrary or not about saying that a countably infinite set of sets permits a countably infinite number of selections of arbitrary but fixed elements out of each? What does that even “mean”? We resort to intuition, but more importantly, to what the consequences are. But both assuming and negating the axiom of choice has silly consequences.

There is nothing about axioms that are given to us about god. In fact, we don't even know if they're consistent or not, and we already know they're not complete. We're just sort of picking them based on gut feeling and hoping it won't screw us over like it did the last time we picked axioms based on gut feeling

>We're just sort of picking them based on gut feeling and hoping it won't screw us over like it did the last time we picked axioms based on gut feeling
(cont)
Which ended up leading to all sorts of fun paradoxes like russel's paradox.

Our current set of “working axioms” (ZF) are basically picked based on what nobody seems to be able to break. But they're still based on human intuitions and abstractions at the end of the day. Sets are an entirely human way of seeing the world. The electrons don't spontaneously self-associate to become a “set of electrons that form a tree”, we just see them that way.

>As far as definitions go, they may seem arbitrary to the naive reader but if one follows history, they are anything but. A very good example is the notion of "compactness" on a subset of a metric space. When first introduced, it seems to come out of left field. But it turns out that the structures we have studied in history which are compact exhibit some interesting properties, and so eventually we defined the word "compact."
I think you're making the critical assumption here of assuming that ‘arbitrary’ and ‘illogical’ are the same thing. They're not. Yes, the definitions are perfectly logical, historically motivated, and generally designed to make our lives easy and prevent paradoxes and other nasty stuff. So they're logic. It's just that our concept of logic is a human abstraction to begin with, which makes it arbitrary in an objective sense - there's nothing “objective” or “universal” about a mental model invented by humans, even if it is a fantastically good and logical mental model.

>We are passive leafs the stream
leaves in the stream*

Piss poor here

These all depend on your age, almost 30 here.

>The problem is to do this under stress. Either you have a numbers that's good for chunking or not:
More reliably, use mental images.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic_major_system#Example_words
92765 = the happy hen hooks the itchy whale
28612 = the new hoof chews the easy hat

...

You can cheat the numbers.

you can also photoshop the screenshot and make hte score max everywhere

Everyone can edit html code and photoshop.

This is already given. This isn't an epenis thread, if you're seeking that, you should go back to the board.

...