A fun test (well I thought it was fun anyway)

Post Reply New Topic

80% out of 25 tries
Pretty good at arithmetic (though I was better at it as kid/teen)
Never took the WAIS

Last edited by FMX on 13 Jun 2012, 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

My basic maths skills are okay (just +. -. x, /) but I never liked Maths in school and can't remember anything to do with calculus or even geometry.
I decided to do 100 turns of the test to get a really good answer and got 85%.

I got 88% for 25 tests. I suck at math. As I get older I am losing my ability to even do basic math. I did the WISC when I was young and that is what I have in front of me. I know you asked for a different test but in Arithmetic I got a 9, at a 37 percentile. Pretty lame, bad, pathetic. Of course that isn't even the lowest on that test. On the coding section I got a 1 percentile!! I don't remember which IQ tests I have taken but the WISC for sure. Not the WAIS.

I got 24/25 right, or 96% accuracy. I don't remember my Arithmetic subscore, but I'm sure it was average at best. That part of the WAIS was word problem-based, if I recall correctly, and I fail at word problems. I still am bad at subtraction, especially with lots of zeroes. The only math I'm good at is algebra/solving equations. The reason I'm so good at that number estimation test is because I "see" everything at once when I look at something. Most people probably have their attention drawn to the middle of the screen and don't estimate anything besides the majority of the action. I, on the other hand, still see things in my periphery, even though my vision is focused on one point.

100% =D

Aww, is it 25 times?

23 out of 25. 92%. One of them I fluked because there were 8 yellow, 7 blue, and the blue were bigger on average, the other must be lack of concentration

92% over 25 times.

Suck at arithmetic.

I think I know what pinball kid you're talking about. I saw him on that savant show "Ingenious Minds." I think it was on Science Channel. I saw it just a few months back. I remember being stunned that most people DO move their eyes from side to side to take in a scene. I didn't think that my ability to "see everything" was all that unusual. I knew I could see MORE at once than most people, but I assumed everybody did it on a regular basis. It's one of those AS skills that is a double-edged sword, though. It's one reason I'm such a slow reader- my eyes often drift off the sentence I'm reading and scan the paragraphs below. Like, I'll be reading one line, but since I "see everything," if there's a particularly interesting word/fact in the sentence underneath, I'll start skimming ahead. It takes me forever to actually read each word in order; I always am seeing what comes next. Factor this in with how I'm also seeing everything happening around me in my peripheral vision AND how my OCD often has nonsense words/phrases/thoughts going on in the back of my mind AND how I cannot read if there are any other words/talking going on, and it's not hard to see why I'm so slow at reading.

Yep. I find that it's too much energy to try to scan the whole scene by moving my eyes. It almost hurts, and I don't get the detail that I get if I just take it all in without moving my eyes. Or, if I need to, I'll turn my head. Weird. Never noticed this before.
I once read in a book on riding horses to use "soft eyes" to focus more on your body's position while on the horse. It's supposed to help with balance. I found it rather easy. I also use it when driving because I can see all around me without having to turn my head. Incidentally, it wasn't something I had to be taught - just something I already did.

Oh, and OddDuckNash - the skimming thing - I do it too. I hate taking tests where the answers are at the bottom, upside down, because my eye gets the whole dang page - and the upside down words especially attract it.

We Aspies see EVERYTHING, I figure.

So, question for OP - do you think Aspies have an advantage with this test because of this supposed way of perceiving things, (i.e. - unusual focusing techniques)?

88%

I'm sure I could pass classes if I tried harder to learn the crap. So, I'm not completely lacking, but I'm not that great either.

You're right, it was on that show. I remember they had him do a test using a something like a 18"x2"x1" piece of wood or some other material that was painted in alternating light and dark sections. They moved the thing back and forth in front of him and asked him to count the sections. What they found unusual about him is his eyes didn't follow the object as he counted but rather he looked strait ahead and counted using peripheral vision.

90%

With tests like this you can tell easily if a person has ADD or autism!

I think it's pretty widely accepted now that many people with ASD focus on details rather that the whole. I read a study once that tested this with the block design task from the WAIS IQ test. I'm going by memory from something I read a year ago so don't shoot me but I remember them finding something like 49% of people in the ASD group having a local bias (detail) as opposed to global bias vs. just 1% local bias in the NT control group.

IMO in the case of this particular test....... You have a mass of dots. The mass itself has a shape (like you can draw a line around it connecting the dots that are farthest out). ***EDIT***when I say typically try here I just want to point out that you only have 200ms to see the dots which is not enough time to think about it. What I mean is how the brain unconsciously processes the data. I guess some people would call it intuition. I think typically people would try to create that outside shape 1st then look at what's inside. when the picture is only presented for a short time they lose some of the details because they transition from outside to inside. On the other hand the person processing the picture locally would look at the inside first and create and outline of the mass by working outward. The local group might not get as clear a picture of the shape of the mass of dots but it doesn't matter in this particular test, it's only the details that count. This might be repetitive but, because the local group looks at the dots 1st as individual objects they don't have the time delay on a 200ms view of the picture while the global group loses part of that 200ms looking at the dots as a whole first so they have less time to observe the details. Anyway I can't say this is correct. It's only my opinion.

I can't even say for sure that there is an advantage in the people on WP. I don't know how similar the test was that they used to determine 75% as a mean. If they were very similar it could be a good indication that there is an advantage. If the two tests are different in many ways the results here would be meaningless unless we got some volunteers from Right Planet to take this test for comparison.

Hope this made sense to you because I'm pretty medicated right now

Last edited by Rascal77s on 12 Jun 2012, 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'll add, I didn't actually look at the picture.

I picked up the colors in my peripheral vision; I only had problems when two appeared pretty close.

92%
Have studied maths at university level, so pretty good.
I've never heared of WAIS

I swear I'm cursed. It's like people are spamming IQ scores all over WP and mine is the only thread where nobody has taken an IQ test