Can you take this test and tell me if it's easy?

Post Reply New Topic

I took this test, to see if I have trouble reading social cues. The test says I'm "incredibly observant"!

But the test is all still-life, not in motion, not timed, and it also gives multiple choices. So in many cases I went through all the choices, and eliminated choices that were definitely wrong, and eventually convinced myself of a feeling that the person was probably feeling.

For most of the photos, what I noticed first was asymmetry in their face, especially the sizes of their eyes. Do you think that maybe this activity is distracting me from reading the cues? Or do I engage in this activity to distract myself of the discomfort I feel when nothing strikes me right off the bat? Could it then feed back to further distract me from the signal I'm supposed to be getting?

Hi Fluter,

You make beautiful music---but you forgot to provide a link to the test LOL

lol

http://www.playbuzz.com/margottouitou10 ... =desk#half

Yup. Its very easy. There's this trend on the internet to offer a quiz and say its "very hard" or that "most people fail this." Then its a super easy test. People take the quiz, ace it, and then they feel super smart and post it on fb for everyone to see. Free advertising for the webpage! Relatively harmless fun, I say. But not really an indication that we're incredibly observant.

If you really had face-blindness, this quiz would be hard. So yeah for that at least.

I got "incredibly observant," too.

In "real time," though, I'm not good at reading people's faces. I was able to look at each face for a few seconds. Frequently, in real life, we are not given that opportunity.

It is admittedly easy, but it's challenging enough that I actually had to ponder my answers on a few occasions. Apparently I'm "incredibly observant", though...

Well, the fact that you all finished within minutes of posting the link tells me that I took a comparatively long time to take the test.

I took that test for kicks. Tests can be fun now and then

My results said I was incredibly observant. I humbly disagree. Before looking at the options, I guessed what I thought the correct answer was. Only one of my original guesses showed up as one of the four options given for all of those eyes. If they would have given me more options, I would have done horribly. Heh. So yeah, I was limited in options and that gave me an upper hand. I am also inclined to agree with what has already been said here about not having external crap to factor into the guessing. That also made the test easier for me.

I passed the test.

This one was easy, especially with the reply alternatives it provided.

edit: it took me about 2 minutes. Most were relatively clear and the provided replies were easy to eliminate.
A plus with those tests is that we have time to look at the still photo and can choose between alternatives, unlike IRL.
A con is that there is no context for us to make any presumptions. You usually get that IRL.

It took me a few seconds to figure out the correct answer for every one. I do NOT notice things like that in real life thou. I don't look at people's faces much due to my Aspergers & I was born with a rare low vision disorder in addition to it so I wouldn't see enough detail in people's faces to notice unless I'm a foot away from their face which is an invasion of their personal space. All my disabilities & issues play off each other.

"Incredibly observant". It wasn't too hard but some questions didn't seem to have a correct answer for me.

The scoring on this test appears to be designed to tell almost everybody that they are "incredibly observant". When I chose all the answers completely randomly, by flipping a pair of coins, it still told me that I was "incredibly observant".

It is possible to get a result other than "incredibly observant", though. When I chose every answer to be the answer that I was most certain was a wrong answer, it told me that my observation skills had some room for improvement.