Reaction time and IQ have been correlated positively in a multitude of studies:

i get really easily overwhelmed and have a longer processing time than most people, but I still excel in academia. and i really don't try that much.

Another update. Cranking out better and better scores as time goes. Grothendieck and Tao ain't got shit on me.

Pretty sure this test is bollocks.

Lol this makes me feel slightly less horrible my horrendous reaction time.
DESU I always thought the correlation went the other way around, since lower reaction time is 'better'.
Knowing that the correlation is positive actually makes me consider that it might be less "genetic".

...Isn't an IQ test a literal test of reaction time? If you don't solve the problems fast enough you get a low score.

this is a tautology

>"While an average human reaction time may fall between 200-250ms, your computer could be adding 10-50ms on top. Some modern TVs add as much as 150ms!"

I think there are other factors too

Goes by an average of 5-20 scores. The inference of one's highest score implies a test that cannot result from mashing guess clicks.

>reaction time: 351 ms
>muh IQ is 160+
>bullshit

The relationship is inverse. 351ms average means your IQ is roughly 70.

>This just in, proffesional athletes are now the smartest people in the world! Like honestly did you think for even 3 fucking seconds about this?

You're assuming professional* athletes have 160ms reaction times. Have a 40ms quicker reaction is not a significant advantage in sports; physicality and muscle memory is.

Are you all fucking stupid? This site is not taking into consideration the input lag, not even the output lag. To properly measure your reaction time, you need to run a program built on ASM or at least C, not this retarded internet browser shit. Then you need to measure the time difference between the output and the stopwatch, then the time difference between a click and its computation, considering that these are constants, and subtract them in the algorithm.

Or you can just ask a friend to drop a ruler between your fingers before you catch it. The measurement relates with the time.

>Goes by an average of 5-20 scores. The inference of one's highest score implies a test that cannot result from mashing guess clicks.

Example: the 96ms score in the OP is negligible. The real score was something around 192ms average.

>Are you all fucking stupid? This site is not taking into consideration the input lag

If you read the website there is mention of this. Hence:

>10-50ms
Not really, I am getting a noticeable input delay that is at least 100ms

Is your computer monitor a theatre screen?

>370-379 ms (about IQ 54)
Reporting in

320-329 ms (about IQ 80)

Hilarious that /pol/'s average IQ is 130 while Veeky Forums's is below 100.

/pol/ is a social construct

Scored 180 average (5/5 attempts). That should bring up the average a bit. (155 IQ)

I think the reaction time difference is due to the difference in the amount of H.F. autistic people.

I'm smarter than the average bear (not for sci), but my reaction time is sluggish and I'm very clumsy, etc.

waddup plebs

>I'm smarter than the average bear, but my reaction time is sluggish and I'm very clumsy, etc.
i'm similar, my reactions are slow, but my reflexes are pretty good. i was always great in dodgeball and during the 4th of july i was playing baseball slow pitching from like 30 ft away and someone pinged it right at my dome and i was able to dodge it. but im clumsy as fuck and my avg time in this thing was like 360 ms.

Fastest score was 270... Hmm

B-b-but I'm smart guys, I swear.

It's this damn mouse! Yeah, that's it.

Was saying my tested IQ irl is 160+ lul

I tried it, is it ever address in the statistics the amount of registered times each individual has "clicked" too soon among the times they saved their scores?

Because I notice that it does not count the "too soon" clicks in the number of tries.

...

I've seen a 1 and a 0 go away.

>all those brainlets itt
Step it up, fags.

>over 30ms
kys

this test bullshit it's heavily dependent on the browser
180ms in firefox
open chrome
suddenly 75 ms

...

could not experienced that - but what about screen refresh rate?

don't worry guys. this shit is bullshit, thus strongly depentent on your hardware and software even if the correlation seems legit. My best 180ms and average 233ms despite i am like the fucking smartest person in the entire universe.

Avg 217 out of 18 tries

Light information going trough less synaptic connections - hence faster reaction wouldn't imply a dumber person?

>Using one score instead multiple for an average

This board really is retarded

This method for testing IQ is massively flawed. There may be a correlation between IQ and reaction time. But this will never replace traditional methods.

Example, I am pretty sure Stephen Hawking would test pretty low using this method.

It's kinda bad of a test since your monitor alone can add around 50ms. If you are using some stupid post processing shit one enjoy 150ms lag.

It shows it depends heavily on your equipment dipshit.

>believes 75ms is a legit reaction time

Everyone knows that the smartest people alive are martial artists, airline pilots, policemen, soldiers, and competitive gamers. Scientists are pretty dumb because they're all a bunch of nerds.

A lot of actual working reaction time has to do more with awareness than with how fast your spinal cord can deliver an impulse.

> Computing $400.
what is a scheduling timeslice?

>Scientists are pretty dumb because they're all a bunch of nerds.

There are a lot of low-IQ scientists out there. Keep in mind that a majority of science done is just useless, time-passing studies. A 100 IQ individual can study hard, works for years obtaining a PhD (or Bach.) then do the easy studies that so many do. The only scientists you can really attach a high IQ to are ones that have been proven to further science in a drastic fashion. With this in mind a lot of competitive gamers are indeed much more intelligent than a majority of scientists. This is based on requiring intelligence instead of just rote memorization to succeed.

gg no re nerds

>math student
>score lower than average when it comes to number memory
okay

There are a ton of cheaters for the number and tile memory games. Considering that your scores are not bad

>be scientist
>4k mmr irregular dota player
feelsgoodman.jpg

No. Not even close.
First of all, there are several IQ tests.
This is common knowledge.
Secondly, reaction time has almost no bearing on IQ.
There are plenty of elderly people with high IQs that can't jump-press buttons.

Also to the side:
- Not everyone has the same mouse
- Not everyone has the same speed computer
- Not everyone has the same internet connection speed
- Etc.

The "one test proves IQ" concept is completely false, and any idiot that would fall for this doesn't understand anything about intelligence nor IQ tests.

>There are plenty of elderly people with high IQs that can't jump-press buttons.

You have no idea whether or not this is true. This is along with the example of Hawking.

>Not everyone has the same internet connection speed

Internet speed has no relevance with the test.

>- Not everyone has the same mouse
>- Not everyone has the same speed computer

Given today's average computer this holds small relevance. The main difference is in the speed of one's monitor.

>no re
Faggot please.

>the smartest people on earth are professional COD players and black belts

>You have no idea whether or not this is true. This is along with the example of Hawking.
Yes I do; It's common knowledge.
With age comes decreased mobility and flexibility.

>Internet speed has no relevance with the test.
All internet applications that rely on speed also rely on internet connection speed.
In example: Online MMOFPS

>- Not everyone has the same mouse
>- Not everyone has the same speed computer

>Given today's average computer this holds small relevance.
Prove it empirically.

>The main difference is in the speed of one's monitor.
Prove it empirically.

PC: 300
iPod: 30
Test is bullshit.

>Prove it empirically.
>Yes I do; It's common knowledge.

Flash player doesn't depend on internet speed when the program is already fully-loaded. Also even IF that were the case latency would be the issue and not connection speed.

Woah! You're IQ must be atleast 100

>The relationship is inverse. 351ms average means your IQ is roughly 70.

That's simply not true though.
I'm scoring in the 300 ms range, and the site clearly state I'm in the top 13%.
Also an IQ of 70 is borderline retarded (if not retarded) and I surely couldn't type this if that was the case.

Furthermore, I've had my IQ tested multiple times before, and I have an IQ above average; in the gifted range.

So the test is boloney.

There are dozens of rational reasons why people would not be the fasted clickers in the world.

That has nothing to do with sending and receiving the information; the "program" doesn't include the signal to change color.
It isn't localized. Check the sourcecode.

>That has nothing to do with sending and receiving the information; the "program" doesn't include the signal to change color.
>It isn't localized. Check the sourcecode.

Including ping into the average score the website average would hover around 350-400ms. Information is only sent somewhere when you hit the 'Save' button. You're probably one of those over-educated, retarded individuals. Example is your use of semicolons yet still use the word "it".

Right.
There's also a ton of "academics" at that support these tests as well, and companies "swear by them" and there are also papers on them over at the NCBI.
But they're bullshit.
Clicking fast doesn't mean you're good at math.
It doesn't mean you're good at science.
In fact, all it means is that you're good at clicking things quicking.
That's all it means.
If anything this is a NEET thread where F students come to placate their egos via confirmation bias.

>Uses it
>Must be a total pleb
...and yet I've been tested with an IQ of 280.

>"If anything this is a NEET thread where F students come to placate their egos via confirmation bias."

>Being this upset
>Thinking grades equate to IQ

Looks like someone scored low

Correlation does not equal causation.
I thought I was on the Veeky Forums board.

Top score of -100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ms actually.
Am I god now?

>Correlation does not equal causation.
>I thought I was on the Veeky Forums board.

Clearly you are also on the borderline-retarded board

Oh look, it's a /pol/tard peddling debunked science.
What a coincidence.
Tell me racism is scientific now, even though it's been debunked.

>Oh look, it's a /pol/tard peddling debunked science.
>What a coincidence.
>Tell me racism is scientific now, even though it's been debunked.

wut

I question any such singular metric as intelligence manifest in different ways. And even is such a thing actually existed the very use if it would lead to an over use of such metrics, thus invalidating them as any sensible economic model should tell you.

When I am feeling smart my time is ~300ms, but when I am feeling dumb my time is ~250ms.

This is one anecdotal data point that suggests what mode my mind is in has a very significant impact on my reaction speed.

>When I am feeling smart my time is ~300ms, but when I am feeling dumb my time is ~250ms.

One of the explanations for a slow reaction time is that the brain processes information through barriers. This includes over-thinking, having mental barriers, and just overall lowly efficient thinking patterns. So while you may believe you are "thinking smart" you're putting too much thinking strain into easily understandable concepts, such as a blinking color, which makes your reaction slower.

>Check the sourcecode.
Ok

Well I when I was feeling dumb I was just clicking.

As I wasn't contemplating novel market application of OLED and how the different band gap breakdown of OLED vs LED would effect unit life cycles for end application which translates to market share and profit potential compared to the new potential market with competitor effects factored in of course, like I did when I was feeling smart. Also that 3 year band wear difference over simulated 100 year life cycle can add to a lot of money for longer term field applications like you find in military gear, someone should warn the pentagon, unless they plan to increase field rotation rates with the projected defense budget, as battery replacement has better of set returns.

But small thoughts like that happen whenever I see a blinking LED powered pixel, and my computer has a lot of them, which can get distracting at times. And people do say I tend to think too much.

So the idea that all those thoughts slow me down is very likely to be true, but I would argue that such over thinking doesn't warrant the implied negative as it seems to serve me very well, even in reaction oriented cases like racing.

Sure, the time is local.

But that doesn't mean that there isn't a delay between the app telling firefox "Hey, i just started a timer, turn green, please." and then fire fox telling your GPU "hey, turn green please" and then your GPU saying "huh, i have to process 100000 pixels." and then the gpu saying "okay, LCD, here's your data at a delay of 16 milliseconds" and the LCD saying "okay, i'll display it in like a millisecond." and then your brain doing its 200ms thing, and then your mouse going "OH SHIT, we've been clicked." and sending a signal, either through air or through wire to the USB controller, where the USB controller goes "Uhhh, hey, north bridge, ive got some data at this port." and then the north bridge going "Uhhh, hey CPU. there's data here. can you tell me what to do with it?" and then the CPU going "Okay, ram, tell me where to tick this data" and then the ram going "just move the curor register" and then the cpu going "okay, north bridge, grab that data and send it to me" and then the north bridge sending it, and then the cpu sending the data into memory.
aaaaannnd then the cpu updates firefox and looks for any triggers and firefox goes all "tell me if there's been a mouse click, please." and then the cpu goes "oh, i think i just updated that info, let me check." and then it passes the click into to firefox, who then talks back to its app and says "Hey, we got a mouse click, here you go." and then the app gets the click and is all like "Wow, took fucking long enough."

250 milliseconds later.

300ms is 300ms. Your IQ is 76-105. Sorry, buddy.

this post is proof that caffeine increases IQ.

>tl;dr

The test mentions that 10-50ms can be added on via the computer. This is also taken into account with the averages in the OP.

Actually my comprehensive IQ tests have been 140, 136, 138. They were very thorough (they better be for all those hours of testing and all the money my parents paid) as everyone was afraid I had some mental issues, in the end they labeled me "undefined disability" which as been a real problem, especially now that I live one my own as a legal adult.

You would not believe how broken our legal system is at defining my rights as an individual, took my 8 months of bureaucratic red tape to get my drivers licenses.
Yet my instructed suggest I go pro after not only getting 100%, but also handling a flash ice storm that stopped everyone else. Seriously the coefficient of friction on the tires and ice are well known as well as phase change from loaded pressure as defined by the cars weight. And the cars mass is a relatively constant, adjusting for fuel loss as predefined for my maneuvers. I don't know why other Floridians had such a hard time with that odd storm, it is basic physics.

am i retarded?

>I'm scoring in the 300 ms range, and the site clearly state I'm in the top 13%
Jesus, you're stupid.

Well looks like my IQ is 80

Fuckin' cya

I knew playing all those video games would make me a genius!

This.
Reaction time is something that changes with training, IQ doesn't.

It's the 'NEURAL REACTION TIME' you fucking retard, not the exterior.

219 ms. Seems like this is 135 IQ, which is clearly bullshit.

I have done Mensa level IQ tests and I usually get 120 give or take, not 135.

>I have done Mensa level IQ tests and I usually get 120 give or take, not 135.
Retake the MENSA test perhaps?

>Reaction time is something that changes with training, IQ doesn't.
Muscle memory changes not one's reaction time. Also, the opposite is true of your post. FPS games and the Portal games have shown to increase IQ in players.

What did you fucking blink? IQ 70-80 by my estimate.

>FPS increases IQ
Yeah, Xbox live is just filled with geniuses.

i managed like 80 ms after like the third attempt when my brain started picking up the pattern of when it goes green. i guess i'm a genius

Goes by an average of 5-20. Also this is a test of reaction time and not for the purpose of muscle memory. This board is stupid. Have fun being scientists and engineers with your knuckle-draggingly retarded IQ levels. Castrate yourselves and work menial jobs instead of studying 5-6 hours a day to keep up in science/engineering, please. You'll do the world a favor.

it's actually funny because when i play video games that rely on twitch reflexes, i tend to substitute my mediocre reflexes with pure muscle memory and intuition. i can't react fast enough to another player swinging a sword at me, but i can somehow just tell when he's going to do that like 80-90% of the time. it's like a sixth sense, my brain feels all tingly when it seems like someone is about to attack me or something

but what was all that stuff about castration? lol dude relax

If you want to test your IQ, take an IQ test.

>but what was all that stuff about castration? lol dude relax
A majority of science/engineering students are morons who study 5-6 hours a day. After graduation they're going to have to be either carried in the workplace or not be employed for too long. This theme is cancerous going along the notion that education is the only important factor and while intelligence is negligible. Without intelligence one is going to be a shit scientist and/or engineer.

Further: STEM is extremely over-saturated as is. Doesn't help that a majority of the high GPA students are low intelligence, pill popping overachievers entering a specific workforce which is reliant on intelligence. Go into law or something which plays into one's "skill" of rote memorization and over studying. Gtfo my major fkn REEEEEEEEEEEEE

I am in MENSA and scoring 310ms average, what is wrong with me ?