![]() I also see that the sample sizes are not giant, but most of them seem to form nice curves anyway(although some of them are deceptive in that they round off the edges to create an appearance of a bell curve when there are not even enough different possible scores to form a real curve.) I was thinking that maybe there is a sampling bias of more intelligent people being more interested in these games, but I don't really know if this is popularly linked on Facebook or something similar which would bring it closer to the general average, or if maybe Cambridge has collected random samples that make up the majority of the results. I expect more from myself, and I certainly know that my number span is not bordering on a mentally challenged person's. I am quite aware that these are my weak spots, but 28% is absolutely horrible if these averages represent the general population. Specifically, on "digit span" and "polygons", my scores are 28% and 27% respectively. Normally, I only score a bit above average, 50-70 percent, and, on a few, I score terribly. On Thursday, J9:55:05 AM UTC+1, brainslug wrote: I am wondering if the averages on are representative of the general population's average on these tests. So the averages will be skewed a bit from this. This means you can inflate your average if you only record your better scores. Some of the non-timed ones can be perfectly solved without error, and nearly all of them can be quit at any time and the score doesn't get counted. Some people use strategies like digit grouping on that one to increase their score beyond their short-term memory capacity. This is the limit of your short-term memory (commonly 7 ± 2 items). Most people usually get to a certain number easily and then simply cannot remember an extra number without losing the others. 2-9) and getting one more point would push you into a new boundary, for example if you got 6 and nearly everyone got 7 you can see a big jump in your percentage just by getting one extra. For some like "odd one out" the kind of patterns that occur are very quickly learned, and while at first you find yourself staring for ages looking for an odd one out, after a few tries you find yourself just looking for patterns you've seen before and they jump out at you.įinally, for some of them the possible scores you can get are integers in a small range (e.g. But given that a lot of people use the website in just that way (repeating the tests) it's safe to say that a more valid comparison to them would be your scores after you have also practised.įor some of them you only really get the hang of what the task is after doing it a few times and before that some of your brain power is taken up trying to work out what exactly it is you are supposed to be doing. Whether or not scores you get after practice are still indicative of your performance is another matter. I suggest you go back to them after practice and you'll find a lot of them become easier or more intuitive. Like you, I also found there were a few I struggled to get above 50% on at first. Therefore you can take a score of 50% to mean you are average in a group of above average people. Hardly any member of the general public would bother with it (or encounter it), and I strongly suspect the average person going on it will be of above average intelligence. Generally the only people using Cambridge Brain Sciences will be those who are interested in their intelligence or improving it. The general public would not be using that website at all. On Sunday, J8:53:44 AM UTC-4, Carth wrote: There probably is a sampling bias on there. If I were optimistic, I would put less stock on the planning games, as these might get played more than once do to their gamelike structure, and thus skewing the average score. Some of the other games might be considered entertaining enough to some might have multiple playthroughs. The cambridge science bell curve for the digit span peaks at 7, a perfect population average. If it isn't representative of the entire population it could very well be close. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |