I found this funny little game of counting dots. I have been playing it for about 3 days now. It's fun, so I thought I will share it.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/neurobotics/smart/115.asp I initially scored 3 within 5 and it said that I did better than those with their brains zapped. So I became excited and scored 0 within 5 next time. Then I became serious and scored 2 and 3 in the next two attempts. I say it's something that improves with practice. My average on first 10 attempts were about 2.2. My average in my last 10 attempts(3rd day) was about 2.9. (I have been able to get all 5 within 5 several times) Now if I have to believe the comments given in the game file while evaluating my results it would appear that I am doing much better than average. But I think it's just flattering tactics. So, I would like to know how well you guys are doing. I think there is also another version of the game which tries to compare the number of dots of 2 different colors instead of counting them precisely. If you can find that other version of the game please let me know.
The test is only really valid for the first try. After that different aspects of the brain come in to play - such as associating the density with a perceived range - so that while you may not be able to guess exactly you can still get far closer. It is a case of practice improving the result. But on the first attempt - that is more likely to show who is the savant, as you can not easily associate a density of "blueness" with a numerical value. So for the first try I got 1... then then next go I got 4. After just a short break before trying again I had lost the recognition and, while closer than the first attempt, I was often 8 or 9 out... and scored 0. But the next time it had improved. So there is certainly the possibility of a "learning" aspect to taking the test repeatedly in quick succession. It'd be interesting to see who gets 5/5 on their first attempt - and then not just within 5 but exactly correct.
I usually get 2, but I find it a distraction that my dots are squashed, are they round on a wide-screen monitor?
I'm tempted to make my own version with new features like moving/ bouncing dots, and varying shapes. But I have a lot to do already.
I don't think they should give a range. My first guess would have been 210. But they wouldn't let me enter that, so I entered something close to the maximum. I entered less than 150 because there was space left for more. I think that that was the only one I got "right" I then adjusted my guesses, basically according to Sarkus's method of judging density, comparing it with the sample of less than 150 that I had seen. See his post below. I wasn't thereafter far off, and could easily have got two or more with a bit of luck. Nothing to do with counting the objects instantly at all. More to do with shade of colour. I think that the test is flawed. The fact that nearly every person here seems to be doing better than the original subjects, makes me wonder whether they were given this 50 to 150 range. Or perhaps they weren't from a scientific subset, and they didn't have a scientific way of looking at things.
Now that you can all tell about dots, how does this help you with everyday life? :shrug: I don't get the idea behind something like this other than you can count.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't see why the test should be valid only first time. But I can sort of understand what you mean. The first time we tend to go purely instinctively. The latter times we tend to use earlier results as a reference point. But I think even the first instincts are shaped subconsciously by our previous experiences. I think savants also guess , rather than count. They are very good at it, but I am not sure if even savants will get it EXACTLY correct every time. Even they must have a limit somewhere- if not 150, then may be 350, but there will be a limit. The dots aren't completely round in my machine either. If you ever make your own version then try also making the second version which I mentioned. Basically flash dots of two different colours and one has to guess which colour has more dots flashed. Well no doubt it will be a lot more interesting to try it if there was no range. That's a nice and interesting idea. But in my case, I tend to find that going with gut feelings tend to produce better results for me. I can still produce results with all 5 within 5 every now and then. Today I played about 15-20 times, produced 5/5 two times. Here they are: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well I play it for fun. But apparently, the second version of the game, which compares dots of two different colours, is an excellent predictor of success in math tests in elementary schools.
Two within five on first. Not playing further as is probably sufficiently good right now. Unless Ze Germans come and I have to count Panzergrenadiers.
Here's a question: to what extend is the hit/miss ratio modified by any existing propensities to go with rounded numbers? I only bothered guessing to the nearest 10. Anyone else do this?
I didn't do that. My plan was to quickly guess how large 10 would look on the screen, and then multiply it by another guess. But I still added an odd number to the end. At first it sounds like cheating, but I presume that is what a savant would do, only faster, and more accurate than me. But I think I could do better at guessing round dots than the flat dots that I am getting in 4:3. I nearly always get 2 anyway using that system.
Yep, I did that. Seems like the natural thing to do. I'm not sure how serious I should take antiphons results, by the way.
I took a photo of it, I can't stop photoing things since I got an Android phone, and hey the film is free! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have attached the photo as a jpg
