Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Predicting IQ With a Simple Visual Test

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the forest-for-the-trees dept.

Science 325

New submitter trendspotter writes "Scientists at the University of Rochester found a unique way to measure high IQ and IQ of the brain in general just by studying individuals and their abilities to filter out noise in images (abstract). The results of a visual test where people were told to quickly detect movements showed similar IQ results as a classic intelligence test. 'The relationship between IQ and motion suppression points to the fundamental cognitive processes that underlie intelligence, the authors write. The brain is bombarded by an overwhelming amount of sensory information, and its efficiency is built not only on how quickly our neural networks process these signals, but also on how good they are at suppressing less meaningful information. ... The researchers point out that this vision test could remove some of the limitations associated with standard IQ tests, which have been criticized for cultural bias.'"

cancel ×

325 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Popcorn time! (5, Funny)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43814421)

Yay, it's an IQ thread.

Cue bragging about IQ followed by arguments about whether IQ measures intelligence.

making popcorn. brb.

Re:Popcorn time! (3, Funny)

rot26 (240034) | about a year ago | (#43814505)

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.

Re:Popcorn time! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814555)

Just put it this way - if Slashdotters are so smart, how come it takes them 30+ years to find their way out of mom's basement?

Check and mate.

Re:Popcorn time! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814591)

My IQ is over 200. One of those eHarmony IQ tests told me so.

Re:Popcorn time! (5, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43814597)

IQ doesn't measure intelligence. I should know; I've got an incredibly high IQ. ;)

Re:Popcorn time! (0)

naroom (1560139) | about a year ago | (#43814613)

Well played.

Re:Popcorn time! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814635)

I have an incredibly wide IQ, I can vouch for this guy.

Re:Popcorn time! (3, Funny)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year ago | (#43814957)

But neither of your IQs are as deep, shapely or green as mine.

Re:Popcorn time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814961)

Mine's pretty high too, and I catch myself being stupid all the time.

Re:Popcorn time! (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#43815171)

And maybe that's part of intelligence. Catching yourself being stupid is infinitely smarter than not catching yourself being stupid.

Re:Popcorn time! (2)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about a year ago | (#43814623)

I was able to see them all no problem, regardless of size. I guess that means I'm really smart? Or that the test was a crock of shit. Could be that.

Re:Popcorn time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814697)

No, if you bothered to read the study you would see that it in fact means you are a giant dumbass. The higher the IQ, the harder it is to see the larger image move, at least that's the correlation that seemed to hold for them.

Something something movement filter. I see fucking mice crossing the road all the time while driving, my movement filter is apparently broken. Does that mean I have a negative IQ?

Re:Popcorn time! (0)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43815029)

Apparently, the anonymous coward has a reading comprehension issue.

from the article:
"people with higher IQ scores were faster at catching the movement of the bars when observing the smallest image."

I doubt the AC saw anything.

Re:Popcorn time! (1)

Creepy (93888) | about a year ago | (#43815277)

It also says people with higher IQs have a harder time detecting movement in the larger image. I imagine someone that sees both equally is pretty average. I actually played the video first before reading the article, and the results for me were typical high IQ - small ones were far easier to see the movement on than large ones. Having also had an IQ test when I was 18 that put me in the top .1% (and I'm not trying to brag - I know people far smarter than I am - this is just where my score fell), these results are as they expect.

Re:Popcorn time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43815081)

No, just that you have a 71% chance of not having a high-IQ. You could have inefficient visual processing, but still be smart. You could also be dropping acid before you drive.

Re:Popcorn time! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43815259)

No, just that you have a 71% chance of not having a high-IQ. You could have inefficient visual processing, but still be smart. You could also be dropping acid before you drive.

Either that or a really badly-infested neighborhood.

Hint: if the mice are playing trombones, it's probably acid.

Re:Popcorn time! (2)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43815223)

no, it means you are average or lower. You should have read the article. Spouting off without understand is another indicator of you mediocre intelllegence

Re:Popcorn time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43815263)

Spouting off without understand is another indicator of you mediocre intelllegence

You're just making it too damn easy.

Re:Popcorn time! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814661)

...arguments about whether IQ measures intelligence.

Lemme guess, the winners are the ones who don't participate?

your all dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814703)

i'd know, i got a 98 on my iq test, almsot a pefrect scroe!

Blind People are stupid!! (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43814707)

They are just completely unable to take this test. I always had my suspicions...

Re:Popcorn time! (2)

conspirator23 (207097) | about a year ago | (#43814785)

Yay, it's an IQ thread.

Cue bragging about IQ followed by arguments about whether IQ measures intelligence.

making popcorn. brb.

I'm so smart, I know better than to reply to sarcastic trolls. Oh, wait...

Re:Popcorn time! (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43814829)

Well if it doesn't that this finding has quite a shaky basis, so I would think that it's appropriate.

Re:Popcorn time! (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43815087)

Yay, it's an IQ thread.

Cue bragging about IQ followed by arguments about whether IQ measures intelligence.

Did you expect Slashdotters to brag about penis size and whether it indicates their worth as a person?

Hmmm (4, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | about a year ago | (#43814439)

Wouldn't visual defects, such as myopia, or an excess of floaters, impact the results of this exam?

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814569)

if that's the case, you lost darwin's game anyway and are no longer relevant.

Re:Hmmm (2)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#43814673)

I have moderate myopia.

My ancestors were quite intelligent and figured out geometric optics -- and thus won Darwin's game.

Re:Hmmm (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#43815255)

Then presumably you can use those geometric optics to do well on this test.

Re:Hmmm (4, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year ago | (#43814581)

No, they just point out that only stupid people get those problems. Obviously. It's Science, don't question it.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814641)

Yes, as do lots of things. I wouldn't be surprised at all if accidental eye damage correlated (negatively?) with IQ.

Also, nutrition during development has major impact on IQ, and likely vision.

The effect strength looked too strong big to be explained by that, but its hard to tell.

The real surprise here is that IQ correlated positively with tracking motion of small things, but negatively with tracking motion of large things. This is interesting, and currently unexplained. It could merely be detecting a bias in IQ exams: maybe they focus on little details too much?

Re:Hmmm (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43814645)

If only there was some kind of way to adjust the results of a study for various kinds of effects.

Now where's my sarcasm test?

Re:Hmmm (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about a year ago | (#43814797)

Not that the real test is administered over youtube, I'm sure.

But the fun little sample test? Some people are going to get the wrong idea.

flash versions / or html5, codecs, monitor quality, machine speeds.

And if smart people are so good at seeing fast stuff, why are they usually so bad at sports? Hey, don't look at me like that. Stereotypes are a great time-saver!

Re:Hmmm (3, Informative)

dubbreak (623656) | about a year ago | (#43814849)

Well yeah, but the test is a predictor of IQ not an IQ test (i.e. it's not supposed to directly measure IQ). They found a strong correlation between certain results (total reaction time, difference between large and small image reaction time etc) and IQ. It won't work in all cases but appears to be a good predictor. Hence the term predictor.

Re:Hmmm (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#43814917)

Yes it would. The test measures the ability to process inputs. If you have faulty inputs, no amount of processing will overcome.

So this would be a poor test for somebody who is blind. That being said, any IQ test that requires you to read plain text (i.e. not braille) would fail for blind people. However, there are other tests that do work for the blind.

However, it would work for somebody who has myopia (if corrected with glasses). It may affect somebody with floaters depending on the (I have not heard anybody who has floaters who can't read due to them, but I don't know for sure.)

Re:Hmmm (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#43815097)

Floaters generally don't affect acuity by themselves, but they can be symptoms of something else that would, like keratoconus.

For the purposes of a motion-detection test, though, having moving objects in your field of vision could be a problem.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#43815105)

or an excess of floaters

Apparently, that's actually a sign of a healthy diet (no, seriously)...

Right... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814459)

In my books, you're a genius if and only if you've proven yourself to be one; tests like these don't matter. Do something amazing and innovative and I'll at least consider you intelligent. I'm tired of tests that don't test real-world ability or real skills.

Re:Right... (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#43814551)

But then how will you find the next batch of Jedi knights? Intuition you must use.

Re:Right... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year ago | (#43814625)

Thank you Captain Hindsight!!

Re:Right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814651)

Proving your worth is nothing new.

Re:Right... (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43814753)

You're right... I'll just go back to studying my Cisco and Microsoft exam books...

Re:Right... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year ago | (#43814873)

And also not very useful when trying to find people who may prove their worth in the future.

Re:Right... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43814751)

Well, people like to have simple numbers to score complex factors. The reason is that most people are stupid and do not understand complexity at all. Of course, this routinely fails, as complex things are, well, complex and most things in this world are complex.

In particular politicians like this simplification, as there will always be some oversimplified numbers that they can use to show they are doing a good job. Anybody smart already knows basically no politician has ever done a good job, so they cater only to those non-smart anyways.

Re:Right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814787)

Cause I'm sure we're all highly worried about whether you consider us intelligent or not. How many kindergarten age children do you know that have done something amazing or innovative? They are who IQ tests are aimed at, to determine where they should be placed in school.

Re:Right... (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43814813)

So Einstein was a dumbass until 1905, when suddenly he became a genius?

Re:Right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43815173)

No, it was unknown. Are people here seriously incapable of grasping the concept of proving oneself?

Re:Right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814997)

There are many people are *very* smart. Many are *very* dumb.

If you do not do anything with your 'smarts' then who cares?

You need to act as well as have know-how. The good ones start to act (and that may just include planing) then realize they are missing the know how and get it.

I have seen 'stupid' guys with tons of money. I have also seen very smart people living in squalor. The difference is usually the ability to act. You may know what to do but have no idea when to apply it. Basically 'seize the day'. Also analysis paralysis is very real.

Autism? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814471)

I wonder how well this correlates with the IQ of people with Autism. Or with schizophrenics? Both have trouble filtering out stuff, but neither condition lowers IQ.

No no ... (5, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43814483)

That's eye-Q, not IQ. :-P

Re:No no ... (2)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43814765)

I thought today it was "iQ"??? Or is that just for Apple-disciples?

Re:No no ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43814823)

Well, we can expand it to cover everyone if you prefer -- e-Q, Q 2.0, social-Q, cloud-Q ...

This explains why intelligent people prefer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814487)

This explains why intelligent people prefer glossy screens. They can filter out the reflectiions unlike their stupid peers.

Re:This explains why intelligent people prefer (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#43814561)

No, we just like the pretty, vibrant colors..

Re:This explains why intelligent people prefer (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43814777)

Hmm. I must be far less intelligent that I thought. I always buy non-glossy. Or maybe I just have low narcissism and do not need to see myself all the time.

Re:This explains why intelligent people prefer (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43814821)

Oh that's an insulting conclusion.

The fact is, when I use a glossy laptop screen, all I see is myself. It's annoying. Also, I see whatever is going on behind me which is also annoying at times. Being distracted by random events is a sign of lower intelligence? I don't know about that. I tend to be a bit hyper-aware... especially of tiny details. I can't STAND to see a mobile phone with cracks in the the display, for example, while other people seem to have no problem with it as long as it works.

Re:This explains why intelligent people prefer (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#43815045)

Interestingly enough, my subjective and anecdotal evidence suggests that stupid people "see" things that aren't there, don't see thing that are there, and generally are governed by that which is immediate in front of them, but are easily distracted by things in the periphery. . Conversely, smarter people are able to see more because they do filter out meaningless things, and the "Squirrel" effect is very brief if at all.

Again, all of that is completely subjective and anecdotal.

Great a new way to measure IQ (2)

srobert (4099) | about a year ago | (#43814497)

Now if we could just find a correlation between IQ and intelligence, we'd easily be able to sort out which humans are worth saving.
A visual test eliminates the cultural bias ... except the one against the blind.

Re:Great a new way to measure IQ (2)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43814887)

We need additional measurements... not just IQ and intelligence. We need maturity, wisdom and sociopathy measurments as well.

These days we put a lot of weight behind a person's "success" however that may be measured (most often in dollars) and presume it is a sign of superiority -- ostensibly intelligence or ability. But then I see those same people and often see them as failures as they lack some truly important qualities that would make them great people.

Re:Great a new way to measure IQ (1, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43815111)

Oh yes, if only IQ predicted economic, academic, or social success with any degree of accuracy...

Wait? It does?? With a substantial but not perfect correlation? Well, who could've guessed.

Sorry, I am stupid... (1)

Takatata (2864109) | about a year ago | (#43814501)

..therefore I have to support my limited brain power with an adblocker.

Re:Sorry, I am stupid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814721)

This is what I thought... then I realized it's just part of filtering the noise. We can conclude that adverts and busy GUIs are only for stupid people.

Blind people are dumb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814507)

In such a test, blind people would be dumb? Oh wait, that's deaf people who are dumb....

Re:Blind people are dumb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814669)

Some deaf people have the ability to speak, you insensitive clod!

Try it first (4, Informative)

hammeraxe (1635169) | about a year ago | (#43814509)

Try the test before reading the article:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qxt2Uo_GuXI [youtube.com]

Re:Try it first (4, Informative)

Deflagro (187160) | about a year ago | (#43815217)

I did as you instructed and felt pretty dumb because I realized the big ones were hard to figure out. Smaller ones were simple but I didn't even notice any movement on the first big one. Then I read the article and realized what it was testing. Those who read the study before taking it would definitely be biased I think.

Smartphones (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about a year ago | (#43814567)

So, over the past 5+ years, people have been migrating away from high quality cameras, and high quality TV sets, to the crappy photo sensors and highly compressed tiny screens of your average smartphone.

Does that mean that people are getting smarter?

bad day to be blind. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814585)

bad day to be blind.

Re:bad day to be blind. (1, Offtopic)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#43814799)

Is it International Naked Supermodel Day again?
And here I am with nothing to wear for the occasion.

Re:bad day to be blind. (0)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43815001)

Is it International Naked Supermodel Day again?
And here I am with nothing to wear for the occasion.

If you're a supermodel, you don't need anything to wear for the occasion.

Oh Professor (1)

jasper160 (2642717) | about a year ago | (#43814611)

I wonder how well the researchers did?

Interesting (4, Funny)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | about a year ago | (#43814617)

The brain is bombarded by an overwhelming amount of sensory information, and its efficiency is built not only on how quickly our neural networks process these signals, but also on how good they are at suppressing less meaningful information. ...

Hrm.

I don't follow reddit or twitter, so that obviously means I'm quite a bit intelligent already, but on the other hand I do post to slashdot, so maybe my IQ isn't as high as I first thought.

Re:Interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814803)

The brain is bombarded by an overwhelming amount of sensory information, and its efficiency is built not only on how quickly our neural networks process these signals, but also on how good they are at suppressing less meaningful information. ...

Hrm.

I don't follow reddit or twitter, so that obviously means I'm quite a bit intelligent already, but on the other hand I do post to slashdot, so maybe my IQ isn't as high as I first thought.

I hve been here since the late ninties and I can telll you that I am M-o-o-n - that spells smart.

And I can count to potatoe!

Nice! Shows that IQ is quite limited. No surprise. (5, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43814633)

Something I have been saying for a long time.

IQ as measured today is intelligence applied to details, core structures, _small_ puzzles, etc. It does not measure whether people can identify context, make fuzzy trade-offs, find what is important and what not in complex structures, etc. The testing is also fundamentally broken as it is done under time pressure. In practice, somebody that can figure out a complex problem in 1 week is about as capable as somebody that needs 2 weeks and not far behind is somebody that needs 10 weeks. People really fall into the classes "can do it in reasonable time" and "cannot do it, regardless of time available". Those that can do, but need a lot longer than others that can do are quite rare.

I also have met quite a few people with high IQ, but really low "wisdom" scales that could not use their intelligence effectively as a result. This also explains why the IQ is not a reliable predictor of future success in life, as for example Mensa found out.

Similar results = similar bias (or lack thereof) ? (4, Insightful)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | about a year ago | (#43814649)

If the test "showed similar IQ results as a classic intelligence test", and the classic test is "biased", wouldn't that mean that this test is biased? Or would it have to mean that the classic test is *not* biased?

Re:Similar results = similar bias (or lack thereof (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814739)

Presumably, it could be identifying what the classic test is really measuring.

"which have been criticized for cultural bias." (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814695)

Standard IQ tests have been criticized for cultural bias? Translation: some "culture" darling of social leftards fails at them.

What is IQ? (2)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year ago | (#43814711)

I am a member of a high IQ "society" that discrimatinates against the lowest 99.9% of the general population. Yet, I would do very poorly on this test as my visual processing is poor. I excel in abstract reasoning but do poorly in other areas.

What is intelligence? What is IQ? What is it good for? All good questions.

Re:What is IQ? (1)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | about a year ago | (#43814915)

I am a member of a high IQ "society" that discrimatinates [sic] against the lowest 99.9% of the general population. Yet, I would do very poorly on this test as my visual processing is poor. I excel in abstract reasoning but do poorly in other areas.

What is intelligence? What is IQ? What is it good for? All good questions.

Those are indeed good questions. Since you're saying you don't have a good answer for them, I'm curious about what you believed the benefit of a high-IQ society was when you decided to join one.

Re:What is IQ? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43815033)

I am a member of a high IQ "society" that discrimatinates [sic] against the lowest 99.9% of the general population. Yet, I would do very poorly on this test as my visual processing is poor. I excel in abstract reasoning but do poorly in other areas.

What is intelligence? What is IQ? What is it good for? All good questions.

Those are indeed good questions. Since you're saying you don't have a good answer for them, I'm curious about what you believed the benefit of a high-IQ society was when you decided to join one.

Their recruiters tell everyone that nerds always get the hot chicks.

Re:What is IQ? (5, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#43815015)

The problem with IQ is most people don't understand what intelligence is.

I've been able to measure a base IQ of around 130-135 on standardized IQ tests since I was 8. The tests were made for people over age 13 and the more likely deviation would be that my IQ is significantly higher than that. This is pretty dead-on: I'm actually extremely, ridiculously intelligent. I can break Mensa tests above 150.

Taking this to a practical level, I rely very little on emotion and have very little cultural and social understanding (social understanding is measured in something called EQ). So, you'd think what? High IQ and no social ability... so, Stephen Hawking? Some genius locked in his room with nerd equipment, solving the problems of the universe. Sounds legit, right? Not quite.

Most of the serious geniuses you'll meet have not just a high IQ, but also strong abstract reasoning: they turn ideas and goals into well-defined processes. They associate tools and information with problems, needs, and desires. More than that, they actually have a huge basis of domain knowledge--often in multiple domains--to work from.

By contrast, I don't. My abstract reasoning is terrible and I'm fairly lazy. I latch onto information readily, but only as far as requires little effort and provides amusement. I can rattle off about a lot of stuff and generally I'm never wrong--because I talk about things I understand. People *think* I'm a genius because I understand just about any-fucking-thing you stick in front of me; yet functionally I operate like any person of normal intelligence, just with basic ability with a wider range of things.

That's basically how intelligence works. Let's say you go to McDonalds and give the burned-out cashier a little pill that boosts their IQ to 135. What'll happen? Pretty much, he'll stand around feeling like something is 'off,' suddenly recognizing that there's a problem somewhere with the level of stupidity around him; but it won't be a massive, visible change, and it'll pass quickly. Without a huge basis of knowledge and experience, the important associations that highly intelligent people make simply don't happen. Suddenly being intelligent and not bothering to develop a huge basis of knowledge and experience doesn't make you a genius, and overall does nothing.

That's not to say that your average 135-IQ semi-genius won't absolutely squash some 100-IQ norm if they both dive head-long into a mathematics and engineering program, of course. The guy with a 135 is going to cream you, he's going to sail through his classes easily and you're going to struggle and he'll put in less time and less effort and get better grades. But if he's going to just party all night and hook up with cheerleaders? Being a genius and neglecting your studies will get you passed by the slow kids, and in the end you'll babble some stupid shit just like your average redneck who didn't have the sheer brainpower to understand college.

That's been my experience. I'll absorb information like a sponge, and I'll comprehend it immediately; I can take it as far as I care with some effort. Once I got out of high school, I realized that the effort needed in high school was "be present in class, not necessarily awake"; the effort required for higher education and understanding and for building high-level academic skills is ... quite a bit higher than I'd care to put in. So all these damn supergeniuses are way off my level, and I'm stuck in the back of the short bus.

And that's why people don't believe in "Intelligence" and "IQ". They don't understand how it works. It's like your brain comes from Ikea--it might be the upper end model, but you still need to assemble it yourself and you might have pieces left over. I still have a bookshelf in pieces in my living room from 2 years ago.

I've been ranking up in Go recently since I'm taking racetams and noopept. Inter-hemisphere communication is nice. There's all these people on racetams thinking they're suddenly geniuses, and all these people that think they get no benefit; they're both wrong, and they're both right. That stuff's for study sessions and Go matches, not for "I took a pill now I know kung fu!" (By the by, I have about 50 books about Go and I've read 4 of them... any clue why I'm still 7kyu?)

Re:What is IQ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43815181)

Are you done patting yourself on the back? Great, now get over yourself. You're not actually that intelligent.

I've got an easier method (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814735)

Look at the person taking the test.

If they are black, low IQ
If they are white, medium IQ
If they are asian, high IQ.

Didn't work for me (1)

atouk (1336461) | about a year ago | (#43814755)

No matter how many times I crossed my eyes, I couldn't see the magic image. Am I doing somethig wrong? But if it's seeing things move, I can get the whole room to move with a bottle of nice single malt. Does that prove that drinking makes you smarter?

data range IQ 150 (1)

wickerprints (1094741) | about a year ago | (#43814771)

Granted, the population size of individuals with measured IQs above 150 is relatively small (about 1 in 1000), but it's a little bit misleading to consider people with IQs in the range below 140 as having "high IQ." 120-140 is "above average," certainly, but fairly common. Being more intelligent than someone scoring 80-100 doesn't automatically mean you have "high IQ." This study shows that intelligence correlates with a specific motion tracking task, but only in the studied IQ range due to the relative difficulty of finding individuals above IQ 150 or below IQ 80.

I think such a study should include age as a predictor as well. It would be interesting to see more data, especially in the higher IQ range from 150 to 180. Above 180, there are too few people in the world who are able to test that high.

Re:data range IQ 150 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43815047)

It shouldn't be too hard to find a population with IQs below 80. Try looking at Congress. Lol

Why wouldn't it? (1)

saveferrousoxide (2566033) | about a year ago | (#43814775)

Having read the article, I can see how this might sound snotty, but why wouldn't it be easier to detect motion in the small circle? There are more axes of motion than in the bigger view. The big view is almost purely left and right, but by virtue of being a circle, there's a much greater chance to perceive vertical motion as well. It seems like there is, in a sense, more motion to see in the smaller set.

IQ depends on context (1)

jchap (628091) | about a year ago | (#43814779)

Albert Einstein in patent office = Law of Photoelectric Effect.

Albert Einstein in red-hot ' 'magma' ' = "Tssssssh."

Thus external context is of equal importance to innate ability within the expression of intelligence.


Also, when the bars start flicking like that, from one side to another, that's how I know when I've had enough to drink.

Re:IQ depends on context (3, Funny)

mc6809e (214243) | about a year ago | (#43815061)

Albert Einstein in patent office = Law of Photoelectric Effect.

Albert Einstein in red-hot ' 'magma' ' = "Tssssssh."

Thus external context is of equal importance to innate ability within the expression of intelligence.

Yeah, but intelligence can also determine the external context.

Intelligent -> working in a patent office.

Unintelligent -> falling into red-hot magma.

Goodbye, IQ! (2)

SoupIsGood Food (1179) | about a year ago | (#43814879)

Replace IQ? I think it's a stake in the heart of IQ testing. Being a champ at "Where's Waldo" is not a good predictor of problem solving, imagination, communication and knowledge retention, which are the only real measures of intelligence. Spot-checking pattern recognition skills doesn't tell us much about an individual, apart from "Wow, he matched that pattern he was familiar with because he grew up in the same society as the test designers pretty darn quick. Yup."

biased point of view? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43814965)

Are high IQ people better at filtering background motion or worse at spotting background motion? are the parts of the brain that process background motion perhaps given over to other processes in a high IQ person?

University of... (1)

Njoyda Sauce (211180) | about a year ago | (#43815023)

Rorschachtester?

I am doubtful (4, Informative)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#43815117)

Much of the brain's visual processing can change dynamically with changes in environment.

For example, a common experiment in college psych courses is to give a student glasses that flip the world upside-down. It takes a few days for the student's brain to adapt to the new inputs, and then they see the world normally (and revert after a few days w/o the glasses). Patients with macular degeneration can wear glasses that stretch-map the visual input around areas of missing vision (in the manner of a cylindrical mirror [uoguelph.ca] ). After some time, they report seeing the world normally - their visual system has adapted and remapped the input.

I wonder if the effect simply measures the amount of reading the subject does; in other terms, perhaps it's just measuring the amount of fine-focus eye training? What does the test show for people who play a lot of arcade games (shooters, especially ones that throw a lot of targets at you)? Or people who use a lot of visual perception in their daily lives?

The article stated that the authors "tested for other possible explanations". Also, the correlation was at most 71%, note that flipping a coin is expected to correlate to around 50%. Their data [rochester.edu] seems to be awfully well clustered and the slope seems to be due to the outliers. The first study used 12 subjects, and the second only 53.

I'm unconvinced. It could be promising, but I would like to see correlations from more data.

What bars? (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about a year ago | (#43815129)

???

link to the article (free) (5, Informative)

drew30319 (828970) | about a year ago | (#43815159)

Not sure if anybody has already posted this, but if you'd like to read the article and lack access (and are unwilling to fork over $35) you can read it through the university's website for free: http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/people/Duje/papers/13_Melnick_IQ_CB.pdf [rochester.edu]

Blanket on a dog (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | about a year ago | (#43815163)

I was once told that to be able to tell how smart a dog is just throw a blanket over it. The faster it gets out from under it the smarter it is.

Re:Blanket on a dog (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#43815215)

The IQ of the dog is inversely proportional to how far it runs when you throw an imaginary stick.

Alternate Hypothesis (4, Insightful)

Sir Realist (1391555) | about a year ago | (#43815185)

'The relationship between IQ and motion suppression points to the fundamental cognitive processes that underlie intelligence'

Or, IQ tests don't test anything but pattern matching / the ability to filter noise in the first place.

you dumb retard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43815243)

nuff said
you look like one threfore you must be

USA avg math skill on world stage ranked 31....
so if your getting all high iqs that means hte rest of the world is far far far more brilliant

stupid americans

Great new excuse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43815253)

'The brain is bombarded by an overwhelming amount of sensory information, and its efficiency is built not only on how quickly our neural networks process these signals, but also on how good they are at suppressing less meaningful information. ...'

So when I ignore my wife I can blame it on my high IQ...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?