How do you fare?
How do you fare?
Reaction time of a 20 yo. Not bad for almost 71!
Tried it a few times. The first three times it said "We're not sure if you're an actual human" and I was a bit concerned that I was really slow. My 4th time was slower than the previous three and it said I was equivalent to an 18yo though, so I guess "not a human" is better than a teenager.
Varied between "we're not sure if you're an actual human" and 30 years old. OK.
Apparently they suck at guessing but I'll take the 20yr old answer over my actual age any day.
41 my first time. Got it down to not human.
38-25 in three tries.
It thinks I'm a middle-aged man which sounds about right for morning work. I'll see how I do later in the day.
It just clicking on a pop up. Us experienced drivers constantly scan, looking for hazards. There were no hazards on this test. No deer shown running into the road from the woods.
FYI, best of 38 for a 55 year old.
After a bunch of "Not Human" I got a 20 year old. Not too bad for 45.
wow. best I could do was 25 y.o. are you guys clicking or pressing spacebar? I feel like by pressing spacebar I am hurting my times with the amount of time it takes to push the key all the way down.
Let me try clicking.
Robbie wrote: wow. best I could do was 25 y.o. are you guys clicking or pressing spacebar? I feel like by pressing spacebar I am hurting my times with the amount of time it takes to push the key all the way down. Let me try clicking.
No better clicking. I even tried looking away to use just peripheral vision. Still no help.
I started at 20 and worked my way down to inhuman in a few tries.
Interestingly my dominant hand is a bit quicker, off hand earned me several 24-28 year old scores.
I wonder if there are other things that could affect the results to this. Like internet speed or even if a monitor has a bit of latency.
I tried it on my other monitor (same computer) and got much better results (20-28 vs. previous best of 25 and 25-48). Dunno if I am getting better or if the monitor was holding me back.
I was about ready to accept that I had E36 M3ty reaction times and that I must be relying on prediction more than reaction until I found a flaw in the game that will screw up your scores, which I had been suffering with. In a bigger window the game runs slower and reads your reaction time as being slower! Make the window small (or play on a high-end gaming rig 
) and enjoy your newfound reaction times! Played in a small window and I suddenly went from an average of around 33 to 18yo on my first test attempt!
Edit: Got "inhuman" on my 5th try!
GameboyRMH wrote: I was about ready to accept that I had E36 M3ty reaction times and that I must be relying on prediction more than reaction until I found a flaw in the game that will screw up your scores, which I had been suffering with. In a bigger window the game runs slower and reads your reaction time as being slower! Make the window small (or play on a high-end gaming rig
Interesting. I found that repeatable. Also, my main monitor is much bigger than the second one I tried, and the window was full screen in each. So I am seeing the same thing you are.
I'm going to try it on my gaming rig at home later and see how that affects my scores. Has a bigger screen too, so I'll see if fullscreen with 8 apparent cores at ~3.5Ghz is faster than a small screen on a plain-jane office PC.
I got down to 20 using my phone. Normally..mid 30's...and I'm 37.
I think the graphical intensity of this game (for non-WebGL HTML5) is causing the game's performance and thus the measured times to vary wildly by machine spec (for example, Grtechguy's phone probably has a highly optimized browser, and less stuff happening in the background, combined with a lower-than-desktop resolution). Maybe later I'll make an ultralight version of the same game that should produce more consistent results.
In reply to Grtechguy: 27 year old on the first try, not human (~280 ms) 2nd & 3rd, 19 year old (304ms) on the 4th try. Work laptop, spacebar (dominant hand), browser using 1/2 the screen. Not bad for 45.
We should find something similar that's more consistent across platforms.
And yes, back in high school I had a watch with a stopwatch function. Best I ever got with stop/start was either .02 or .03 (3/100ths) second, but typically was around .05
I was looking for the stop sign on hte side of the road. When it popped up I was like "get out of the way, I'm goin to miss the sign!" Then realized that WAS the sign. Got 59. After that it's consistent 19-23.
I’ve got to call B.S. on their whole comparative age thing.
My graduate studies were in Human Factors Engineering and I recall that our reaction times achieve their best values during early adulthood (say around 20 on average) but then hold almost perfectly constant all the way out to our mid-fifties at which point, they take a one-time large step increase and then just slowly get worse for the rest of our lives.
The reason for the one-time large step increase is that our Myelin (pancake shaped cells that form a sheath around certain nerve cells) start to die off which exposes the nerve cells they were wrapped around to experience more ambient noise. The nerve cells respond by increasing their activation threshold which slows their reaction time.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure a 55th percentile (higher percentile = faster reaction time) fifty year old is measurably faster than a 45th percentile twenty year old. In other words, fast people are fast throughout their lives until they hit their mid-fifties at which point, even a person that was at the 90th percentile earlier in life would probably lose to a 50th percentile twenty year old.
I’m sorry to over think this…I get that it’s just a fun diversion but I can’t keep my mouth shut when I encounter Berked up math or science.
Interesting about what you do it on. I did it in chrome on my phone.
I just checked mine with different tool and for some reason I cant [paddle my canoe fast] but it turned out to be 11 ppm
Insert classic WKRP sobriety clip here . . .
You'll need to log in to post.
