interesting

Maybe this is an answer in itself, but I have a hard time figuring that out.

Detecting the motion in the introductory stuff is very easy and obvious, but then right after it says "Here we go!" (35 seconds in), there are several flashes in a row where I couldn't detect any motion at all because they flash on and off the screen extremely quickly. Frustration with that threw off my ability to catch some later, particularly on the first viewing. Some are still easy after that, but many were just plain too fast.

I though "OK, that is a result -- too fast for me to catch", but then I decided to cheat. Downloaded the video (1080p version) and played it back in VLC at very slow speeds and finally frame by frame. In VLC, it appears that the first three flashes are literally *one single frame*, so obviously there can't be any motion there. The fourth is two frames. Good luck.

Spoiler alert? -- Between "Here we go!" (35 seconds) and "Which is easier for seeing motion?" (49 seconds), frame by frame checking tells me that 1-3 are one frame (no motion), then they all go left except for the final 2, which are 3 frames going right. I think that I could see the final 2 moving right in my original viewing, but I doubt I saw any of the 2 frame sets moving left.

Between "Which is easier? ..." and the end of the video, I now find it easy to detect the direction in full-speed playback for all of them. I don't think it was *as* easy in my first viewing, but I do think that I correctly got most of them. Frustration with the middle section made it much more difficult though.

Spoilers again, during that final session they go L L R R L L L L (I think, I didn't actually frame-by-frame analyze it but they all seem clear).

The link provided (and the video itself) suggests that detecting the motion should be more or less difficult based on the size of the view area. Maybe my view area is too large (I was playing it fullscreen on a 40 inch LED TV that I use for a monitor), but I didn't really notice much of a difference in difficulty across the various sizes -- I just concentrate on a spot in the middle of the screen and I didn't even notice that they were different sizes until the video mentioned it.

I have no idea what those results are supposed to reveal about my IQ. Back in Middle School, I tested into the "gifted" program with an IQ between 130-140. I thought that the *real* IQ test was rather weird, but at least it made more sense than this...

I know the people in this group. Frankly, I'm kind of disappointed. I think the general idea is that there is some neural process, colloquially called attention, that is fundamental and possibly indicative of intelligence in general. Many people haven't thought about it carefully, but really attention has as much to do with suppression of irrelevant information as it does spotlighting relevant information. In the visual domain, it's often thought about as masking, or background subtraction. The finding here is supposed to tap into that relationship. High IQ people found it much easier to see the motion of the smaller target, and actually showed a deficit at detecting the larger (backgroundish) object. Frankly, I think it's squishy as all get out. The correlation was relatively strong, but I felt it relied heavily on a couple of subjects. In the end, my problem is really with the whole enterprise of trying to assess an ill-defined concept like intelligence. It would be interesting if a similar finding held across other perceptual modalities however. Even I would have to bother to listen at that point.

a correlation does not an IQ test make

...uhhh...lines...what circles...I saw breasts....

Did I pass?

*brain *art *wtf

Adding video to channels (Art, Brain, Wtf) - requested by ant.

Basically intelligence all comes down to how quickly you recognize and understand patterns. Detecting motion is pattern recognition. Knowing the direction of motion is understanding that pattern. If you can do that in 2 frames in a split second, that means your brain is especially adept at this.