If you've ever wondered what your cognitive strengths and weaknesses are, you may want to take part in our giant scientific study of cognitive abilities! We are testing 40 claims in the academic literature simultaneously, and give you a customized report at the end showing what you're good and less good at! 

It requires a desktop or laptop computer (doesn't work on mobile) and at least 10 minutes of uninterrupted time - but the longer you go, the more detailed analysis you'll get about yourself at the end! 

Click here to take part now and get your results:
 

https://www.guidedtrack.com/programs/5n1j78u/run?source=lesswrongandeaforum


Thanks for participating!
 

New Comment
8 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 5:41 AM

give you a customized report at the end showing what you're good and less good at

Not sure what to make of the results and was expecting more detail from that statement

Not sure how much knowing you rotate shapes better than 99% of people is useful in real life

Each participant gets a random subset of the 61 intelligence tasks from the study. Sorry the ones you got we're that interesting to you!

Not sure how much knowing you rotate shapes better than 99% of people is useful in real life

The study you clicked on claims to be an IQ study or even meta-IQ study. So whatever it is doing, it would be weird if it omitted Visual-Spatial ability (which I think is commonly studied). The absence of a strong claim is consistent with the authors being agnostic/open minded/uncertain of this value.

To contextualize, Visual-Spatial awareness is pretty normal in IQ tests, it would be like asking math or verbal questions on an SAT.

(I don't know much about IQ tests in the way I know about other disciplines, I thought about all of the above for about 60 seconds and deduced some things before I typed this but I'm pretty sure I'm right).

 

 

Each participant gets a random subset of the 61 intelligence tasks our study includes. So yes, there are visual-spatial tests in there, but not everyone is going to get them.

I think this aesthetic comes from deliberate choices, to use much shorter statements and trust the audience. For example, it allows them to reflect instead of being didactic or overbearing. Your reaction is valid.

I submitted these questions at the feedback page but wanted to post them here as well: How do scores compare for people who completed more or less of the test modules? Is the percentile score in comparison to other EA Forum/LessWrong test takers or a larger cohort?

I'm also curious: what are those 40 claims you're trying to reproduce?

Hi! The scores are relative to a sample from the U.S. population (not people on LessWrong or the EA Forum). I suspect that the population we used may have a slightly higher-than-average IQ but I'd be surprised if it was a lot higher than average.

 

We haven't yet released the 40 claims we're seeing if we can replicate, but they include many of the major claims in the intelligence literature.

This is cool and I am excited to try it and see the results!