Are you a super recogniser? Here's a test.

Post Reply New Topic

I scored 6 out of 14...

Same...

I was pleasantly surprised that I managed to score 12/14.

10/14

11, probably with a few lucky guesses, too. The moment they started changing the orientation of the faces by a quarter of a turn or more, I was completely lost.

got a 10. i think if i retested i could go higher (I wasn't expecting the test to change as it did). And I caught myself not paying attention a couple times (like I do). But I bet I'm not a super recogniser. cool test though.

Ha, on a retake:

Thank you for your participation.

You scored 13 out of 14.

Wonder if a retake is cheating??? What do you think? It didn't say that did it?

10/14 (Im NT). And here is a link for further testing, is a long test if anyone wants to try it https://greenwichuniversity.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_a8Wbqtvc90WFTkp

I got an 8

so having gone through the additional testing (which was kind of cool), I was curious about the relationship of "super recognizer" to those with "normal" recognition abilities to those with varying degrees of prosopagnosia (face blindness). I wondered if there might be a spectrum here. It seems like this might be some of the current scientific thinking. Here's an excerpt I found interesting in a journal article:

"The widespread use of terms such as ‘condition’, ‘disorder’, and ‘impaired’ to describe developmental prosopagnosia indicates a prevailing notion of face recognition ability as being either normal (i.e. roughly average) or pathological. The prevalence of this notion may be due in part to the apparent lack of people who are as far above average at face recognition as developmental prosopagnosics are below average. Finding such people would support an alternate notion of a broad distribution of face recognition ability, with (at least some cases of) developmental prosopagnosia representing the lower tail of the distribution."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3904192/

I link how this reinforces the spectrum concept, but moreover how it calls into additional doubt the idea of "disorder" vs. "normal."

Got 8. May have gotten robbed of a couple that were "between those two so I will guess". But even so am not a "super recognizer". But not exceptionally bad either. About what I expected.

Since the time spent looking at each face was brief, yes, re-taking the test invalidates the results. At least it does from a scientist's POV. On the other hand, you clearly learned and stored some in your long term memory, so good for you! Your long term memory is also good.

12 out of 14. The test thinks I'm a super recognizer. But I don't know that it realized that the static nature of the faces lead me to seek out one distinguishing feature and answer from that. I wonder if this is the same trait that they are looking for. I didn't recognize the face, I recognized the lift of the eyebrow or the shape of the nose.

In real life, I'm terrible at recognizing people. I think its mostly because I don't look at the people around me. People pass me in public all the time and I don't notice them.

Its a family trait. The other day, I was in a dinner. And the my mother happened to be meeting a friend in the same place. She walked right by me. My own mother didn't recognize me. I'm pretty sure she just wasn't looking.

Not surprising at all, you are one of those who can draw realistic portraits more real than photos, which is impossible to be if you're not a super recogniser. I'm one of them too. And I have really bad short term memory like you as well. And worse yet, I'm unbelievably terrible with directions even though I can almost photographically visualize the details of buildings and etc.

Possessing strong visualisation abilities doesn't necessarily mean you will perform well on this test. I do not think in pictures at all, yet I managed to score 11 on this test.

8/14

^ Oooo really? I didn't test tho. heh.