Humanbenchmark.com includes many tests, the first of which is called Sequence Memory. You can try the test here.
The way it works is nine squares appear on the screen and then some of them light up in sequential order. At level one, one square lights up. At level two, two squares light up. Level three, three squares light up. etc. Your job is to wait for the sequence to finish and then click on the squares in the same sequence they lit up. The test progresses in difficulty until you make a mistake.
It’s interesting to note that when the Wechsler intelligence scale for children (WISC) was first revised (WISC-R) Wechsler tried to add a subtest much like this. In the 1974 WISC-R manual he writes:
All twelve tests were administered to the entire standardization sample, as was also a thirteenth test entitled Visual Motor Memory. The latter test, requiring the child to copy a sequence tapped by the examiner, was intended as a supplementary Performance test and as a non-verbal visual motor analog of Digit Span. In spite of certain merits, the test was eliminated from the WISC-R because it posed problems of administration and failed to meet some of the rigorous statistical standards that were applied.
WISC-R manual page 8
I can see how it would pose administration problems because the examiner would need an excellent visual memory herself just to see if the child repeated the sequence correctly, especially if he did so quickly. But when the test is administered by computer like on humanbenchmark.com, that’s no longer an issue.
Nonetheless, the newest edition of the WISC (WISC-V) includes subtests like Picture Span and Spatial Span. In Picture Span, the child sees a bunch of pictures in correct order and then must remember their sequence when present in random order. This draws on similar cognitive skills as humanbenchmark’s sequence memory test and it correlates 0.61 with full-scale IQ (a strong proxy for g) among 16-year-olds. Oddly, the spatial span subtest (where a child must tap a bunch of blocks in the same sequence he sees the examiner do it) only correlates 0.43 (WISC-V technical manual, page 69), even though this includes a backwards spatial span component. When it comes to auditory sequencing, going from backward to forward doubles the g loading so I’d love to know why picture span is so much more g loaded than spatial span, despite having no backward component. Maybe there’s too much error because the examiners can’t keep up?
Humanbenchmark.com provides percentiles for scores on the sequence memory test, but there’s no context. Does the percentile reflect how many people we beat or how many attempts we beat (many by the same person) ? And how self-selected is the reference sample? It would be interesting to know how my readers (mean IQ 130) do on this test, how their scores respond to practice, and how this relates to their scores on established psychometric tests.
Pumpkin Person 
Thanks for the WISC technical manual link. I think that’ll help me hugely if I ever write articles requiring substantial research into psychometrics.
Then read Karel Berka (Measurement: Its Concepts, Theories and Problems), Roy Nash (Intelligence and Realism: A Materialist Critique of I.Q), Joel Michell (Measurement in Psychology), Mark Garrison (A Measure of Failure: The Political Origins of Standardized Testing) and Gunter Trendler (Measurement Theory, Psychology and the Revolution That Cannot Happen). Psychometrics is nothing but a political ring—it’s not a science as there is no specified measured object, object of measurement and the measurement unit. Indeed, the object of measurement is the subject, which means that there is no actual measured object that psychometricians attempt to measure!
Level 24 on my 3rd try. That was surprisingly kinda fun.
Lowest so far, with 11 lol 😥
People who use Human benchmark are a select group, even more so those who read PP
This reminds me of the Radio Shack Tandy-12 electronic arcade toy. It had a game called “Repeat” that was nearly identical to this. It flashed one colored button, which you then had to push, then two, then three, etc. Another game, “Tag-It,” was based on reaction times. A button would light up and you needed to push it before the system lit up a different button. I wonder if kids who grew up with these sorts of things would score better on the formal tests, due to have “training” via games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy-12
29 on sequence memory
168ms average on reaction time (my best score was 127 ms), although the test is heavily affected by hardware and software. Simulated reaction time tests are rife with issues. My monitor alone is probably adding ~16ms on.
384pts on verbal memory
14 on number memory
20 on chimp test
All first tries, except reaction time. 5 bucks to the guy who can correctly guess my IQ. 10 bucks to the guy who can correctly guess how much autism i have.
impressive. you sound like a 160+ guy.
These scores are super high, but I think I’ll still go with high 140s to low 150s just in case you’d regress to the mean on a “real” IQ test. But you could easily be much higher.
Assuming, at least, that I have a correct sense of roughly where these scores would fall in the general population.
About right. I’m 160+ in anything related to perceptual reasoning, but lower in everything else. I usually score my lowest in working memory, but i’ve found i have other skills i can use to bolster that weakness (depending on the task). These sorts of tests favor high visual abilities, i also suspect i naturally use something akin to mnemonics, although i’ve never trained.
My reaction time is high because I’m a freak. But I’m getting older and i can definitely feel myself getting slower. I used to be world renowned FPS player, i suspect that training increased my reaction time.
Impressive (duh)! So, even if you have a training advantage, your working memory is pretty good, even if (bad language use – anyway..) it’s not as great as your perceptual reasoning ability. How talented are you at chess and/or card games?
i got 30 on sequence memory so yeah
From Richardson (2002: 287) What IQ Tests Test.
“The other most popular test, the Wechsler (1958) scales, was based broadly on the kinds of items that had been found to ‘work’ in previous tests (Anastasi, 1990). New types of items—especially non-verbal, or so-called ‘performance’ items— have been devised in the same pragmatic way, with little improvement in theory about cognitive processing to guide it (see further below). As Anastasi (1990) said about the Wechsler scales, ‘The weakest feature … has been their lack of theoretical grounding, which makes it hard to find a coherent basis for interpretation’ (p. 222).”
Again, like other “IQ” tests, this is “validated” against other “IQ” tests using items shown to “work” with other tests.
Just some questions I had regarding how to properly identify IQ from the Pumpkin-man himself:
1. Pumpkin, youve estimated my IQ to be 115 in the past. I know I have a severe spatial deficit and my verbal intelligence is probably somewhere around a standard deviation and a half higher than 100.
Wondering what different portions of IQ are how theyre weighted etc. I find it interesting that my verbal/reasoning intelligence would be ~120 but the average of spatial and verbal IQ to arrive at 115 would overestimate verbal. There must be a more significant weighting for verbal than spatial in order for this to happen. Or are there other portions to IQ as well such as numerical and working memory or other that allow for the IQ to come out to 115.
Thanks in advance Pumpkin I hope you can answer.
Sorry meant overestimating visual.
Level 6. To be expected from someone without an occipital and rear parietal lobes.
really?
“really?”
Is that a response to the second sentence? Yeah, my occipital and parietal lobes aren’t visible at the back in my brain scan. I jokingly said without, but they might as well not even be there as per the impact of the deformation.
To list out, I am bad at:
-reacting
-verbal stuff
-concrete visual stuff
-memory
Interesting. Did you hit your head on something?
Stunted growth is the closest thing I can give to an explanation. What stunted it? I don’t know. In terms of the overall shape/non-metric ratios it doesn’t resemble any family member’s known brain shapes.
the digit span has a mean of 7 and SD of 1 or 2, i forget. why should this test of autism be any different?
I could only reach level 14. Must be my visual weakness kicking in again. I might be able to reach higher, but only with a lucky sequence, assuming the sequences are generated randomly and not intentionally selected for approximately homogeneous difficulty.
Ganzir, what’s your ethnic background?
Irish, Norwegian, German, some mixed Northern European, and possibly traces of Native American and Ashkenazi Jew
Ah, yeah I thought you said that somewhere else but your username sounds Indian/Middle Eastern but I guess it’s just a Sargon-style larp
I got it from SCP-5000. I use it just because it sounds cool
thx for the article pumpkin.
It makes sense to me why picture span would have a higher g loading. I’m able to score 20 on the sequence test almost entirely due of my ability to break down the sequence into subsequences of recognizable shapes, and not memory capacity. Chunking may still be possible with picture span (I guess by imagining stories?) but it will be more difficult and less visuospatial biased. I’d guess that’s the same reason why backwards memorization is more g-loaded, since you either need to have a distinct memory of every item or be able to process your chunks into reverse order.
That interview with Oprah ticked all the boxes for Oprah. Even got in a story about how racist the monarchy was for hoping archie would be white. I bet if Oprah suggested that Meghan was beaten by a police officer, Meghan would have went along with that too.
Oprah: “So were the royal family racist?”
Meghan: “Yes indeed mama bear”
Oprah fist pumps.
I get what you mean but I wouldn’t put it past them. Though I’m pretty sure it’s impossible for her kid to have darker skin than her. And she looks Mediterranean anyway.
Waiting on PP’s eventual article where Oprah uses her big brain and high IQ to take down the British royal family.
Don’t really like fiction but it’d be entertaining.
no. i get it. the sequence is the same every time with one added. so not like the digit span at all. it’s just a memorization task.
how does anyone not get infinity?
so ‘tarded.
Puppy you love the blacks so much but never talk about how africans hate the gays.
Why is it first 10 attempts?
30 on my first attempt lol.