from the world's big
7 free cognitive tests to flex your mental muscle
Do you think you know who you are? After taking these 7 tests, you'll have a much greater understanding of your own noggin.
Out of everybody on the planet, you spend the most time with yourself. That's why the fact that we don't really know that much about ourselves is so unfair. These 7 cognitive tests can help provide a bit more perspective on how your brain works, the shortcuts it takes, and its character in general.
The Cognitive reflection test
This very short test measures an aspect of your mind known as cognitive reflection, or your ability to consider your own cognition. Take look at the following three questions and see what comes to mind.
- A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
- If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?
- In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?
About one in three people provide the wrong answer to all three questions, and 83% provide at least one wrong answer. Essentially, this test measures people's ability to resist making mental shortcuts. The questions themselves heavily encourage a particular answer, but a few moments of reflection reveal that the easy answers are red herrings. The correct answers can be found at the bottom of this page.
Interestingly, low scores on the cognitive reflection test correlate with an inability to see fake news headlines as fake. Just to provide some context, the kind of fake headlines used in this study were along the lines of “Election Night: Hillary was Drunk, Got Physical with Mook and Podesta."
The International Personality Item Pool
While measuring personality is a somewhat controversial subject among psychologists, some research has shown that the personality measures used in the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) correlate to the likelihood of developing a mental disorder, academic achievement, and even how long one might live.
The test measures five major characteristics: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Take the test here. You'll notice there's both a short and a long version available; keep in mind that the long version, while more accurate, has 300 questions.
Many people are probably more familiar with the Myers-Briggs personality test, which places people in 16 different, opposing categories, such as thinking versus feeling personalities and judging versus perceiving personalities. The Myers-Briggs test, however, has been widely criticized due to its inability to consistently measure an individual's personality, its lack of objectivity, and its validity. In fact, Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers—the creators of the test—weren't even trained psychologists.
The Wonderlic test
The Wonderlic Test—wonderfully named after its creator, Eldon F. Wonderlic—is composed of 50 questions designed to measure overall cognitive ability, or intelligence. Most are probably familiar with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), which measures a tester's intelligence quotient (IQ) and places the average at 100. The Wonderlic, in contrast, has an average score of 20.
The main difference between the Wonderlic and the WAIS tests, however, is that Wonderlic is used primarily as a method of vetting potential employees. The American Psychological Association has approved its use for personnel testing, and it is currently employed in many different sectors. Most notably, the Wonderlic is used in the NFL to assess the intelligence of draft picks. With any luck, you'll outperform Jets cornerback Morris Claiborne, who scored a disastrous four. To put that in context, Wonderlic, Inc. claims a score of 10 is considered to be roughly equivalent to literacy. You may do better than Morris Claiborne, but it'll be a challenge to outperform Tom Brady, who scored a 33, or Eli Manning, who scored a 39. Take a sample Wonderlic here.
First developed by Antoine Bechara, the Iowa Gambling Task was designed to mimic real-world decision-making and assess executive function—essentially, the set of cognitive processes that allows for the deliberate control of behavior. You can take the test here.
The Iowa Gambling Task is simple; the premise is that you've borrowed $2000 to gamble with. There are four decks you can draw from, each of which will sometimes produce a card that rewards you with money, penalizes you, or does a combination of the two. Each turn, you can choose from which deck you want to draw from.
The trick of the test, however, is that two of the decks have greater penalties, and two of them have greater rewards. Most people switch to a “good" deck after a period of losses, but patients with damage to their prefrontal cortexes (where the bulk of the brains executive functioning transpires) fail to predict future consequences of the actions and play the same deck. Furthermore, chronic gamblers have been found to exhibit reduced responses to playing risky decks (i.e., playing bad decks that lead to losing all your money).
The Stroop test
Named after John Ridley Stroop, the Stroop test is a very well-known measure of executive function. Like the Iowa Gambling Task, its premise is straightforward: a series of color words are presented to the test taker (i.e., “red," “blue," etc.), but the words themselves are printed in randomly colored ink. The task is to select the color of the word as fast as possible rather than selecting the word itself. So, if the word “red" were in blue ink, the test taker would answer “blue."
It turns out this is a pretty difficult thing for us to do. There are a few different theories out there for why this happens, but the main one is that the brain processes linguistic information far faster than color information. Both the word and the color hit our eyeballs at the same time, but the word gets pulled into the decision-making process first. The brain has to inhibit this information in order to select the correct, color-based response. Interestingly, people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) perform more poorly on this test, likely due to their reduced ability to inhibit their automatic responses.
Take the test here.
The Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT)
This task measures the test taker's capacity for information processing as well as the rate at which that occurs. While it was originally designed to assess the impact of a traumatic brain injury on the test taker's cognitive functioning, the PASAT relies on working memory, attention, and arithmetic abilities and can be used to assess these qualities in any subject. Notably, scores on the PASAT decrease with age, indicating the effects of cognitive decline.
The PASAT is mainly used in patients with multiple sclerosis—in which nerve cells lose their insulating sheaths—as their ability to maintain the attention required for this test is severely impaired. You can take the PASAT here.
The Implicit-Association Test
As much as we'd like to think otherwise, many of us harbor biases and stereotypes that we may not even be aware of. The implicit-association test was designed to uncover these hidden belief systems. It's been used in the past to show that most researchers believe quality research only comes from rich countries and that medical doctors have an implicit preference for white patients over black patients. Project Implicit, based out of Harvard University, has a series of implicit-association tests on their website on topics such as age, race, weapons, and disabilities.
Essentially, the test works by providing two categories—for example, “white" and “black"—and by asking the user to rapidly associate a series of terms with those categories. For instance, the user may be asked to associate pleasant terms (such as “happiness") with the “black" category and unpleasant terms (such as “suffering") with the “white" category. A user with a negative implicit association towards black people would spend longer associating positive terms with the black category.
Join Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and best-selling author Charles Duhigg as he interviews Victoria Montgomery Brown, co-founder and CEO of Big Think, live at 1pm EDT tomorrow.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
A study looks at the performance benefits delivered by asthma drugs when they're taken by athletes who don't have asthma.
- One on hand, the most common health condition among Olympic athletes is asthma. On the other, asthmatic athletes regularly outperform their non-asthmatic counterparts.
- A new study assesses the performance-enhancement effects of asthma medication for non-asthmatics.
- The analysis looks at the effects of both allowed and banned asthma medications.
WADA uncertainty<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU0OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMDc4NjUwN30.fFTvRR0yJDLtFhaYiixh5Fa7NK1t1T4CzUM0Yh6KYiA/img.jpg?width=980" id="01b1b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2fd91a47d91e4d5083449b258a2fd63f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="urine sample for drug test" />
Image source: joel bubble ben/Shutterstock<p>When inhaled β-agonists first came out just before the 1972 Olympics, they were immediately banned altogether by the WADA as possible doping substances. Over the years, the WADA has reexamined their use and refined the organization's stance, evidence of the thorniness of finding an equitable position regarding their use. As of January 2020, only three β-agonists are allowed — salbutamol, formoterol, and salmeterol —and only in inhaled form. Oral consumption appears to have a greater effect on performance.</p>
The study<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU0Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTIzMDQyMX0.Gk4v-7PCA7NohvJjw12L15p7SumPCY0tLdsSlMrLlGs/img.jpg?width=980" id="d3141" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ebe7b30a315aeffcb4fe739095cf0767" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="runner at starting position on track" />
Image source: MinDof/Shutterstock<p>Of primary interest to the authors of the study is confirming and measuring the performance improvement to be gained from β-agonists when they're ingested by athletes who don't have asthma.</p><p>The researchers performed a meta-analysis of 34 existing studies documenting 44 randomized trials reporting on 472 participants. The pool of individuals included was broad, encompassing both untrained and elite athletes. In addition, lab tests, as opposed to actual competitions, tracked performance. The authors of the study therefore recommend taking its conclusions with just a grain of salt.</p><p>The effects of both WADA-banned and approved β-agonists were assessed.</p>
Approved β-agonists and non-asthmatic athletes<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU1MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMzkxODk0M30.3RssFwk_tWkHRkEl_tIee02rdq2tLuAePifnngqcIr8/img.jpg?width=980" id="39a99" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b1fe4a580c6d4f8a0fd021d7d6570e2a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="vaulter clearing pole" />
Image source: Andrey Yurlov/Shutterstock<p>What the meta-analysis showed is that the currently approved β-agonists didn't significantly improve athletic performance among those without asthma — what very slight benefit they <em>may</em> produce is just enough to prompt the study's authors to write that "it is still uncertain whether approved doses improve anaerobic performance." They note that the tiny effect did increase slightly over multiple weeks of β-agonist intake.</p>
Banned β-agonist and non-asthmatic athletes<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU1Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjI3ODU5Mn0.vyoxSE5EYjPGc2ZEbBN8d5F79nSEIiC6TUzTt0ycVqc/img.jpg?width=980" id="de095" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="02fdd42dfda8e3665a7b547bb88007ef" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="swimmer mid stroke" />
Image source: Nejron Photo/Shutterstock<p>The study found that for athletes without asthma, however, the use of currently banned β-agonists did indeed result in enhanced performance. The authors write, "Our meta-analysis shows that β2-agonists improve anaerobic performance by 5%, an improvement that would change the outcome of most athletic competitions."</p><p>That 5 percent is an average: 70-meter sprint performance was improved by 3 percent, while strength performance, MVC (maximal voluntary contraction), was improved by 6 percent.</p><p>The analysis also revealed that different results were produced by different methods of ingestion. The percentages cited above were seen when a β-agonist was ingested orally. The effect was less pronounced when the banned substances were inhaled.</p><p>Given the difference between the results for allowed and banned β-agonists, the study's conclusions suggest that the WADA has it about right, at least in terms of selection of allowable β-agonists, as well as the allowable dosage method.</p>
Takeaway<p>The study, say its authors, "should be of interest to WADA and anyone who is interested in equal opportunities in competitive sports." Its results clearly support vigilance, with the report concluding: "The use of β2-agonists in athletes should be regulated and limited to those with an asthma diagnosis documented with objective tests."</p>
Certain water beetles can escape from frogs after being consumed.
- A Japanese scientist shows that some beetles can wiggle out of frog's butts after being eaten whole.
- The research suggests the beetle can get out in as little as 7 minutes.
- Most of the beetles swallowed in the experiment survived with no complications after being excreted.