100%! Not sure what this measures, but I've spent decades trying to gauge whether a design is one pixel off, or if some minor change has affected the layout of something. Maybe that was all preparation for slicing America in two using an Australia-shaped knife.
You are Homer Simpson and I claim my £5, Mr Cthulu_.
Err what are your pronouns, O tentacled horror of an old one (with a trailing ledge).
I got 98% The two I cocked up I spent too long trying to align edges and geometry but actually it seems us humans do have a pretty decent hard wired equal area estimator built in. The last one - AUS/US - should be really hard but I suspect that the results are pretty good.
I'd love to see the results for this. There is almost certainly a decent paper in it.
97% (5 perfect). I don't know either. My guess is that most people are pretty good at judging what the half of something looks like. I feel like if the movement (on my phone anyway) wasn't as jerky/sticky I would have gotten one more perfect. I definitely had one that was very inaccurate (55/45) though.
Lol, I got the America/Australia one perfect too! That surprised me!
They seem to be fudging it a bit. In the first example with the circle, anything better than 45%-55% (as measured in my graphics editor) is reported as a perfect 50-50 split.
now if only the America vs Australia cut was on spherical (or ellipsoidal I guess) geometry rather than projecting both countries to a plane prior to slicing
I got 97% on the first part and was impressed with myself, but you're experience with design work is certainly the professional difference. That's impressive!
"Maybe that was all preparation for slicing America in two using an Australia-shaped knife" one of those sentences I feel like no one has ever said before (/r/brandnewsentence material)
This is a great read. While I'm not 100% sure the method (looking time) is the best, I love how the results are consistent across many experiments. Ofc, the key take away is that it doesn't really matter because personal experiences take over the inherent human "hard wiring".
It would be interesting to see how the ability correlates with social behaviour. Having one or more siblings and the need to share pie, cake, or vlaai probably creates a modest selective pressure.
Only tangentially related: There was a great talk about Brilliant's custom diagramming language at last year's StrangeLoop conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9Xu-ctNqI
Funny that this comes up - a lot of times while watching YouTube I'll fidget by trying to highlight exactly half of the title. I check whether or not it's half by dragging the highlighted section over the other half. Glad there's a game for this now!
92% with 4 perfect cuts (messed up badly on the easy 12-sided shape). Don't know why, but it was a strangely fun exercise. "Brilliant" ad too (pun intended :D)
5 perfect gives you 100% on those 5 attempts but then your overall % is calculated based on at what margin you missed out on other attempts. ex: if you got 42% instead of 50% in an attempt then that would impact your overall %.
I think it would be a bad captcha—it is impressive how good some people are at this, in the sense that it is surprising that people can just eyeball areas very precisely, but a computer could really easily count the pixels.
Many people are saying they did very well, but if I were trying to sell a service I'd tell people that same thing. "Sure, you did a lot of these perfectly, want to do more games that will feel satisfying" seems like a great onboarding strategy.
I was able to get the first five exactly with a bit of luck and think with a bit of thinking it should be possible to always land near 1% or 2%. But is there a good way to cut the cup, bird or map one without calculating it? I got lucky and got the cup exactly but I don't think I could get close without just beeing lucky on the bird and map onea.
The cup is symmetrical and so is the donut shading, so the trick is to flip it on its head: instead of cutting the cup with the donut, cut the donut with the cup by ensuring either the top or bottom half of the donut overlays the cup. With that line of thinking I get a perfect split every time.
Can you explain more? (I might be stupid and don't see some obvious proof of why your approach is correct), but intuitively it doesn't seem that the fact that the cup is symmetrical is enough. Say if the handle of the cup was really really big, while still preserving symmetry, then its outstanding area would be huge compared to what the doughnut could cover.
With the cup, I moved the doughnut up from below, and just eyeballed when the area above the midline of the cup equalled the area in the hole. Turns out I can do this fairly accurately.
Readit News
Err what are your pronouns, O tentacled horror of an old one (with a trailing ledge).
I got 98% The two I cocked up I spent too long trying to align edges and geometry but actually it seems us humans do have a pretty decent hard wired equal area estimator built in. The last one - AUS/US - should be really hard but I suspect that the results are pretty good.
I'd love to see the results for this. There is almost certainly a decent paper in it.
:)
Lol, I got the America/Australia one perfect too! That surprised me!
https://parentingscience.com/babies-expect-fairness/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
Deleted Comment
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/244995/illusion
This is genius, I'm going to do that from now on (and have more reason to be annoyed at the inability to get a perfect split on discrete characters).
No insights to share on the other ones, though.