Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroz
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMzY5NHuEzc
Stats for nerds: A little bit more on the statistics, the standard deviation of reaction time is 35ms for humans. This is defined as the window where 68% of all data points reside. So if you are 70ms faster than the median reaction time that is known as a '2 sigma event' meaning you're in the top 32% of reaction time. So some important numbers.
-5 Sigma Event: Odds are 1 in 3.5 million, or a 175ms reaction time advantage
-6 Sigma Event: Odds are 1 in 500 million, or a 210ms reaction time advantage
|
Emphasis mine.
1) You realize sigma is defined around a bell curve, correct? If you look at
https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime, they show you the curve...its not a bell curve.
2) That 68% is for BOTH sides, yet if you are faster, you are obviously on the left side (shorter reaction time) of the bell curve. At one sigma, by your definition (again, see point 1 on why that is not accurate), if you are faster than 1 sigma then you are faster than 84% of "humans" (your defined population set).
3) From the website: "In addition to measuring your reaction time, this test is affected by the latency of your computer and monitor. Using a fast computer and low latency / high framerate monitor will improve your score." What have you done to control for monitor/computer latency in your test? I was consistently getting 250's for myself when I tested it. There's a good chance that I am slow, there is also a large chance that my monitor's latency is compounding my problem up into the 250's.
You spout off a lot of inaccurate information when trying to convey your point. This is "evidence" for people who already want these "facts" reinforced.