
How old are you based on your reactions? - ColinWright
https://www.justpark.com/creative/reaction-time-test/
======
mdergosits
I may be off here but, I found that when I had the window fullscreen the
graphics were rendering very slowly and my reaction times were very slow. I
then made the window smaller and the graphics were much smoother time and my
reaction times were much better.

~~~
z2
Same here. I reduced my reaction time from 500ms to sub-300 after re-sizing
the window down to about 400 by 400 px.

If anything, their model suffers from omitted variable bias--the power of your
computer!

~~~
bkanber
Me too -- after reading your comment, I found that I effectively halved my age
in a dozen trials or so with a smaller window.

------
tobr
The animation was very jerky, and I had to press the keys about three times
for it to even register. Maybe a better title would be "How laggy is this
website based on your reactions?"

~~~
mikeash
My browser is 67 years old.

------
lucb1e
I really like the idea but it's completely off. What it should do is measure
your reaction time: the time between the sign appearing on screen and the user
pressing the mouse or tapping the screen. What it does is include frame
rendering time. I apparently have the reaction speed of a 80-year-old at 22
(900ms), while I'm sure my reaction time on computers is around 225ms
(measured on different occasions).

Also, you compare with the average, but what's your error margin? Were there
25 year olds that got 350ms and 200ms or did everyone consistently get
between, say, 240 and 250?

~~~
stinos
This. There's a reason many reactiontime experiments in e.g. neuroscience use
a photo sensor on the screen to figure out when exactly the stimulus comes,
and then compare that with reactions like keypresses by sampling both signals
on the same AD card.

------
rtl49
This is a silly knickknack intended to promote justpark.com. It doesn't work,
and even if you account for differences in other variables (mouse vs keyboard,
rendering speed, etc.), it probably can't work reliably given the variation in
reaction times between members of the same cohort.

------
pcunite
It said I was nine years younger than I truly am. I say it's doing a fine job.
Let's not trouble the man too much.

~~~
jpmattia
Being told that I have the reaction time of an 18 year old at age 52 means
that I believe this website dispenses the gods'-honest truth. I'm even
inclined to ignore that the steering wheel is where none of the gods wanted
it.

~~~
rodgerd
Apparently I have inhuman reactions. It must be scientific.

Meow.

------
Faint
It would be nice to know something about the accuracy of the age estimate
(stdev? or 66% of 29-year old's trials are between blaah and blaah?), and
also, how many tries did the test subjects get. I got a couple of "we are not
sure you are human" ratings after a few tries (around ten tries total).

------
placebo
Interesting, I get a decade younger with each try... Doubt there is much
behind the conversion between reaction time and age, but it's a nice setting
to test your reaction time :-)

~~~
maxerickson
I managed to get 283 milliseconds, which is off their chart. It speculated I
wasn't a human.

I was 57 the first time though.

------
msandford
Seems like it'd be a little more honest to plot the range rather than the
average, and report the range of ages you likely are rather than the "exact"
age you are. I have aged between 23 and 55 so I suspect that the data aren't
quite as neat as they're presented.

------
jrapdx3
I have to agree with the numerous comments, results of this "test" are way too
dependent on hardware, platform, and other local variables. Was kind of fun
though.

Using the keyboard, my reaction time "age" was in low 20's, _much_ younger
than my real vintage. Using mouse clicks, well now I'm 44 or so. My, how
quickly one ages.

There is a serious side to such testing. Used under tightly controlled
conditions similar tests have shown interesting results. For example, a number
of studies report small but significant reaction time differences between kids
with ADHD vs. without the disorder, though what that means is uncertain.

I've often thought a properly calibrated RT test of auto drivers would be
useful. Readily observed that when the stop light goes from red to green, many
drivers are quite slow on the uptake. Logically I wonder if a similar finding
re: emergency braking might apply.

Hard to say how much RT differences are genetic vs. learned trait. In any case
effects on traffic flow, or performance in critical situations probably have
real-world meaning.

------
thenomad
I got radically different results on keyboard vs mouse, with keyboard being
massively quicker.

It might be a good idea to standardise just on keyboard or mouse.

------
thekevan
With my wireless mouse, I was getting anywhere from 37 - 55 years old. Using
the touchpad on my laptop, I was getting 50 - 60. Using my keyboard, most
often I got "we're not sure you're an actual human being" but sometimes it
said I was 18 or 19. The lowest one I had was 241 ms.

------
venomsnake
> We're not sure if you're an actual human being With the reaction time of
> (271) milliseconds.

Really? That is like two deaths by a railgun in quake III. And lets not go
into the real twitch games like Ninja Gaiden or DMC III royal guard. Or random
bulletstorms ...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VCX4p3Iw3M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VCX4p3Iw3M)

Edit - couple of more trys - consistenly under 300 ms. The majority of time is
lost in the click itself. With Type M ior cherry red could probably shave to
200-sh. Also getting better results with keyboard (cherry blue) vs mouse
(DeathAdder)

~~~
clarkm
If you get anything under 295 ms it gives you the "not sure if you're an
actual human being" message. If you get a score of 295-305 ms it claims you
have the reaction time of an 18-year-old, which seems weird as I would've
guessed reaction time peaked later in life.

------
abetusk
Unfortunately not a great experiment. The first time through I expected to see
a 'stop' sign, so I was doing what I do when I drive, scanning the road,
looking at signs, making sure the deer on the sides aren't going to jump out.
When the 'STOP' flashed on the screen it took me by surprise because I was
looking for a stop sign, not for what's essentially a pop-up to come out of
nowhere.

My reaction time was initially scored as '42 year old' (I'm 37). The next time
through it was a 20 year old. The third time it told me I might not be human.

~~~
bsaul
i think it's intended to work only the first time, when you're really
surprised. i'm 37 as well and it guessed correctly.

------
temo4ka
560 milliseconds, 48-year-old... really? Care for a friendly match of Quake
Live? :-)

update: when you actually know what will happen it skews in other direction. I
got 312 ms (20-year-old) after several tries.

------
jonknee
It's fun and looks to be designed to go viral, but seems pretty useless. I got
anywhere from "We're not sure you're an actual human being" to being a 47 year
old.

------
illogic_code
\- First time i was distracted, not sure where the sign would appear. Hit
mouse and got 44 years old. \- Second try i was focused and got 25 years old.
\- third try i changed to keyboard since mouse is slow, and got "not sure if
you are a human being" (288 ms)

In real life i am 38. Perhaps this is a good test for attention level or
something like that. Not exactly age per se. But i understood the point ;)

------
iMark
I wonder if something which flatters the user is more likely to go viral?

That it consistently underestimates my age by a couple of decades certainly
makes me want to link to it and boast.

~~~
aselzer
Not sure if I'm flattered by the fact that it said it wasn't sure whether I
was human 10 times in a row :(

------
gburt
My reaction time is 25 years worse than my actual age according to this. I am
not particularly surprised although I question the variance in their
methodology.

------
rusbus
Where are the error bars on the graph? The curve is suspiciously flat, up, and
to the right. Plus, half of 18 year olds aren't actual humans.

------
PedroBatista
It might be deeply flawed, but the first time it missed my age by 2 months,
the next ones i was prepared and my reaction time was lower.

------
saintfiends
At first I'm 55 and then they're not sure I'm human. I'm actually in my late
20's.

------
protomyth
"You have the reaction of a 23 year old". Since I'm 45, I guess I should take
that well, but I would guess it has more to do with spending my 45 (one way)
mile daily commute watching for animals on the road.

~~~
jonknee
Or simply having a fast computer. If you make the window smaller the graphics
speed up and your reaction times magically shrink.

~~~
protomyth
The Macbook I took it on is by no means fast. I do take the point about
judging hand-eye by methods with such a potential for variance. I do wonder
how one overcomes that on the web?

------
djfm
So apparently being stoned consistently increases reaction time by about 10
years.

------
ohyes
I was playing this on my phone and was regularly "we're not actually sure
you're human" I was also a little buzzed at the time. I'm pretty sure this
isn't accurate.

------
codyb
They weren't sure if I was human when I was under 300ms quite frequently. One
time as high as 43 years old, otherwise between not human, 18 and 25.

~~~
jonknee
tl;dr they have no idea and the test is useless.

------
fuzzygroove
Went from a 71 year old to "We're not sure if you're actually human" in 3
tries. Benjamin Button!

------
dghughes
I tried three times and got 37, 26, 35 years-old playing it at full screen in
a browser window; I'm 46.

------
jacquesm
288 ms, we're not sure if you're an actual human being. Funny, I'm pretty sure
I am.

------
trts
I got about 15 years younger on average by switching from a mouse click to the
enter key.

------
mrcsparker
Apparently I might not be human.

------
AC__
Using wireless mouse I'm between 28-33. Using keyboard I'm a machine. What can
I say? I used to play a lot of COD.

