Video of the Blindfolded WR

[tim]

It disproves???!!?? If anything, that shows he believes a photographic memory exists, or why would he bring it up if he didn't think so? Of course, his definition is different than ours, however, I do agree with the way he put it, which also fits my definition of a PM.

So everyone has a photographic memory. If you watch at your desk and close your eyes in order to remember as much details as possible, you'll have a picture of your desk in your mind. What's so special about a PM? If you want to memorize more details in less time, you just have to practice your brain to be good at this photographic stuff.

 

[ExoCorsair]

There's a great difference between trying to memorize a "picture" and a long string of text/numbers. The problem with the latter is that the numbers/letters are all uniform (black, thin) and otherwise a large amount of data in a small amount of space, whereas in the former you can make cohesion out of randomly placed objects.

Compare a clean (organized) desk vs. a messy (disorganized) one. I am sure that the former would be easier to memorize simply because you can take everything in small bits and put it together, instead of having to see everything at once.

Then compare with these two:
askgho4y614ahsoighvhcb085yq8h2

ask gho 4y 614 ah so igh vh cb 085 yq 8h2

Same characters, just there is more "organization" in the second.

Then compare a desk with a string of letters and digits like above.

As far as photographic memory is concerned, I think it would be unfair to say "mental picture of anything and everything". I doubt a person who can picture strings of text and recall them instantly; odds are, if they claim they can, they are reading the text and memorizing as they go, instead of a "mental snapshot". However, it is much more feasible that people can take "mental snapshots" of their surroundings or pictures.

Just my two cents.

 

[hait2]

Keep cool, they still have to memorize 19 digits.
Arranging them in a way they want them to be is comparable to using the same color schema on your cube every time. Your 2x2x3 comparision is really out of context (means 13 remaining pieces instead of 20...)

keep cool, they still have to solve a rubik's cube. see the problem with my analogy of your analogy? "but it's much easier now, they don't have to worry about every case of the cube, only last layer". ditto for the numbers "it's much easier now ,they don't have to worry about every arrangement of the numbers, only the one they picked"

edit:
i wrote a long counter to every point in johannes/kathrik's posts but i figured it's pointless to argue about this as we obviously have different views. i'll just leave it as: when someone says they can memorize 19 digits in 1 second or less, i naturally assume (mistake?) that they can do it in every case. Just as if someone tells me they can solve the cube in 15 seconds or less, i naturally assume that they can do it in every case.

i'd actually like to know their "dnf" rates.. is it like (using specifically their pattern) 1.0 1.0 1.0 dnf 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 etc..
or more like
dnf dnf dnf dnf dnf dnf 1.0 (OMG WR WR WR ) dnf dnf dnf dnf etc..

this would be pretty interesting i'd think.

 

[Johannes91]

"but it's much easier now, they don't have to worry about every case of the cube, only last layer". ditto for the numbers "it's much easier now ,they don't have to worry about every arrangement of the numbers, only the one they picked"

It seems like you are not even trying to understand. They are not choosing what numbers they will get, just the way they are displayed. Similarly, cubers don't choose the scrambles, but they can choose what cube to use.

i'd actually like to know their "dnf" rates.. is it like (using specifically their pattern) 1.0 1.0 1.0 dnf 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 etc..
or more like
dnf dnf dnf dnf dnf dnf 1.0 (OMG WR WR WR ) dnf dnf dnf dnf etc..

this would be pretty interesting i'd think.

You could say that about BLD, too.

 

[tim]

i'll just leave it as: when someone says they can memorize 19 digits in 1 second or less, i naturally assume (mistake?) that they can do it in every case. Just as if someone tells me they can solve the cube in 15 seconds or less, i naturally assume that they can do it in every case.

19 digits in 1 second is the world record. So he is able to do it. This doesn't mean, that he can do it every time and he didn't claim that. (if i tell people i can do the cube in about 22s, i mean my average. i'm not able to do this every time and nobody expect that)
And being allowed to arrange the numbers in a way you like is part of the rules. It's the same thing as using your own cube at competition, as Johannes mentioned.

 

[Stefan]

I think some people confuse "visual" and "photographic". About how often Ramon succeeds, here's some old data in German ("Ziffer" means "digit" and "Versuch" means "attempt"):
http://www.frontreporter.de/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=221#221
The sentence under the easy stats says he tried 18 digits in 2 seconds ten times (the maximum allowed) and failed.

Pat, did he explain how his IQ of 190 was measured?

 

[pjk]

Stefan, I will watch it tonight again with my friend and see if he does, and let you know. I doubt they say though, as my friend probably would have said so if they did. I have often wondered how a standard IQ is measured and how accurate they really are. Anyone know?

 

[hait2]

It seems like you are not even trying to understand. They are not choosing what numbers they will get, just the way they are displayed. Similarly, cubers don't choose the scrambles, but they can choose what cube to use.


You could say that about BLD, too.

My example does not choose what numbers they will get, just the way they are displayed. I don't see what I am supposed to try to understand.

Yes, you can say bld solves are rare, but are they? Looking through matyas' records, he has a solid 17/17 solve history, all of which have earned him first place in their respective competitions. Compared to memorizing 16 (not 19!) digits on 6th try. Much less consistent.

19 digits in 1 second is the world record. So he is able to do it. This doesn't mean, that he can do it every time and he didn't claim that. (if i tell people i can do the cube in about 22s, i mean my average. i'm not able to do this every time and nobody expect that)
And being allowed to arrange the numbers in a way you like is part of the rules. It's the same thing as using your own cube at competition, as Johannes mentioned.

But, how often can he do it? For all we know, he only memorized 14 of the 19 numbers and got lucky on the other 5 via guess. It's not that improbable, especially if he has a rough idea of what the numbers are/are not.

If your average is 22 seconds, you can do sub-22 solves very often. Once again, compare it to 16 (not 19! big difference) digits in 6 tries.

As it stands (failing to memorize 18 (not even 19) digits in 2 seconds (double the time) after ten tries), it seems like it was once in a blue-moon occurence that set him the world record (much like getting a PLL skip in OH or a 3 move solution for 2x2x2 *cough*)


and IQs are supposed to be measured with standardized tests. i don't know any except wais, but there are probably more. look it up on wikipedia or something. the one thing i *do* know, is that having a legit 190 iq would put you in a super genius (colloquial) position -_-; something like 99.99999th percentile (aka there's only a few hundred people like that in the world). which, to be valid, is not measured by normal standardized tests as far as i know. i forget how they determine it, but they don't go past 99.94th in normal tests.

 

[Stefan]

I have often wondered how a standard IQ is measured and how accurate they really are. Anyone know?

The wikipedia page contains a lot of good information. But I recommend you also just do a supervised test of Mensa (the largest high iq society) to get a good idea how these tests work. In USA it looks like it only costs $40. It's a lot cheaper than having a psychologist test you, and a valuable experience if you're interested in this kind of stuff. There's a big national test day coming up in the US on Oct 20. More information for your national Mensa group here:
http://www.mensa.org/contact.php?action=fromnat

Different tests can give different results, though, even the professional ones, because they have different scales. That's why Mensa doesn't use an IQ value as cut-off for membership but the 98th percentile, corresponding to different IQ values in different tests. In the test they use in German Mensa this corresponds to an IQ value of 130, and the maximum you can get with that test is 145 as they say this test can't differentiate properly above that (but I think somewhere I've read that the value might be off by +/- 5% in any case, especially above 130).

For some information about harder tests and more restricted societies, have a look here:
http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html

 

[pjk]

Stefan, sorry about the delay, I haven't been able to get with my friend again yet to do somemore translating. I will post when I get around to it again.

 

[clincher]

Translation

"His name is Ramon Campayo(...) for the third time he has been champion of fast memorization, he can memorize a 19 digit number in one second pretty simple for a 190 IQ person who speaks 6 languages and is dedicated to discover the secrets of the mind(...)"
Campayo: "I work on speedreading and the photographic quality and the psicological part it's important too because(...) a half-second test takes a 1 year preparation(...)
"His mind is one of the best of the world(...)In Germany he has achieved for the third time consecutive the first place at speedreading"
etc etc they repeat the same thing over and over again 190 IQ etc.
Campayo: "I've also seen a german who is really good and he has the record on the rubik's cube for example he takes 5 cubes he analizes them he blindfolds himself and he solves them"
"Another test is to memorize 46 digits in binary in 2 seconds"
Campayo: "The photographic memory is really important because you can barely read 46 numbers in 2 seconds, you have to work them photographically in groups and be able to visualize them and the reading speed has to be really fast(...)
He also teaches. lol

Clincher

 

[Stefan]

Campayo: "I've also seen a german who is really good and he has the record on the rubik's cube for example he takes 5 cubes he analizes them he blindfolds himself and he solves them"

Hey, that must be me! I'm flattered. I hope he didn't imply the slightest connection between me and photographic memory?

Thanks for the translation. I was almost sure the IQ wouldn't be explained. Here he actually wrote he's a "Member of the International Society MENSA, with 194 I.Q. points". I think that 1) this makes it sound like he got the value from Mensa which is most likely not true since Mensa doesn't do tests that go this high (and they haven't answered my inquiry about this yet) and 2) if you mention an IQ of 194 then why would you bother to mention Mensa, except to hear yourself talk more? Oh and here he says "I have shattered an infinite amount of world records", which is clearly wrong.

 

[pjk]

It appears he is talking about you Stefan , very cool.

 

[hait2]

a bit random, but i stumbled on this for an unrelated reason

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/specials/2006/09/06/gupta.savants.affl

at about 2;00 in, photographic memory by anyone's definition imo

 

[pjk]

a bit random, but i stumbled on this for an unrelated reason

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/specials/2006/09/06/gupta.savants.affl

at about 2;00 in, photographic memory by anyone's definition imo

Yep, just another example to fit into the pot.

 

[ColdbuffeT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek

This man has photographic memory. Documentary of him can be seen in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2T45r5G3kA

 

[Stefan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2T45r5G3kA

At 5:53 he's asked: Who was the game-winning pitcher of game 3 in the 1926 world series?

He answers: The Cardinals won and with Grover Cleveland Alexander.

If I understand it correctly, Alexander didn't even play in that game, instead Jesse Haines was the pitcher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_World_Series#Game_3
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/yr1926ws.shtml

I know almost nothing about baseball, though. Can someone with better knowledge confirm or correct me?

 

[hait2]

nevermind misread question :O

he might've confused it with the last game where great alex stepped in for haines towards the end?

still that's a pretty interesting find..

 

[Stefan]

And it was the first thing I checked. One of the problems with these documentaries is that they even present failures as successes.

I've watched another one where a guy demonstrated mentally calculating the decimal expansion of 125/97 (or something like that) and so he told a long string of digits but he already had a big mistake after about four digits. Still, they showed this and didn't bother mentioning the failure! Also, at some point he stopped, and the reporter asked "And now it ends?" and he replied "Yes", which was just wrong, it was actually infinite. Oh and they called him a "calculation genius" which I believe is a completely wrong term, as this is more about memory than about calculation, and more about method and training than about natural talent (the latter coming closer to my understanding of the word "genius").

If they even present failures as successes, then I'm sure they also have no problem with leaving out more obvious failures, for example when a person directly says "No, sorry, your answer is wrong". But my doubts are more general that just that.

Summary: I can't trust these documentaries. I do trust serious competitions, though.

 

[pjk]

Yeah, I agree with you Stefan.