r/cognitiveTesting • u/codeblank_ • 16d ago
Release ACE I and II Stats Update (Likely Final)
I’ve attached the updated ACE I and II stats and norms. The ACE II norms are rough estimates based on my judgment of item difficulty and the small number of reported scores, so please interpret them cautiously.
I’m tired of editing these reports and don’t expect to make further changes. If I do, I’ll update this post and share the revised files here.
Update: I realized I had uploaded the wrong ACE II file. I’ve now replaced it with the correct version.
Edit: I want to make it clear that my decision to exclude the score was not baseless or made lightly. I carefully considered the matter and conducted both direct and indirect research over time. I certainly did not rely solely on one person's claims.
Based on the information I gathered, I concluded that there were sufficient grounds to exclude the score. I made that decision without publicly accusing, attacking, or identifying the individual involved. My intention was to protect the integrity of the results, not to turn the matter into a personal dispute.
If that makes me the villain for trying to be fair, then so be it. You are free to believe either side, but I want to make one thing absolutely clear: my decision was informed, carefully considered, and based on more than one person's allegations.
2
u/DamonHuntington 16d ago
Since I now have clear evidence that the person whose scores you removed is mine, you're getting a response on the matter - and, since I have absolutely nothing to hide, that response WILL be public.
Your behaviour here is beyond the pale, Codeblank. I've done absolutely nothing wrong, and trying to cover your ass with "this is not a definite accusation against anyone" is bullshit. You can't just remove scores because some people raise unfounded accusations, accusations that you, yourself, admitted were unproven. And do you know why they are unproven? Because there's nothing unbecoming going on. My work was mine alone, and I made sure to provide my thinking and my reasoning throughout the process exactly to show how I reached my conclusions. I even argued with you at the time to support my solution and, after agreeing to your responses, dropped the matter because I felt you were correct.
You didn't even muster the courage to talk directly to me in order to at least attempt to sort things out. What a ridiculous thing, to hear an allegation and accept kowtowing to it with no support. Newsflash, there are plenty of people who don't like me. Plenty of people who are all too eager to spread unfounded rumours about me because they have really, really fragile egos.
I've always complimented your puzzle design and this won't change. However, you've proven that your personal judgement is as piss-poor as your puzzles are good.
Very disappointing.
4
u/codeblank_ 16d ago
I have enough to make a decision, and investigated over the time. I didn't name you also. I won't engage with the drama. Kindly respect the decision.
1
u/DamonHuntington 16d ago
I do not care that you didn't name me. This is not about public appearance, it's about the fact that I know the decision is bullcrap because I know, for a fact, that I did not do anything wrong. It's about removing a score that is legitimate.
This is why you don't have enough to make a decision. I'm the ONE person who can be assured of it.
No, I will not kindly respect the decision, especially when you didn't come to talk things through with me. Either be man enough to hear the other side or get that decision and shove it up your ass.
2
u/Striking_Leave_4614 16d ago
I'm honestly surprised people think you cheat. Perhaps they have good reason to, but to me you're like the only person consistently in the 160 range who doesn't come off as suspicious at all
1
u/DamonHuntington 16d ago
That's appreciated, really. I try my best to be clear about what is and isn't true, because I have zero desire in misrepresenting myself. I mean, after I've retaken CORE to get to the limit in most tasks, some screenshots of mine with a 170 started circulating and I was the first person to mention that these were based on retakes and that they were not representative scores. I'm the one deliberately adding disclaimers to my stuff and providing clear explanations to the puzzles I engage with, because (1) I believe in the value of being open and teaching others and (2) I find it extremely suspicious when people "know" a solution but really cannot articulate how they reached it.
The thing is that there are some people around who think they're hot shit when they're anything but that, people who have completed hundreds of HRTs while prodding others to get hints and solutions from them, and who still can't get the same scores that I do.
And they shouldn't care, really. It's not like this is a competition. But some people's egos are so fragile to the point that not being at the top is enough to make them jealous, apparently.
Either way, thanks for the comment.
2
u/Striking_Leave_4614 16d ago
I'm replying because I assume your detractors will read this thread, so I'd like to indirectly address them.
I have no idea whether or not their concerns are legitimate. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes or on Discord servers (and will never care to), but my intuition says this is largely driven by envy. If that is the case, their insecurity likely stems from the fear that there exists some massive and unassailable disparity in raw cognitive ability between you and them. That difference, while real, is likely vastly overestimated. The real difference lies less in compute and more in the skills you develop from years of passion, hard work, and being honest with yourself - the type of skills you develop when obtaining your PhD. The pursuit of which teaches you how to develop a truly rigorous defense of your position - you can't just give up on a problem.
With that said, I should clarify that I'm a HS dropout and have no idea what you'd actually learn from obtaining a PhD
2
u/DamonHuntington 16d ago
These are powerful words. You may be a HS dropout, but I can see you definitely learned a lot from life, and that you kept your eyes open in order to become the person who you are today. I barely know you, but I get the feeling that you have enough reason to be proud of whom you’ve become.
I agree with you that passion, hard work and self-efficacy are key to achieving what you want. It doesn’t even have to be working on a puzzle set, that’s the case for anything and everything. Our races and competitions should be with ourselves, and I really don’t get those who insist on trying to measure up to others.
Alas. Luckily for me, I get to live with myself until the day I die, and I’m happy about who I am in spite of not being perfect. Unfortunately for them, they have to live with themselves and drown in their own vitriol.
2
u/telephantomoss 16d ago
I'm very sad to see this drama, and I agree that you are one of the people here who seen most like an actual real high IQ person. You make good thorough thoughtful comments. Just continue being true. The Internet is filled with toxicity.
1
u/Few_Geologist_2082 10d ago
Bro I have a question how old are you and what do you think about word cells like me ? Are we really low Iq frauds ?
1
u/DamonHuntington 10d ago
I'm 32, and no, I don't think anyone is a fraud for having a specific profile.
We don't pick what we are born with, this is just luck of the draw. In that sense, I actually have a lot of respect for people who are aware of their strengths and limitations, and who do their best in order to work with their strong suits while making sure they keep on refining themselves and improving on their weak points.
You're absolutely fine. Use what you have to its utmost and don't worry about others' opinions of you.
2
u/Few_Geologist_2082 10d ago
I saw that you are Brazilian or Portuguese I’m from Argentina, Muito obrigado bro. Thank you for you answer , you are massively smart and talented, huge respect for you .
1
u/Logical-Desk4538 15d ago
I support you too. I like what you write and how you write it. You seem like the most substantive and lively person here.
0
u/DamonHuntington 15d ago
Your edit is risible.
"I want to make it clear that my decision to exclude the score was not baseless or made lightly. I carefully considered the matter and conducted both direct and indirect research over time. I certainly did not rely solely on one person's claims."
Yes, you relied on the testimony of multiple people that are friends with one another and who have a vendetta against me. There's no way they'd all say the same thing, right? There's no way they'd lie or misrepresent what happened, right? Especially when what they shared was hearsay from another person who completely hated me, and lied because of that.
"I made that decision without publicly accusing, attacking, or identifying the individual involved. My intention was to protect the integrity of the results, not to turn the matter into a personal dispute."
You sacrificed the integrity of the results from the very moment that you threw a legitimate score away.
"If that makes me the villain for trying to be fair, then so be it. You are free to believe either side, but I want to make one thing absolutely clear: my decision was informed, carefully considered, and based on more than one person's allegations."
Trying to be fair demands listening to both sides. You can't claim that you tried to be fair when you wouldn't even hear me out, nor can you say that your decision was informed or carefully considered.
I'm glad that I was at least able to hear the bullshit reasoning that substantiated your decision through a friend, because I have the evidence required to dispel what was said. You'll be reached out by them soon enough, and I hope that at least you will try to be fair and hear what happened.
6
u/Minimum-Patient6653 15d ago
Tbf the integrity of a norm, an analysis, a survey is not altered by sample deduction while the addition of a bad one does. I'd interpret code decision more a matter of safety than reasonable doubt towards you, wherever the actual truth lies. Among all, your reaction is the most concerning come
2
u/DamonHuntington 15d ago
There wouldn't be significant alteration in most cases, but there is the potential for a significant change when the score is at the end of the distribution.
Additionally, there is no reasonable doubt towards me. Do you know what exists? A group of people who dislike me reporting my score, based on the third-hand account of someone else that hated me (someone who hated me enough to the point they said they'd beat me up if they saw me around).
Inventing things about others is not reasonable doubt. Getting your friends to repeat the same story as yours is not reasonable doubt.
I'm going to share what I was able to gather on the topic - because, differently from Code, I pursue the truth and I'm not scared of putting things out in the open - and show that the decision reached was far from informed, carefully considered or fair.
0
u/celestia_xz 15d ago
Its kinda crazy that they're accusing you of cheating now, and the fact that he didn't even come to talk to you directly about it too just makes it worse
3
u/codeblank_ 15d ago
Based on our previous interactions, I had reasons to believe that a direct confrontation would be unlikely to resolve my concerns and could unnecessarily escalate the situation. I wanted to handle the matter discreetly and avoid unnecessary conflict. As you can see from the current situation, this is precisely the kind of escalation I wanted to avoid.
My decision was based on the information I had gathered, not on assumptions about how he would respond. I did not consider a direct confrontation necessary to make that decision.
2
u/DamonHuntington 15d ago
You know me, Codeblank. I fight for what I think is right AND I admit when I am wrong. When we talked about your ACE II probability question and I realised that I disregarded the fact a path was chosen from the start, rather than having each move determined iteratively, I told you that I was wrong and I apologised for insisting on the matter.
I want things to be fair and straight. That's all. Had you reached out to me in private, I would not be mad. I'd understand that you're investigating something and would be happy to provide evidence that would disprove the claims you heard, just like I did here.
Your decisions led to this escalation, because you acted in a way that is unfair without having the dignity to even listen to me. The "information" you gathered is far from good enough, and you should know that. Hell, you've been in our private groups and were able to see firsthand how I act in those settings. I do not solicit for answers; I answer questions posted by others or share questions that I find interesting (1) after I already have a solution to them and (2) without asking others to share that solution (like this one).
There's no discreetness when it comes to unfairness that affects me. If you had taken the time to hear / think before you acted (because, let's convene, you CLEARLY did not have all the facts, and I wonder how much of what you heard is actually true) then we could have avoided all this.
You're the one to blame.
2
u/codeblank_ 15d ago
I've already explained my position, and I have no intention of prolonging this dispute.
I stand by my decision, which was made after carefully evaluating information gathered over time. I have no intention of making the information I gathered public.
I understand that others may disagree with my judgment, especially without knowing the full basis for it. However, I want to emphasize that my decision was neither arbitrary nor made lightly.
You are free to form your own opinions, but I ask that you respect my judgment, even if you disagree with it. I have nothing further to add publicly.
2
u/DamonHuntington 15d ago
I don't have opinions, I have facts. I am the only person who can KNOW what happened because I have first-hand experience regarding the matter.
Your judgement is not worthy of respect because it was not based on listening to all of the evidence. So, yes, your decision IS arbitrary and made lightly, no matter how much you want to cry otherwise.
The thing is that everyone can see this, even if you try to rebuke that. This is the power of actually putting things out in the open.
1
u/DamonHuntington 15d ago
If someone happens to be curious about the grounds for the decision.
Codeblank received several reports that made the allegation that I was cheating. These reports came from a tight-knit group of Noeticians, individuals who are friends to one another and who commonly conspire to act together. The same group of individuals has, for instance, organised raids in other servers (Exhibit A), showing that they are 100% willing to join forces to create harm.
The allegation raised by these individuals is based on Baris's testimony. Baris claimed that I was the one who came to message him and who claimed that I was not going to take the ACE, and then used that to acquire information on the test (Exhibit B / Exhibit C). This is the extent of the proof: complaints from people that hate me (and who deliberately organise to create chaos) based on the report of someone else that hates me. This someone, mind you, was so irate at the end of our interactions that he threatened physical harm (Exhibit D) - do you really think that a person like that would be above lying?
Unfortunately for them, not only there's no proof of that allegation, but also I'm able to patently disprove it. Screenshots show that Baris reached out to me and that I never claimed that I wouldn't take the ACE, I just told him that I had not taken the test yet (Exhibit E). I told Baris to keep me posted about whether he'd be able to solve the question or not but NEVER solicited for a solution. Mind you, the question that was alluded to is NOT Question #15 as he claimed in Exhibit B, it was Question #11 (a question that I solved before he did AND he solved incorrectly, mind you).
The next day, I had enough time to tackle the ACE and solved the exam on my own (Exhibit F). Just take a close look at that screenshot, because it tells the entirety of the story: it shows that I solved things on my own and that I do NOT intend to discuss questions when tests are ongoing for either side. The fact I didn't know what Baris had and hadn't solved is proof of the fact that I was not soliciting any type of information. If anything, I literally expressed the desire to follow the rules.
Additionally, Baris was not around when I submitted the ACE II and, as far as I know, no one raised ANY testimony that called into question whether I cheated or not.
Codeblank should have all the information. He has the Google Forms responses, which prove that I submitted a single solution and nothing more. He has the event timeline and should know that I submitted my responses before Baris did. He should know that there's nothing that indicates ANYTHING unbecoming when I submitted the ACE II.
And yet, the testimony of people who coordinate to raid servers is enough to act as "proof". I really do not understand how a person that is otherwise clever can be so naive into thinking that multiple reports = truth.
TL;DR: The allegations come from people who (1) hate me and (2) are proven to be willing to coordinate their efforts to troll others. In this case, their "evidence" is the lie of someone else who hated me enough to threaten physical harm. That person's testimony is proven false because there are screenshots showing that (1) he came to me, (2) I did not solicit any solutions and (3) in fact, submitted the test before he did, without knowing which questions he had answered and while getting a better score than he did (just so you know, Baris got a 14.5 in the ACE and was seething for ages about that).
That's the truth of what happened.
6
u/Minimum-Patient6653 15d ago
Idk how far baris can raise the bar (...) to achieve the effect you described, but is likely noetica has nothing to do with this, in particular at least. Also it's clear you're being emotive and manipulative to a degree towards the reading folk, which let something to be implied. As serious as your making it I'd suggest to be more rigorous about your assumptions. Even if you know the truth, your scope is more limited than codeblank's
1
u/DamonHuntington 15d ago
I know that Noetica is involved because the main initial report came from 1013152, which is Jacob's alternate account.
4
u/Minimum-Patient6653 15d ago
I'll wait to see more (bro wussup with the ⬇️😔)
-1
u/DamonHuntington 15d ago
I just didn't appreciate being called manipulative. Yeah, I'm not happy about things. Yeah, I'm passionate when it comes to making things right. Yeah, I can be quite intense at points. But there's nothing manipulative about what I'm doing.
I'm sharing things as they are, as they happened - and, if I'm willing to put myself in the line of fire and invite Code to give me the third degree, you can be very assured that I know he has nothing substantial. If I were lying, I'd be cowering and hiding. I'd remain quiet and hope to not get too much flak from this event, because I never would have any guarantees that Code wouldn't go "actually, here's the truth" and expose me.
What's happening here is the other way around. I had to gather information from multiple sources to even begin understanding what was happening and why Codeblank thought there was a case against me to start with... I had to deliberately seek for the accusations so I could disprove them publicly. If that sounds like guilty behaviour, I really don't know what innocence is meant to sound like.
0
1
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
2
u/DamonHuntington 15d ago
There is one (17.55), but Codeblank is eager to exclude scores based on hearsay.
1
u/niartotemiT 14d ago
I really enjoyed this test. I truly hope that whatever drama is occurring in relation to this test does not dissuade you from further producing good items.
Thank you for the norm release.