# Could vision therapy improve speedcubing, especially look-ahead?



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

A few moments ago, I returned from a vision therapy test, in preparation for some vision therapy. Why? Well, for many years, I have struggled with reading. I hate reading. I try to avoid reading at all costs because it's extremely difficult for me. My brain has to work extra hard while reading, and consequently, if I try to focus too hard on reading anything (which I usually have to do to comprehend any of the information on the page), I get very fatigued. I often lose my place on the page if I do not focus. My brain also seems to be reading without processing sometimes if I don't try to focus extra hard, so I'll often have to reread entire pages, but if I focus extra hard, I quickly fall asleep (like, within 5 minutes. It's kinda pathetic). *This reading problem has nothing to do with whether or not I have 20/20 vision. With my glasses on, I have 20/20 vision, and I still don't read very well. It's related to how well my eyes work together with my brain to process visual information input and supply the necessary output.*

*EDIT: Here's a link that might be able to better help you understand these vision problems that I'm talking about and why I have hypothesized that vision problems could potentially prevent a speedcuber from improving:* http://www.eyeqadvantage.com/index.cfm?page_id=632&CFID=208049&CFTOKEN=68047235 (Note: You only need to read the first paragraph or two to get the point on the website. I'm not trying to advertise, as some people think I am. Not really sure why they would think that...)

About two years ago, I was diagnosed with mild ADD. Today, at my vision therapy appointment, I was told that my problems may not be ADD at all. It could be something called Convergence Insufficiency (CI), as well as a host of several other problems, such as depth perception problems and problems in remembering the order of things visually (I forget the scientific name given for that). THey even tested my pupils when reading. They don't work together all the time. In fact, they don't really work together at all. It's pretty embarrassing. They sorta jump around on the page, and my eyes aren't even in sync with each other all the time when they're doing all that jumping. Apparently, some studies show that there is an extremely strong correlation between the symptoms of ADD and CI. In fact, they're like... 95% the same.

In one of the tests that I had to take to help the doctor prepare for my vision therapy, I had to find a shape in a picture. They would hide the shape amidst a mess of other shapes, usually overlapping each other. They did not time me on how long it took for me to find those shapes, and I was very successful in that part of the test, but it seemed like it took unusually long to find those shapes for someone who's speedcubing at my level. It worried me a bit. Maybe that's a sign that there's something wrong with my eyes that's keeping me from improving.

Now, I've been plateaued for a very long time, and I've wondered why I can't seem to get better, even though I practice nearly every day, spending nearly all my time solely on improving my look-ahead, and nothing seems to work. Could my plateau be due to unstructured practice? It could be, but I that might not be the case, since I've had vision problems like this for so long. I am now considering that maybe I can't improve more easily because my eyes are just plain stupid and uncoordinated. After so much frustration over so many years (18 years, to be exact), I think there is a VERY high chance that my uncoordinated eyes are the reason why I haven't unlocked my full potential. It could be a combination of both. Maybe my eyes are stupid and uncoordinated AND I don't know how to structure a practice session.

I wonder if visual processing problems could be the case with other speedcubers. Maybe Feliks, as his dad says, is right when he says anyone could beat him. But maybe without visual training or naturally very coordinated eyes, beating Feliks is completely out of the question. The rate at which he improves is unreal and (I believe) almost impossible with which to keep up.

So, naturally, I'm very curious about Feliks's eyes. To me, it seems so impossible that someone could become so good so quickly. How long has it been since Feliks started speedcubing? Like, two years or something? It almost doesn't make sense to me until I think about the capacity of the human mind.

Feliks, I wonder how you fast can read. If you're reading this Feliks, could you please tell us how fast you can read? (I'm pretty sure I saw an book of the Eragon series in one of your videos... or was that somebody else?) And how about the other top notchers? Morten? Erik? Harris? Anthony? Rowe? Luigi? Anyone else in the top 100 or so that I have forgotten? How fast can you guys read? 

*SO, HERE'S THE BIG SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF YOU! Here's some things to know before you answer them!

1. You can (and probably should) post your answers both on the survey and here on the thread. Thank you!

2. Don't be hasty. Please read the entire 1st post (and preferably the entire thread), and before you answer, make sure you know what I mean by how well your eyes are "trained". (No, I'm not talking about that 20/20 vision crap.) 

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON SURVEYMONKEY.COM. THE LINK TO THE SURVEY IS BELOW! 

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8T7NZP7 *

On the first question, you need to test your reading speed by starting (but not actually completing) a free eyeQ session. At the beginning of the session, they test your reading speed. T You can proceed to actually try out the free eyeQ session. It's pretty cool. I tried and epically failed to do any of what they wanted me to do, but my reading speed got one point away from doubling. It went from 412 wpm to 823wpm, and I was like "O_O, WTF?" Of course, if I were to use eyeQ on a daily basis, my starting reading speed would increase slowly. Your reading speed is supposed to nearly double after every session, and then the next day, it should regress to something slightly above where you were before you started the previous eyeQ session (i.e. tomorrow, my starting wpm should be more like 420wpm as opposed to 412, or something like that). 

But anyway, check it out, it's CRAZY!!! Link to the session is below!

https://www.eyeqadvantage.com/index.cfm?page_id=622 

I will be looking into some other vision therapy programs because my doctor recommended that I do so, and I will see what it does with my speedcubing as well as my reading speed. Sometimes, I'll just substitute a few solves before and after the sessions instead of taking the reading speed test. I will try to find other vision therapy methods online that I can use instead of eye Q until further notice. (Can't keep using the same sample session. The data wouldn't be very reliable.)

In advance, I thank you all for your opinions and data.

----------

You know, an fMRI would really help in researching things like this. Too bad it costs thousands of dollars to get one done. (Hey Feliks, got any money to get an fMRI done on yourself while you speedcube? Maybe you can take donations, lol. Nah, jk. But I definitely wouldn't mind if you got one and let me see the results. Just sayin'. )


----------



## aronpm (Aug 2, 2011)

I don't know why you think that 'brilliance ' correlates with fast improvement or consistency at cubing.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

aronpm said:


> I don't know why you think that 'brilliance ' correlates with fast improvement or consistency at cubing.



Thanks for your opinion.

You might be right. It might not. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with speedcubing at all. But it's still a factor to consider.

EDIT: A more brilliant person might, for example, be able to understand F2L relatively quickly. A person with good eyes would proceed to integrate F2L into their solves with ease and improve very quickly. That's what I would hypothesize.


----------



## MovingOnUp (Aug 2, 2011)

Lol why did you have to call yourself brilliant to make a point? you could have just brought up the eye thing. Seems interesting to me but I probably won't pursue any information about it


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

MovingOnUp said:


> Lol why did you have to call yourself brilliant to make a point? you could have just brought up the eye thing. Seems interesting to me but I probably won't pursue any information about it



If you read the whole thing, you'll see why. I'm just trying not to offend anybody while at the same time being frank. Maybe I'm throwing around the word brilliant too nonchalantly. Maybe I should be more cautious. But even so, it really doesn't matter. That's not the main point of what I wrote.

EDIT: I changed it to "relatively smart" at the beginning and took out some chunks. Asking a serious question here: Does that make the post any less distracting to read? What would you like me to do to improve the wording of my post so that people will focus on the point and not comment on how I'm throwing the word "brilliant" around? Please help me because I'm just trying to point out some things that might be very constructive to speedcubers. Should I take out all that stuff? I wanted it to be more article-style, but maybe it's just rambling.

EDIT 2: I just took out most of the "brilliant" stuff. (I'm not really sure I got it all. I didn't double check) Is that any better?


----------



## Cheese11 (Aug 2, 2011)

You know, I think your on to something. I to don't have very good eyes and have the same problem reading. Actually today while at a baseball game, I was thinking about this. How my look ahead is horrible. Also another problem I have, is one colour might look like a different one. But yes, I think your onto something.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> You know, I think your on to something. I to don't have very good eyes and have the same problem reading. Actually today while at a baseball game, I was thinking about this. How my look ahead is horrible. Also another problem I have, is one colour might look like a different one. But yes, I think your onto something.


 
YES!!! A COMMENT THAT IS ACTUALLY FOCUSED ON THE POINT OF THE THREAD!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR OPINION!!! 

Oh, sorry. *Regains composure*

When I switched to color neutrality, I was getting all kinds of things (in terms of colors) mixed up in F2L, and some cases I'd get mixed up more than others, four specifically. Do these moves to see these cases:

Case 1: R U R' U' R U R'
Case 2: R U' R' U R U' R'

Case 3: R U' R' U' R U R'
Case 4: R U' R' U R U2 R' 


I'd often mix up cases 1&2 with each other and mix cases 3&4 with each other. This has gotten better over the past month or so, but the problem often times still persists and I have to throw in an extra bit of concentration to make sure I don't make the wrong moves. Now, I don't know if that has anything to do with lack of visual processing skills, but... well, I don't know what I'm doing. I'm just throwing data out there and, with the help of the speedcubing community, trying to get to the source of the problem as to why plateaus happen and why some cubers can't seem to break through them no matter how hard they try.

If you'd like more detail about my own eyes, I have strabismus, astigmatism, and amblyopia (lazy eye). The doctor told me that those have probably contributed to my visual processing problems.


----------



## ben1996123 (Aug 2, 2011)

I've always had bad eyesight and haven't consistently improved at 3x3 for like a year at least. Been averaging anywhere from like 13 - 17 for ages. I uploaded these videos a year ago.










Since then, I've stayed at that average or gotten worse. I think this may be a reason why some people can't be as fast as other people. When Feliks said that anyone could beat the 6.77, I don't think that ANYONE could. Most people, not everyone.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> I've always had bad eyesight and haven't consistently improved at 3x3 for like a year at least. Been averaging anywhere from like 13 - 17 for ages. I uploaded these videos a year ago.
> 
> [Videos were posted here]
> 
> Since then, I've stayed at that average or gotten worse. I think this may be a reason why some people can't be as fast as other people. When Feliks said that anyone could beat the 6.77, I don't think that ANYONE could. Most people, not everyone.


 
Wow. Maybe I really did hit an important point...

I hope lots of people find this thread and reply. It seems to be bringing a lot of things about speedcubing into the light!

I've been stuck at around the same spot you are for about that long too.

Thanks for your opinion.

EDIT: It's really distracting me how much your webcam sucked. I could barely tell what you were doing. I hope you've gotten a better camera since then. No offense. Just pointing something out that I found really distracting.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 2, 2011)

I'm brilliant, have bad eyesight, and haven't improved at 3x3 for a couple months! ZOMG I THINK YOU'RE ONTO SOMETHING.
Owait, it's because I haven't practiced.


In all seriousness though, I don't have enough medical knowledge regarding the eyes to help you much, but it certainly would make sense that something like strabismus could contribute to cubing difficulties. 
But to address your point about reading: I often have difficulty reading books for school, but I do not feel that I am having difficulty improving lookahead (when I actually try, that is). I am not so sure that speedcubing and reading would be that closely related.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> I'm brilliant, have bad eyesight, and haven't improved at 3x3 for a couple months! ZOMG I THINK YOU'RE ONTO SOMETHING.
> Owait, it's because I haven't practiced.
> 
> 
> ...



Well, several skills are needed in reading and speedcubing. A simple one that we all know of is tracking. If you can't track pieces, you're screwed.

There is also visualization. If you two F2L pairs and you insert one but didn't calculate (or visualize) where the other F2L pair would be after insertion, then you're probably slower than you could be. Good visualization can help a cuber choose one F2L pair over another, merely because it would produce a better case afterwards. I do that sometimes.

There are several other skills needed, but I'm not going to get into that because I don't remember half of them, and I'm too lazy to list them.

But I think speedcubing is (I think I can safely assume) WAY more related to reading than ANY of us think it is.

EDIT: Also, we're not talking "bad eyesight". Someone with 20/20 vision could have problems like this too. The daughter of a president (I forget which one) had problems like this, and she had 20/20 vision from birth and continued to have 20/20 vision throughout her life. I read an brochure about her at the doctor's office. She was extremely bright, but stuggled to move from a C to a C+ average in her grades in school. She eventually got vision therapy and it made ALL the difference in MULTIPLE aspects of her life.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 2, 2011)

> Well, several skills are needed in reading and speedcubing. A simple one that we all know of is tracking. If you can't track pieces, you're screwed.



What does tracking have to do with reading? It's not like the words you are reading are moving around like the pieces of a cube. In most books that I've read, the words tend to stay in place on the page, so I don't really have to put effort into tracking their movement.



> There is also visualization. If you two F2L pairs and you insert one but didn't calculate (or visualize) where the other F2L pair would be after insertion, then you're probably slower than you could be.



This is just lookahead, and frankly I don't know how to lookahead while reading.



> Good visualization can help a cuber choose one F2L pair over another, merely because it would produce a better case afterwards. I do it all the time.



I don't see how choosing between multiple options has anything to do with reading a set of words that won't change in an order that won't change.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 2, 2011)

I talk to faz a lot but he doesn't even know how to teach!
I have 20/14 vision and I got avg of 26 in 40 days but thats only because I practice my xxx off.

! Faz isn't a cubing professor I swear! But I always feel like he is doing stuff different and the people on this forum are making you slower AKA going slow and looking ahead because you don't train f2l case recognition like last layer! Its 4 look f2l not magic! 

But I haven't played soccer for a long time and I recently played and was better than most(Only because of speed and look ahead)

Faz is kinda good at BLD


One hand solving is look ahead and dexterity


But you need recognition to have look ahead. Like in f2l you recognise a case and do the move from memory.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> What does tracking have to do with reading? It's not like the words you are reading are moving around like the pieces of a cube. In most books that I've read, the words tend to stay in place on the page, so I don't really have to put effort into tracking their movement.



Tracking as in staying in your place when reading. Sometimes I'll skip a line when reading, or sometimes start reading the next line in the middle of reading the line before it, and sometimes I'll read a line twice and not notice it until I'm 2/3 of the way through the line thinking "Who the heck edited this book? Oh wait..." That's an example of bad tracking skills when reading. A bad tracker in speedcubing might find an F2L pair and then lose it immediately even though they're think they're focused on the pieces and only until they stop moving do they realize that they lost the piece, and then they'll fail to find the pair again until like, 5 seconds later. I used to do that a lot, and I think I still do it sometimes.



uberCuber said:


> This is just lookahead, and frankly I don't know how to lookahead while reading.



If you can read the letters on the page and you can comprehend it all and turn it into a picture, the details of a passage of reading are much easier to remember. The faster you can make these pictures, the faster you can read. That's visualization in reading. In speedcubing, you take in pictures and turn it into another set of pictures based on what you know you're about to do. Either way, you take in some sort of information visually and turn it into a picture. That's basically visualization. Another aspect of visualization is whether or not you can invert things and yet read words as they are. Some people actually have trouble doing this. When they read, words might get jumbled because their brain wants to invert things. For example, what is a chair that's shrunk, painted black, and turned upside down? A chair. Would this be the same for everything in the world? Well, no. A p that's shrunk, painted black, and turned upside down is a b. Some people with problems in this area would get letters like p, q, b, and d mixed up with each other.

Did I answer that properly?



uberCuber said:


> I don't see how choosing between multiple options has anything to do with reading a set of words that won't change in an order that won't change.


 
That was just extra information. That's just showing an example of what good visualization can lead to in speedcubing. 

You musn't forget: Problems in one activity often show up as what you think might be a different problem in another activity when they're actually the same problem. Trust me. It's all very related. Your brain is a giant network of neurons. In order for the brain to make your body function properly, pretty much everything has to work together, no matter how unconscious you are of how your brain is working.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> I talk to faz a lot but he doesn't even know how to teach!
> I have 20/14 vision and I got avg of 26 in 40 days but thats only because I practice my xxx off.
> 
> ! Faz isn't a cubing professor I swear! But I always feel like he is doing stuff different and the people on this forum are making you slower AKA going slow and looking ahead because you don't train f2l case recognition like last layer! Its 4 look f2l not magic!
> ...


 
Thank you. This information helps. A lot.

So you say "Faz isn't a cubing professor". Maybe that's because even though he's a very bright kid, he might have not done all that much thinking in his speedcubing. Maybe it was his eyes being able to naturally do most of the work. But maybe he's just trying to keep his professor knowledge all to himself, which would also be understandable. It would seem a bit selfish if that were the case because I don't think anyone's going to be as good as him anytime soon no matter how hard we try and how much we know or learn from him, but even so, keeping secrets in his situation would be very understandable.

EDIT: Maybe he never did very much slow solving either. Do you think you could ask him that? Also, do you think you could direct him to this thread? I'd really like to see his opinion on my hypothesis.


----------



## collinbxyz (Aug 2, 2011)

This is amazing! I will try to get a few things out now, but atm its 12:30 am where I live, and this is all from my phone.

So far, I am the only person in my whole family who has good enough eyes not to wear glasses or contacts, but I DO find the same reading problem, butbonly when reading a really boring book. Its odd because if you hand me a well writen, interesting (to me) book, I can read for hours at a time, compared to a boring book, that I can only handle tobread for 5 minutes, and in those 5 minutes, hardly understanding what actually happened!

Currently, I have been speedcubing since September (almost a year!) and average 15 to 17 seconds. I have been improving a lot lately, but I have been cubing much less time then you, so maybe (but hopefully not) I will get to a point with little improvememt over a long period ofbtime.

I will add more later, but im exhausted, and its hard to write so much from your phone.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> This is amazing! I will try to get a few things out now, but atm its 12:30 am where I live, and this is all from my phone.
> 
> So far, I am the only person in my whole family who has good enough eyes not to wear glasses or contacts, but I DO find the same reading problem, butbonly when reading a really boring book. Its odd because if you hand me a well writen, interesting (to me) book, I can read for hours at a time, compared to a boring book, that I can only handle tobread for 5 minutes, and in those 5 minutes, hardly understanding what actually happened!
> 
> ...



Thanks for your input. I will be anticipating your next post with much excitement.

EDIT: Also, you seem to hit b instead of spacebar a lot on your phone. Do you have a phone with a keyboard? Is it a blackberry or something like that. It seems troublesome to have to use such a tiny keyboard.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

Here's a link that might be able to better help you understand these vision problems that I'm talking about and why I have hypothesized that vision problems could potentially prevent a speedcuber from improving: http://www.eyeqadvantage.com/index.cfm?page_id=632&CFID=208049&CFTOKEN=68047235


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

I have terrible eyesight, but not too bad that I have to wear glasses, but enough that I struggle to read the board in class. But I do have glasses however. Edit: just read the thread and realised this isn't relevant.
I have reading problems similar to yours but on a much much smaller scale. I believe it IS due to focusing and stuff like that. Another thing I tend to do is on boring books, skip large bits of text and pick up only the main words...
I can do the 'tracking' thing though.
I average 13-14 seconds... And dare I say it... I am one of the 'bright' ones...
I think I'll start wearing glasses and see how that affects my cubing... Edit: realised this was irrelevant too.

Sorry; I'm a bit pressed for time so if you are doing a survey of some sort, do ask for more info. Also, I'm gonna read through the whole thread properly now. (yes, I DID do that skimming thing mentioned earlier with this thread...)


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

5BLD said:


> I have terrible eyesight, but not too bad that I have to wear glasses, but enough that I struggle to read the board in class. But I do have glasses however. Edit: just read the thread and realised this isn't relevant.
> I have reading problems similar to yours but on a much much smaller scale. I believe it IS due to focusing and stuff like that. Another thing I tend to do is on boring books, skip large bits of text and pick up only the main words...
> I can do the 'tracking' thing though.
> I average 13-14 seconds... And dare I say it... I am one of the 'bright' ones...
> ...


 
Thank you for your input. I'll consider doing some reorganization of the first post to make it easy for people to at least reply quickly with some data, if they choose not to read the whole thing. I'll probably move the survey-ish stuff at the bottom of the post to the top with more details, like a specific number of words at which one reads. Maybe I can find an online test for that.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

Yeah. Online surveys will work; maybe surveymonkey.com?
If you do do a survey, please update results regularly.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

5BLD said:


> Yeah. Online surveys will work; maybe surveymonkey.com?
> If you do do a survey, please update results regularly.



Ah, good idea. Thank you.

But I should really go to bed. It's 3:40am where I am and I've been monitoring this thread like a hawk since I'm itching so badly to get past my 6+ month-long plateau. (It's my hard-headed "If Feliks can do it, so can I, but I don't know how, so I'll have to find out how" attitude.)


----------



## Dene (Aug 2, 2011)

I have extremely good eyesight. I am a very fast reader. I only do things like skip lines or merge words when I'm very tired. I am not a fast cuber despite years of practice.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

DaKrazedKyubizt said:


> Ah, good idea. Thank you.
> 
> But I should really go to bed. It's 3:40am where I am and I've been monitoring this thread like a hawk since I'm itching so badly to get past my 6+ month-long plateau. (It's my hard-headed "If Feliks can do it, so can I, but I don't know how, so I'll have to find out how" attitude.)


But don't try too hard to be like faz... He was a slow cuber too, remember. Although to be inspired by people is always helpful.
Hm... I'll probably hit a plateau soon too. I've been improving fairly quickly (6 ish months sub-15)... But possibly I'll need to start pushing myself as I get faster (I've really been letting my times slip down without really caring...). Oh, and for the first time in my life work on algorithm execution.

Anyway, good night... Although it's morning already


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

5BLD said:


> Anyway, good night... Although it's morning already



Lolwut, I'm still awake.

Stupid computer light, keeping me awake.

Wow. I stayed up so late that I'm just hitting the time where I would normally wake up and relieve my bladder. Now, if you'll excuse me...


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

Hehe. I get this sometimes... I sometimes can't get to sleep, and just chat to my friends who either stay up as late as me, or are from a different country... And cube. And watch TV. Until I actually get sleepy...


----------



## chrissyD (Aug 2, 2011)

i have never read a book in my life and failed all my english gcses (im also autistic probably why i fail so much with english) I'd say my reading speed is fairly decent though but i've never related reading to cubing because they seem like two completely differn't things to me.


----------



## Godmil (Aug 2, 2011)

Hmmm... I initially wanted to criticise the OP alot for some of the proposed correlations (such as between cubing and finding shapes in a jumble), but it's only logical to assume that problems with your eyes (such as keeping focus, or colour blindness) as well as difficulties for your brain to process information quickly enough must surely affect your cubing. But be careful not to think it's the be all and end all of your problems... there are sooo many other factors that are very important. Is your F2L optimised for speed and look ahead, is your execution times for all your PLLs and OLL's up to snuff? There are many many factors that you can improve on before you hit a 'my eyes/brain aren't good enough for me to get any better' barrier.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

chrissyD said:


> i have never read a book in my life and failed all my english gcses (im also autistic probably why i fail so much with english) I'd say my reading speed is fairly decent though but i've never related reading to cubing because they seem like two completely differn't things to me.



Yay autism. I'm have Asperger's Syndrome. We could be autism buddies! 

You failed ALL of them? wow. you must be uber right-brained. You're brain is probably just a swelled up right-brain taking up the space the left-brain is supposed to use. jk, of course. but seriously. ur probably uber right-brained.

you should try learning to speed read. you might get better at speedcubing that way. who knows?


----------



## chrissyD (Aug 2, 2011)

DaKrazedKyubizt said:


> Yay autism. I'm have Asperger's Syndrome. We could be autism buddies!
> 
> You failed ALL of them? wow. you must be uber right-brained. You're brain is probably just a swelled up right-brain taking up the space the left-brain is supposed to use. jk, of course. but seriously. ur probably uber right-brained.
> 
> you should try learning to speed read. you might get better at speedcubing that way. who knows?



yea im not actually that bad at english, i can read and write which is all you need in english tbh but the exams were just about poetry so i failed. At the same time though i'm really good at science. And you'll know that people with aspergers can be very good at one particular thing such as cubing and can become good at it with little effort also at the same time we can be terrible at another thing, in my case english. I think sight may play a fairly big part in cubing since vision is the first part of solving the cube, without it you're pretty much screwed. Of course there is other factors such as turn speed, my average tps is actually really bad compared to everyone else, maybe thats because of the shape and size of my fingers.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

Yeah, I have some trouble turning fast too and in one handed because my hands are very small.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

chrissyD said:


> yea im not actually that bad at english, i can read and write which is all you need in english tbh but the exams were just about poetry so i failed. At the same time though i'm really good at science. And you'll know that people with aspergers can be very good at one particular thing such as cubing and can become good at it with little effort also at the same time we can be terrible at another thing, in my case english. I think sight may play a fairly big part in cubing since vision is the first part of solving the cube, without it you're pretty much screwed. Of course there is other factors such as turn speed, my average tps is actually really bad compared to everyone else, maybe thats because of the shape and size of my fingers.


 
ZOMG I HAD A TEACHER WITH THAT WAS OBSESSED WITH POETRY!! The curriculum was supposed to be different for 10th graders, but he went NUTS on poetry instead, so I UBER failed that class with MUCHO pride because that teacher was (excuse my language) a complete douchebag and wouldn't help me at all. Nothing he ever said made sense. And it wasn't just me. By the end of the year, there was a conversation between the other kids in my class, and they had quietly dealt with his teaching style because they wanted a good grade, but they were pretty fed up with that guy, too. They were able to pull Bs in his class, but I always got Ds on my papers without fail. (lol, I failed without fail. chyeah.)

EDIT: and of course you can read and write. Those are logistical things. It's the non-concrete things like "what did the afghani table mat symbolize?" What horsecrap. THEY'RE JUST EATING FOOD ON A TABLE MAT. WHAT'S THE FREAKIN' DIFFERENCE?


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 2, 2011)

Readers think simple and wide, Scientists make the simple wide.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Readers think simple and wide, Scientists make the simple wide.


 
Touche. And I couldn't even find that quote in google. Did you come up with that yourself?

But you should have been in that class. it was torture. He didn't just ask the simpler english questions like...

"What does the afghani table mat represent in this poem?"

...but he asked the most obscure and ridiculously confusing questions known to the English world. These questions included ones like...

"So what does the iambic pentameter in this poem feel like? What does it represent? How is the feeling you get from the meter in this poem different these other two poems with iambic pentameter? Okay, now, daDUM, daDUM, daDUMda, DUMDUM, daDUM! Oh wait, there was a change-up in the 3rd and 4th pair of syllables! What's that trying to represent?" 

Well, heck, idk, discord and chaos? What do you want me to say?

Seriously, WTF is that supposed to mean? The guy had just come back from teaching at Columbia University. He was teaching 10th graders (who barely know how to write well) like college students (who are expected to know how to write well already). He wasn't really giving us anything to work with.

More important, who CARES what that crap means?


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

DaKrazedKyubizt said:


> Touche. And I couldn't even find that quote in google. Did you come up with that yourself?
> 
> But you should have been in that class. it was torture. He didn't just ask the simpler english questions like, "what does the afghani table mat represent?", but he asked the most obscure and ridiculously confusing questions known on the face of the English world. These questions included ones like:
> 
> ...


 
Yup, my teacher was exactly like that last year. At least I now know what the iambic pentameter is...
But lessons were torture! Or great fun!
Ok leme explain... half the lessons were watching movies based on old books like great expectations etc... FUN. And I could actually follow that when we had to analyse them.
And the other lessons were so confusing because our teacher basically thought we knew everything that he was meant to teach... Like your teacher.
Nonetheless, I got a good mark


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

5BLD said:


> Yup, my teacher was exactly like that last year. At least I now know what the iambic pentameter is...
> But lessons were torture! Or great fun!
> Ok leme explain... half the lessons were watching movies based on old books like great expectations etc... FUN. And I could actually follow that when we had to analyse them.
> And the other lessons were so confusing because our teacher basically thought we knew everything that he was meant to teach... Like your teacher.
> Nonetheless, I got a good mark


 
You got a good mark? HOOOOOWWWWWW????


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

Exam somehow had none of his nonsense in it... Yay


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

5BLD said:


> Exam somehow had none of his nonsense in it... Yay



Your luck disgusts me. 

We had to take all our writings and assemble them into a portfolio. And all of mine were Ds. So he basically took all my D-papers and made them all super Ds. 

What a super douchebag...


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

DaKrazedKyubizt said:


> Your luck disgusts me.
> 
> We had to take all our writings and assemble them into a portfolio. And all of mine were Ds. So he basically took all my D-papers and made them all super Ds.
> 
> What a super douchebag...


 
Urgh... Must be horrible. Yeh that was lucky for me... thank god...


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 2, 2011)

At this point, this thread is about Poetry, an off-topic subject, and seems to be staying that way.
I'm moving this to off-topic.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> At this point, this thread is about Poetry, an off-topic subject, and seems to be staying that way.
> I'm moving this to off-topic.


 
NO NO, DON'T!!

Sorry, I digress.

I'm just waiting for someone else to reply to the thread. Apologies!! We'll get back on topic!!

EDIT: I'll use PM next time for digression.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 2, 2011)

It wasn't as a punishment in the least, just felt appropriate concerning the discussion.

Stay on-topic and I'll move it back a while. Thanks.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> It wasn't as a punishment in the least, just felt appropriate concerning the discussion.
> 
> Stay on-topic and I'll move it back a while. Thanks.


 
Thank you!!!! XD


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

Yeah, sorry Stachu. 
We kinda got caught in some weird discussion...
Let's get back on topic now...!


DaKrazedKyubizt said:


> Thank you!!!! XD


 
Lol, you sound desperate 

So any estimate for when you'll put the survey up? Or make it?


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

5BLD said:


> Yeah, sorry Stachu.
> We kinda got caught in some weird discussion...


 
I swear it's all related... maybe. 

But anyway, did you check the survey? You should answer both questions. It would help us stay on topic.

You should also try out the EyeQ Free 1st session. Try doing like... an RA of 12 before it and an RA of 12 afterwards. See if there's any difference. I'm gonna try it out, too. (EyeQ is vision therapy.)


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

It IS related actually in some twisted way... Hm... Yeah. Of course. That's how we got into that discussion.

On topic: Oh, sorry. Didn't actually look at the first post again. Will do it now.
edit: OK. Will do. Let's see whether there's a difference...

edit: done it; 
and average before doing the test...
14.88, 14.77, 15.31, 13.26, 15.15, 14.30, 13.48, 17.77, 17.63, 13.96, 14.23, 15.02 => 14.87 secs
now after therapy...
14.53, 14.45, 15.98, 13.35, 14.33, 14.03, DNF(8.86), 12.96, 16.78, 16.32, 15.30, 13.41 => 14.95 secs

both are bad averages... cold hands (I know... rubbish excuse)
Times are too close to come to a conclusion.
And either way, I wouldn't expect results from just a few minutes of therapy.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

Yeah, I read your message and checked the first post. And did it. (check my previous post)
edit: you deleted your post before this one?


----------



## ThumbsxUpx (Aug 2, 2011)

This theory actually is pretty interesting. A lot to read though, I might finish it later. I do have one question though; How and _why_ do you read on the forums if you hate reading and usually try to avoid it? Do you read better when it's something you enjoy I guess?


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

Well, that's the case for me at least.
We need more people to do this... then we might get some results...


----------



## BC1997 (Aug 2, 2011)

I wore glasses once didn't really affect anything.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

This is before the eyeQ session.

I did 57 solves just to show how my times fluctuate tremendously. Solves 1-11 were awesome. Then things went downhill for solves 12-23, then I tried and got half-way back into the groove 24-32, then the 15+ solves started coming back in solves 33-47, then I got a really nice but rather lucky 9.55 at solve 48, then I had gotten back in my groove after that point (from solves 49-57). It's really annoying sometimes. I can bet that this fluctuation happens because my eyes can't do what they're supposed to do over long periods of time, or in other words, the fluctuation could be the result of my brain tiring out really fast. This definitely happens when I can manage to stay awake while reading. 

The best RA of 12 contained solves 42-53, which was an average of 12.82 (12.75). Best time in that RA of 12 was 9.55, best was 15.21, standard deviation was 0.87. I probably won't show another RA of 57. I'll probably keep it at just 30 instead.

As soon as I purchase EyeQ, I'll start taking data periodically, probably every day.

---------------

Statistics for 08-02-2011 12:04:23

Cubes Solved: 57/57
Number of Pops: 0
Average: 13.56
Standard Deviation: 1.43
Best Time: 9.55
Worst Time: 16.65
Individual Times:
1.	12.72	R2 U2 D R F2 B' U' F' D' F R B2 U F2 R2 U' D' B2 L2 D
2.	12.38	U' R D2 L' B D2 R L2 U' D2 B' L2 D F2 B2 U' R2 F2 D2 F2 U2
3.	13.46	U2 D' L' F' D' F B L F U' F2 L' U2 L2 D' F2 L2 U F2 U L2
4.	13.77	R U B L' F' B' D F R' F D F2 D2 B2 R2 U2 F2 D' B2
5.	12.65	U' F' B D R' D2 F2 U' D2 F R D R2 B2 U F2 B2 U R2 F2 D2
6.	13.22	R' U' F' U' R U F U B' L F D' L2 D2 B2 U L2 F2 U' R2 D'
7.	13.75	U2 F L' U R2 F' R2 D2 R B' U2 R U R2 F2 D F2 D L2 U' F2
8.	11.52	U L' U2 B' L2 D' L U' R2 F R F B2 U F2 U' L2 U' D R2 L2
9.	12.41	F D R2 L U2 B U2 D' L' F R2 F2 R2 U2 R2 B2 D' B2 D R2
10.	13.80	B' R2 F' D R D' R2 D2 R F R' U2 F2 D F2 L2 U2 B2 L2 B2 D
11.	12.40	U2 D' R2 B' U2 L U F R2 F U' R B2 L2 F2 B2 D R2 D B2 U
12.	14.11	R2 B' R L2 F U' L' B L2 B' R U R2 L2 D F2 D2 R2 U B2 D
13.	16.28+	U' F' D2 R F' B2 R D F' R B U' F2 B2 R2 D' L2 U B2 D2 B2
14.	15.46	U R U' R U D F' B U2 L F' U' F2 R2 B2 U L2 U' F2 U D2
15.	12.47	L' D2 F' D2 R F R B2 U2 D' R' L2 D F2 D' L2 U D2 L2 F2 D2
16.	16.56	R U2 D2 F L F' B' R' L F R2 F B2 R2 B2 U2 F2 B2 D B2
17.	12.96	R B' D R' F2 D' F' U' B2 R B' L U2 D B2 U' D' L2 U D2 B2
18.	15.41	L' B' U R2 U2 F U2 F2 U2 L' D2 B2 D B2 L2 D' R2 B2 U2
19.	13.28	R2 U2 L F L' B' D2 L' U2 D' R U B2 D2 B2 L2 U' L2 U' L2 D
20.	15.06	B2 R D R L D' L' B2 D B L2 D' F2 R2 B2 U2 F2 L2 U' L2
21.	16.65	D L F2 B' L D B2 L2 F R U B2 R2 F2 D B2 R2 U2 B2 D'
22.	13.16	L2 F' R2 L D' R' U2 F' D2 L B' U R2 U2 L2 U F2 U' D' R2 F2
23.	15.27	B' U' L F' R2 D2 B D' L2 U2 R' D' R2 U2 L2 B2 D B2 U' F2 D2
24.	12.18	U' R' U D B' D L D R B' R' L U2 B2 U' L2 U' F2 L2 F2 U'
25.	11.31	D2 R U D' L F2 R2 F' L U2 R' U' B2 R2 L2 U' B2 R2 L2 U2 R2
26.	14.46	R2 L' D' B' D2 R U D' R2 U F U B2 L2 U F2 D' F2 L2 D R2
27.	12.91	U R' F' U' L2 F U' D L' B2 L2 B D F2 D L2 F2 D F2 D2 R2
28.	13.94	L U' D L2 F' U R' B R U R' L2 U2 D' R2 D F2 R2 B2 U2 L2
29.	12.50	D B' D2 L' U B' L D2 F' U2 B2 R' D2 R2 L2 F2 D' R2 D2 R2 L2
30.	13.94	U' B' R' L B D' R L B2 D' R U R2 U' L2 F2 L2 D' R2 D2 R2
31.	13.09	U2 F L2 D' F2 U F' R B2 D' L' B2 R2 B2 D2 B2 U' B2 L2 U2 L2
32.	12.19	R2 L B2 U B D2 B L B' D' F' L' U' F2 R2 L2 U L2 B2 L2 U2
33.	15.58	D B2 D' F2 U' B' L' U2 R' F2 B L2 U F2 L2 U2 R2 B2 U R2 B2
34.	14.68	D' B D B R D B' U2 R' U F' U F2 D R2 D B2 L2 D2 F2 U'
35.	13.16	U B R' B L' F L' D' F D B' L2 U L2 D2 F2 B2 D' F2 L2 U2
36.	15.72	F' L' U2 R F' L D' R2 F U L' D2 L2 F2 L2 F2 U' R2 D' L2 U'
37.	14.84	U D F2 R' B' L B' U R' U' R2 D L2 U F2 U' L2 D2 L2
38.	14.58	F2 D2 B L' D B' U B2 L' U' F U' F2 U' L2 U2 F2 U' L2 B2 U2
39.	13.69	R F' D2 F D2 F R B' U2 F2 L' U2 L2 F2 D R2 U' F2 U2 L2 B2
40.	14.66	R' D' B' R L B' U R L' U B' U' F2 L2 D' R2 U R2 U F2 R2
41.	14.40	U2 R F2 L2 U2 L2 U R F' D R' B2 R2 D R2 U' R2 F2 U D2 B2
42.	11.38	D' F' L' U' R2 U2 F2 R2 B' R' B' U R2 F2 D L2 D' R2 U' B2 R2
................................
43.	14.22	R2 L2 B2 L D2 R2 D' R2 F R' U2 B' D2 L2 U L2 U' B2 L2 U R2
44.	15.21	R' F2 U' L B' D' L D2 B L D F' B2 U B2 L2 D' R2 D2 R2 D2
45.	12.52	R U R L F R B2 U2 D2 L' F' R2 B2 D2 F2 U' F2 R2 D' R2 U
46.	12.13	L D' B' R' F' U' L B' D F R' L2 U' L2 F2 U D R2 B2 U L2
47.	14.05	U2 L D2 F2 R' U2 B2 D F B' D' F L2 D F2 D' L2 D2 R2 B2 D
48.	9.55	B U2 L' B U F L U2 L2 B2 L2 F' B2 U B2 U' F2 D' R2 L2 U2
49.	12.22	U L D R' D R' F' B L2 D R' L2 D2 B2 U F2 L2 U2 F2 D' R2
50.	11.80	R2 L F L U F2 L U' F' L U2 D F2 D' F2 R2 D F2 D B2
51.	13.55	R U2 R L F R L F R U' R2 D2 B2 U F2 D L2 F2 U
52.	13.78	B L2 D' L2 U F' R' U' L' D' B' D' L2 D' B2 R2 B2 U R2 L2 F2
53.	12.55	U2 F' R' B' D B U2 R2 D B R U2 F2 U' B2 L2 U2 D L2 B2 L2
...............................
54.	14.40	F2 U2 R' U R' U' F2 L B' U F U2 L2 U F2 D' B2 D R2 U' L2
55.	14.72	L' F L B2 U2 R' F U' L' B' R2 U2 R2 U' F2 U F2 B2 L2 D'
56.	12.58	U R2 D' L' B2 R' D R U B R' L2 F2 D' R2 U' B2 U F2 U' R2
57.	11.55	F D R' B' R' B U L' F B L F2 B2 U' F2 B2 U F2 U2 D' L2


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

wow... I see... at some points you are even as slow as me, and sometimes you get very good times...


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

5BLD said:


> wow... I see... at some points you are even as slow as me, and sometimes you get very good times...


 
Eye(Q)norite? (REAAALLY bad joke FTW) Drives me up the wall. 

Since I fluctuate so much, I feel like I might be failing to pinpoint what's ACTUALLY keeping me from getting better because I'm always focusing on why I'm not doing well during those short "I can't cube for beans" periods. If I'm cubing for too long, sometimes those periods last much longer, and after a while, I'm just like "SCREW THIS CUBE!" and I quit on a bad note, just so I can calm down and start again the next day.

I remember a time at the MIT Spring comp 2010, when I was sitting by myself practicing before competition. Right then and there, I almost got my first sub-13 RA of 12 (or maybe I actually did, I can't remember). So I was really proud of myself. So then I met Anthony Brooks. He asked me what I was averaging. I said low-13s. I thought maybe I'd still be in my little "cubing high" when racing him.

Big mistake. I made myself look ABSOLUTELY RETARDED. Started getting 14s, 15s, and 16s right there on the spot. I'm sure he remembers that. If he's reading this, he's probably laughing... But then again, I'm laughing too. It was pretty funny. Potentially FML worthy.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 2, 2011)

At least in competition its 3 of 5 solves.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

DaKrazedKyubizt said:


> Eye(Q)norite? (REAAALLY bad joke FTW) Drives me up the wall.
> 
> Since I fluctuate so much, I feel like I might be failing to pinpoint what's ACTUALLY keeping me from getting better because I'm always focusing on why I'm not doing well during those short "I can't cube for beans" periods. If I'm cubing for too long, sometimes those periods last much longer, and after a while, I'm just like "SCREW THIS CUBE!" and I quit on a bad note, just so I can calm down and start again the next day.
> 
> ...


 Hm, well this happens to me, on a much smaller scale mind you. But it still irritates me...


----------



## dimwmuni (Aug 2, 2011)

I just wanted to add something. 

It seems, from earlier posts in this thread, that you are trying to say your inability to focus while reading may cause your cubing times to fluctuate. I have an eye disorder called nystagmus which is where my eyes rapidly move back and forth out of control, so I have difficulty focusing if I am not wearing my glasses/contacts. I physically have trouble reading if I do not have my glasses on similar to what you say. However, I often cube without my glasses/contacts and I seem to do fine. 

My problem might be different though because it can be fixed with glasses and yours can't.


----------



## JonWhite (Aug 2, 2011)

obviously this is a paid advertiser from eyeQ


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> obviously this is a paid advertiser from eyeQ


 
Actually, no, I'm not. I'm just experimenting with the product. My doctor recommended it.

EDIT: Either you didn't read/understand the whole thread, or you're trolling. Please refrain from trolling. Thank you.



dimwmuni said:


> I just wanted to add something.
> 
> It seems, from earlier posts in this thread, that you are trying to say your inability to focus while reading may cause your cubing times to fluctuate. I have an eye disorder called nystagmus which is where my eyes rapidly move back and forth out of control, so I have difficulty focusing if I am not wearing my glasses/contacts. I physically have trouble reading if I do not have my glasses on similar to what you say. However, I often cube without my glasses/contacts and I seem to do fine.
> 
> My problem might be different though because it can be fixed with glasses and yours can't.


 
I think one of my best friends has that. I always wondered why one of his eyes would keep doing that. That's probably why.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

Okay, when I took the sample session again, I jumped from 649 wpm to 1202 wpm, probably because I had read it before, but still, it's quite a jump. Now for a cube test.


----------



## Jungleterrain (Aug 2, 2011)

Honestly, I need more convincing that the ability to read has a noticeable correlation to speedcubing. It might, but I currently at this time don't believe it one hundred percent. For example, a person who has never read ANYTHING in their life (a cruel existence, I know), would possibly be able to become very fast if allowed to (don't nag me about how he would learn about speedcubing without being able to read ). In this example, my main point is that the underdeveloped part of the brain as a result of lack of reading might not have a significant effect on one's ability to speedcube. Obviously, we can't really run any experiments like this, so we would never be able to know the truth in this matter unless more research is done, probably by someone who knows what they are talking about, like an expert in how the brain works along with the eyes (this profession must have a name).

Although I think this might not affect speedcubing too much, I think it still has a minor effect on speedcubing. What you may have picked up on might be the thing that separates the best from the rest. In the end, I think speedcubing has more to do with practice, repetition, and teaching yourself in a way you yourself understand it. If you are not getting faster, then you must be doing something wrong in your practice sessions. Maybe not ALL people can become faster by just solving the cube 1,000 times a day. You might have to switch it up when you are practicing, and figure out a way to become more efficient.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

Well, that's what experiments are for... To test hypotheses.
Let's wait and see.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

Post EyeQ Session RA of 50. Much more consistent. Didn't fluctuate as much. Might also be because I'm a bit more warmed up. Standard deviation was, surprisingly, MUCH higher. Despite this, I did notice that I was able to keep my RAof12 under 13 seconds for much of the session. 

Best RA of 12: Solves 29-40
Average: 12.58 (12.62)
Standard Deviation: 0.91
Best Time: 10.52
Worst Time: 15.08

Best RA of 5: Solves 8-12
Average: 11.58 (12.28)
Standard Deviation: 0.44
Best Time: 10.27
Worst Time: 16.38

More testing to come. I will try to do this again, maybe this evening, but I'll do it this time without the mid-RA EyeQ session. Tomorrow, I'll swap the two. In the morning, I'll skip the EyeQ session, but at night, I'll do it. Then I'll probably try doing the sessions in the afternoon on the following two days.

------------------------------

Statistics for 08-02-2011 14:16:08

Cubes Solved: 50/50
Number of Pops: 0
Average: 13.35
Standard Deviation: 2.09
Best Time: 10.27
Worst Time: 23.68
Individual Times:
1.	12.93	U2 R L' U R' U2 D' B' U R2 F R' U B2 L2 U' D' R2 B2 U L2
2.	16.71	R' F' R L' B' L2 U' B' R2 B R' U2 R2 U' B2 D' R2 U' F2 R2 D'
3.	14.84	R' U F2 D2 B' U F U D2 R' L D' B2 D2 F2 R2 B2 U F2 U' F2
4.	13.78	D2 F' D B' D B R B' D B' D R2 B2 L2 U' L2 B2 D' B2 R2
5.	12.08	F2 U2 B' U2 F2 R L2 D' R D L U' R2 B2 U' R2 B2 L2 F2 D'
6.	12.16	R' U B2 U' R' U' L2 F2 U B L U' B2 D' B2 R2 F2 B2 D2 F2 D
7.	13.47	U D' B' R' L2 B' L2 B' R2 U' F D' R2 B2 L2 D' F2 D2 R2 D F2
8.	11.19	D2 B R' B D' F' D2 R L' D' L' F2 U B2 L2 D' R2 L2 B2 D2 L2
9.	10.27	R2 U' B D F2 L F' U B R F2 U' B2 D' R2 F2 D' R2 D'
10.	16.38	R' B2 D' L B' R' F R' B2 L B D R2 D2 F2 D2 F2 D' R2 L2
11.	11.16	U2 F D F' B' U2 R U2 R2 B' L2 B' U2 B2 U R2 U R2 U B2 D2
12.	12.38	U D F' L' D R' B U' R2 U2 F' U' D' L2 F2 R2 L2 U R2 B2 U
13.	13.96	R U2 F' R' U2 R' D F L' U2 F' R2 B2 U F2 R2 U2 L2 F2 L2 U'
14.	12.96	U' L U2 L F' D B2 R B' L' D' L' D B2 U2 F2 U' B2 R2 D R2
15.	13.69	U' D2 F L U' R' D2 L' F D2 B' R2 U L2 U2 B2 D' B2 U' L2 U
16.	13.90	R L' D' L2 F L2 B L2 U L U2 F2 U2 F2 U2 L2 B2 U L2 D2
17.	13.44	U2 B' L2 B2 R U' B' L B D' R L2 D R2 B2 D2 R2 F2 U2 R2 F2
18.	12.88	U' B U' B' L F U D2 F' U' L B2 U F2 R2 L2 U' B2 U' B2 D
19.	13.03	R2 L U' B2 D R' U2 F B' U D B' U L2 D R2 D' B2 D' R2 U'
20.	14.52	U R2 B U' R D L B2 R' F2 B' R' L2 B2 U B2 R2 D L2 F2 U
21.	13.11	U' B' D' B L B2 R2 U2 L' D' F' L U' B2 U D2 B2 D2 L2 U' F2
22.	15.27	D' B' U B L' D R' D2 F' R U' B2 R2 B2 D R2 L2 B2 U' D2
23.	12.78	R' F' U' B' U D' F' B' R F B2 U' L2 D' R2 F2 R2 U' B2
24.	12.52	F U B' D2 R2 F' D R B D' B' D F2 R2 U' R2 U' L2 F2 U F2
25.	16.05	D L B R F U F' R' U' D2 R' L2 U2 R2 F2 U B2 L2 U' B2 D
26.	10.69	R' B' U2 D F2 U' R U F' B D' L2 F2 D' F2 D2 B2 U' L2 U2
27.	14.84	F U2 D2 L F U2 F' D2 R' B R2 L2 F2 D R2 F2 D F2 D R2
28.	14.77	U B' U' F L2 F' B' L D' R' F' L2 B2 R2 D2 R2 D F2 D' R2 B2
..............................................................................................................
29.	12.41	F2 U D2 B R D2 F' D' R U L D B2 R2 U2 F2 U' B2 R2 D' B2
30.	15.08	R' U F L' B2 U2 F L U B L' U' L2 U2 D' L2 D' B2 L2 F2 B2
31.	13.68	F' B U' R L D L U2 F L2 U2 R U' R2 U' F2 B2 L2 B2 U
32.	10.83	U F2 R' B' L U' B2 D' F U2 B D2 R2 F2 B2 U L2 F2 R2 L2
33.	12.38	F D R2 F D2 L2 F' U' R U F' D' B2 D2 L2 B2 L2 D' B2 U'
34.	12.33	F' U2 R B R' L2 B' U R' L' F' B2 R2 D2 F2 B2 U L2 B2 U L2
35.	13.02	F L D2 B2 L D R F' R L F' R2 U D F2 U D2 B2 L2 U R2
36.	10.52	R D' L' D2 B' U B2 U' R2 F2 B' U R2 B2 U L2 D' L2 B2 U' D2
37.	13.50	B' L U R2 L' D' F L' B L' D L2 U R2 U' R2 L2 U' F2 D2
38.	12.58	L2 U D2 L2 B R L F' R' D F' U' L2 F2 R2 U F2 U B2 L2
39.	11.05	U' R' F2 R2 B' U F' B' D L' U B' U' B2 D' L2 U2 D2 B2 D2 F2
40.	14.03	U D' F' R' F2 U' D F' R2 U' L' D2 F2 R2 D' R2 B2 U F2 L2
..............................................................................................................
41.	13.34	D2 B' R' D2 L2 F2 B R' F' U F U2 F2 D' B2 L2 D' R2 L2 D2 F2
42.	13.55	L' F2 B2 R' B2 U' D' F' R' L' B D2 F2 U' L2 D R2 L2 D2 L2 U
43.	23.68	U D F R L D' B' D2 L' B' L B D2 B2 U' L2 F2 B2 D2 L2 D
44.	12.08	U' D2 L' U L' U2 D2 F2 U' F R U2 L2 D R2 D2 R2 L2 B2 L2 D'
45.	11.06	B D F U R L2 F' B2 R U2 R D' R2 D F2 B2 U' F2 D L2 D'
46.	13.53	L B2 D' B D F' U' F' U R' L' U' B2 L2 B2 U2 L2 D' F2 U2
47.	14.50	R F' B2 U' B D2 R B2 L' D R2 B2 D2 F2 D F2 D R2 B2
48.	11.65	F' U2 F2 B R F D B2 R2 B' D F2 B2 U' F2 D2 R2 D2 B2 L2
49.	12.61	U R D2 L' F' D' L2 D B' R2 B U' L2 D2 F2 D2 F2 L2 D F2 R2
50.	14.34	R' B D' F2 B' U R' D2 F' D B R2 U' L2 B2 U2 L2 B2 U2 L2 U


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

IMO, still not enough deviation to come to a certain conclusion. However if results are good, keep going! Although... I believe there are other online vision things that you can do so you don't repeat the same thing over and over...


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

5BLD said:


> IMO, still not enough deviation to come to a certain conclusion. However if results are good, keep going! Although... I believe there are other online vision things that you can do so you don't repeat the same thing over and over...



Good idea. I'll look around for some.

EDIT: And since when was there such a thing as "enough data?" Preposterous. 

EDIT 2: You know what I could? More test subjects at a wider range of speeds. Maybe I should find someone who's averaging around 20 seconds. The difference might be more pronounced in a situation such as that.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2011)

Yeah.. Good idea. 
Yup, never enough data 
Or enough deviation of the sets of data


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 2, 2011)

Just did another RA of 50. No vision therapy was done beforehand.

It was absolutely terrible. I don't know what my brain was even doing. I tripped over myself multiple times, especially on PLLs. This data is a bit of an outlier as a whole. It is likely that it will be thrown out because I've never failed quite that badly to produce decent solves. For solves 45 and 46, the RA of 12 at those points went above 15.

I think maybe since we're focused on look-ahead, I should only do F2L RAs of 50. I feel like 30 might be too small of an amount of data.
-----------------------------------------------------
Statistics for 08-02-2011 16:37:08

Cubes Solved: 50/50
Number of Pops: 0
Average: 14.19
Standard Deviation: 2.79
Best Time: 10.09
Worst Time: 26.41
Individual Times:
1.	13.72	U' L B2 L' U' F' L' B R' L2 B U B2 R2 D L2 U L2 U' B2
2.	10.71	U' F2 U2 R2 D F' B D' R2 U' R U L2 F2 D' L2 D B2 U2 L2 U'
3.	14.83	F L' U2 F U2 B R F D L' B U D2 R2 B2 U' R2 L2 B2 R2 U
4.	17.50	R' F' B2 R2 B' L F' R2 B R B L2 U2 L2 U L2 U L2 D' L2 D
5.	13.71	L' U' F B U' L' F U' F B' U D R2 U' B2 R2 F2 D B2 R2
6.	13.41	U' D' R D2 R D2 B U2 L' D2 B' D' L2 D F2 U2 B2 D' F2 U' R2
7.	13.02	B D F' R' B' U' L F2 U L F2 D F2 U2 R2 U2 R2 F2
8.	12.22	R L F' R F' U L' U2 D R D L2 U2 D' R2 U' B2 R2 F2 D
9.	18.11	D' L U' F' U R' D' L F2 B' R2 D' F2 U2 L2 F2 D B2 U'
10.	13.86	U2 L2 B' R2 B D' L' U B2 U R F2 R2 D F2 U L2 D B2 L2 D
11.	10.09	U' F' U D' R' F U R U' L D2 L U F2 U2 F2 D' R2 F2 B2 U
12.	12.36	F' D2 B' R' B' U B' D' L2 F' D2 R U' B2 U L2 B2 U F2 L2 U
13.	15.44	D2 B' D2 F' D L' F U' B' U F R2 D R2 L2 D B2 U' B2
14.	14.59	U B' U' R2 L B2 D2 B' L' D R U2 B2 D R2 D' F2 D' B2 U' F2
15.	14.16	R F2 U R' F U B2 L' D' R2 F D L2 B2 R2 F2 U L2 U2 L2 D2
16.	12.60	B R F R' F' U D2 F2 U2 R2 F' U L2 B2 U2 D F2 U' D2 F2 R2
17.	12.77	R' U B L2 U2 R U' B' L' F2 R' U' F2 D2 R2 F2 L2 U' L2 D' L2
18.	14.06	B' R2 U2 D B2 U2 F' D R' B R F2 U D2 R2 B2 R2 B2 U R2 U2
19.	13.91	U R' L F' R' B U L B2 U R' D' B2 U2 D' F2 R2 U R2 U2
20.	14.36	D B L2 F2 L' B2 R' F R2 B' R2 F2 L2 U F2 D' B2 L2 U D2
21.	11.19	U' R F D' L' B' D2 L D B L F2 U2 F2 R2 U' R2 D' R2 D2 L2
22.	13.94	R B R' B2 D L D F' U D2 L F2 L2 U' F2 U D2 L2 B2 U2
23.	13.69	R D2 F B2 L' F L U R L U' B2 D2 R2 D' L2 F2 B2 U' B2
24.	11.56	R U2 R B2 U' R2 L2 B' R' B2 R L2 U F2 D L2 U' F2 D' L2 D'
25.	14.19	F B U D F' R F' D' L' D R U R2 D2 B2 U2 R2 D' R2 D2 B2
26.	12.53	R D R2 U2 F B2 D2 L D B2 R D' L2 D2 F2 L2 D' L2 U F2 U
27.	20.19	U2 D' R B2 L' U2 L' F U D F R2 U' R2 U F2 D2 B2 R2 B2 D'
28.	15.56	U2 L' U2 B2 R' D B' R2 L D F L2 U' F2 D' R2 D R2 U F2 L2
29.	13.93	D R2 L2 D' R U2 F' D' B' D2 L' D2 L2 B2 U2 F2 U' R2 D' F2 U
30.	10.21	R' L' F2 U2 D2 R' B2 U2 D' F R F2 L2 U' R2 U2 L2 F2 U' L2 D
31.	10.61	F2 L2 U2 D R' F U2 L' F' U' L' U F2 B2 L2 F2 U' L2 D' F2 D2
32.	16.21	R D' L B D' R' U B2 R2 L2 U B' R2 D' L2 D R2 L2 F2 U2
33.	12.52	U' F2 L2 U2 D2 B' L' U2 F' R' B' R2 U2 B2 R2 U2 F2 D B2 D L2
34.	16.19	U F L' D R L2 D' F' D2 R2 L U' F2 R2 F2 D B2 U D' L2 B2
35.	16.65	U' R' F' R D L F' U R B' U2 L U2 D2 L2 B2 D R2 L2 U2 F2
36.	10.80	U' L F' D F2 U B L' U2 L' U' F2 L2 U L2 B2 D' B2 U' B2
37.	16.34	R' B2 R2 U' L' B L2 F2 R B L F2 R2 F2 D2 L2 U2 F2 U'
38.	13.13	L2 B R' F' U' F R2 D B' R' L2 D' B2 U' R2 L2 D' L2 B2 D
39.	13.05	U' D' L F R' D' F2 R' F2 R' B' R2 U R2 D' L2 U L2 B2 L2 U
40.	12.11	R F2 U R U2 R2 U2 F' R D' L U B2 L2 U' B2 R2 F2 R2 D
41.	16.09	D' R2 D' B2 L2 F2 R' F B' U' D R B2 L2 D' L2 U2 R2 B2 U' D
42.	19.36	U R' L D2 F2 D2 F' R F2 U2 L' D' L2 D R2 U F2 U' F2 D2 L2
43.	13.90	U R F U F' D B U' L' U' L U B2 U R2 D2 F2 U2 F2 L2 D'
44.	26.41	U2 R D2 F D R2 U2 R B' R' F L2 B2 D R2 U' L2 D L2 D2 B2
45.	16.84	D F' R2 U B' R F L U' R' U2 B' R2 F2 B2 L2 D L2 D F2 D2
46.	12.86	U2 L' U' B' U2 F L D2 R B2 U' R D2 B2 L2 B2 D F2 D B2 U
47.	13.86	U' D' B D L' B2 R2 L B' U' R2 D' F2 B2 U L2 B2 D' B2
48.	13.91	L2 F R2 U' D2 R' U L' F' R' D2 F' B2 U' B2 R2 L2 U2 D L2 D
49.	13.94	D' B' R F' U D' B2 R2 F B R U' R2 B2 D2 R2 F2 D' R2 U' L2
50.	12.19	U' F2 R' B D' R' B2 U2 L2 D F R U' R2 B2 U' R2 D F2 U' R2


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 3, 2011)

ThumbsxUpx said:


> This theory actually is pretty interesting. A lot to read though, I might finish it later. I do have one question though; How and _why_ do you read on the forums if you hate reading and usually try to avoid it? Do you read better when it's something you enjoy I guess?



Thank you. I try. I hope you finish reading it at some point and comment more on it.

Reading on forum is very different from reading a book. For one, let's remember that it's not like I can't exactly read. I can read, but only for short amounts of time. On this forum, I'm reading short bursts of information, so I don't really need to strain myself to get through the material and remember it all because I'm only reading for a few minutes at a time. 

I would agree with this school of thought: Mentally, I'm more accustomed to short bursts of information, as most people are, because of the world we live in. It's always calling for the intake of short bursts of information. Some scientists believe this constant calling could be contributing to the unusual recent rise in ADD/ADHD -- in other words, people are simply watching TV, looking at too many ads, etc., which is picture after picture after picture, and they have to take in so much information at once (and let's say a picture really is worth a thousand words. That's a very large intake of information at once). Over time, you get someone who can't sit down and read a book because they want all the information at once. 

And even so, I still don't read very fast, book or no book. 

But anything's easier when it's something you enjoy or find interesting/important. I wouldn't say that rule applies here just because they're such short bursts of information.

EDIT: Also, the light of the computer screen helps me stay awake. I've always thought about reading books on my computer in hopes that it might be easier, but I don't think it will necessarily. No harm in trying it out, though.


----------



## emolover (Aug 3, 2011)

DaKrazedKyubizt said:


> EDIT: Also, the light of the computer screen helps me stay awake. I've always thought about reading books on my computer in hopes that it might be easier, but I don't think it will necessarily. No harm in trying it out, though.


 
That can be really bad for your eyes if you read extensively on the computer. I have noticed when I am reading the alternate history forums I tend to get headaches if I read for more then an hour without a break from it. It could possibly be all the new information and visual images but I don't think so since you can get a seizers from the lights(There was recently a kid who died from 12 hours of video games). It doesn't happen untill a much longer time if I am just reading a book, I can last several hours when reading a book even if I am not THAT fond of it. I just find it easier to read on a piece of paper rather then on an LED screen.


----------



## Jungleterrain (Aug 3, 2011)

Could it be a placebo effect?


----------



## aronpm (Aug 3, 2011)

Jungleterrain said:


> Could it be a placebo effect?


 
Yes.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Aug 3, 2011)

I only have one "good" eye. My right eye I need to have prescription glasses for, but my left eye was 20/20 last time I had it checked. My right eye is like 20/25 I believe, I can't quite remember. My point is that I feel like I haven't reached my full potential of F2L yet (granted I'm stil a 16-17s on average [full solve]), but I feel like my eye condition isn't the case. I do feel however if somebody had a more sever medical condition, this could certainly be the case, but my best guess is that on average it is not.

You guys should have some fun with this. Try solving with only one eye open. Try solving with only the other eye open. Make it fun, do a an average of 20 or something each, not just a few solves (I was going to suggest average of 50 but figured that'd be far too much).

Find a way to blur your vision, but be careful with that. You don't want to make your eyes work too hard to focus on something and end up screwing up your vision. Certainly don't go wearing prescription glasses that aren't prescribed for you. Maybe put some sort of translucent plastic between your face and the cubes.

Try solving in lower light conditions. This should force you to slow down.

Find more fun little things like this and test your outcomes. Whatever you do, do the same number of solves in each "test."

As for actually getting faster, learn to have spacial recognition on the fly (ie knowing what R U R' does to the ULB corner) and you'll notice a nice drop in F2L times. Slow down to the point that when you make the last move of your insertion, you can immediately know what move you are going to make next. Getting to this point is the hardest for me. I find that in some of my solves I can do this for pairs 2-4 (first pair is always different of how fast I approach it since I sometimes see the pair during inspection and/or cross building, sometimes don't). If I can consistently get to the point where I can make the final insertion move and immediately jump to my next pair, I'd drop a minimum of 2 seconds from my F2L.

Example:

Setup Alg:
R' U' R U2 R' U' R2 U' R'

If you did R U R' (normal insert here) you'll notice you can cancel that R' out into an R2, because R' U R will build your pair, then U2 and insert into back right slot.

Setup:
R' U R U R' U2 R2 U' R'

If you do the normal insert of R U R', if leaves R' U2 R U' to setup the back right pair + insert, (R' U' R), you can have that R' of the first pair insertion and that R' of the next pair cancel out into an R2.

Find more examples like these and you will certainly drop your times.

I'm certainly by no means a master (or even good) at F2L, but I've found that when my recognition of knowing what a corner will look like after I do some moves, my F2L time drops significantly.

I don't intend on this being any sort of hijack, but I just wanted to make clear what I valued as more important in the F2L recognition look ahead, which I really don't feel like vision therapy would help too much of, unless (as stated earlier) a medical condition actually hindered vision.


----------



## Mal (Aug 3, 2011)

I have really good comprehension skills. ( If that has anything to do with this). I have the same thing with the reading thing where I just read a sentence or two, and then I have read it again just to understand it. Same thing at school, whenever the teacher is talking or when we have to read something, I often just look out the window and I lose concentration. I usually have to focus 100% of my concentration on the 'thing' that I'm trying to focus on. Does anyone understand what I mean?


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 3, 2011)

Mal said:


> I have really good comprehension skills. ( If that has anything to do with this). I have the same thing with the reading thing where I just read a sentence or two, and then I have read it again just to understand it. Same thing at school, whenever the teacher is talking or when we have to read something, I often just look out the window and I lose concentration. I usually have to focus 100% of my concentration on the 'thing' that I'm trying to focus on. Does anyone understand what I mean?


 
Yes. I think I understand what you're talking about. Sometimes you think you're pay attention, and then you try to recall what you just heard/read, and you find out that you can't. That's your brain focusing on receiving the input information, but your brain is neglecting to actually PROCESS the information. Is this what you mean?

You could have visual problems too. I have problems with teaming and a whole lot of other things.

Check this website out. I'm going to using it for the next experiment.

http://www.eyecanlearn.com/ 

Looks stupid, but check it out anyway. Might help you. AND me.


----------



## Mal (Aug 3, 2011)

Ok thanks this is a very interesting thread.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Aug 4, 2011)

I read the whole first post, but pretty much gave up on taking it seriously after the first paragraph. Obviously your best random Ao12 is going to be much faster than what you get on a normal basis. That's why it's your best Ao12. Do you think I get anywhere near 9.61 average every day? I've never even had another average within .5 seconds of that. The best I get on a normal day is around 10.3-10.5. 

I wear contact lenses just about every day. I sometimes wear glasses around the house, but I prefer contacts. I have done averages with contact lenses, with glasses, and without visual assistance, and there have been absolutely no differences. I still improve at a fairly quick rate, and never hit a major wall in speed. The most I have ever been stuck at an average is ~1 month. 

I'm below average in school. I don't do well on tests, and I often struggle with comprehending certain subjects. This has never once effected my speed in algorithm recognition, TPS, or memorizing cases. I have still improved without any sort of hindrance from lack of intelligence. Honestly, I think you're just trying to blame your absence of improvement on things like eyesight, when this obviously isn't the case.


Edit: Also, lol at you calling Austin Moore "Luigi" and lol at you taking Jorghi's BS seriously.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 4, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> I read the whole first post, but pretty much gave up on taking it seriously after the first paragraph. Obviously your best random Ao12 is going to be much faster than what you get on a normal basis. That's why it's your best Ao12. Do you think I get anywhere near 9.61 average every day? I've never even had another average within .5 seconds of that. The best I get on a normal day is around 10.3-10.5.
> 
> I wear contact lenses just about every day. I sometimes wear glasses around the house, but I prefer contacts. I have done averages with contact lenses, with glasses, and without visual assistance, and there have been absolutely no differences. I still improve at a fairly quick rate, and never hit a major wall in speed. The most I have ever been stuck at an average is ~1 month.
> 
> ...



I've been stuck for many months at a time. I've been where I am for 8 months. I was stuck at 20 seconds for about a year straight. It wouldn't hurt to do some research to see if something else is holding me back from improving FASTER, because frankly, being stuck in one place for many months at a time is very discouraging at times. I practice a lot, but hey, maybe you're right. Maybe I am just blaming my problems on something else when in reality, I just plain suck at cubing. But knowing that I have the problems I have, that might not be the case, which is why I'm doing some research. But it's obvious that 1) you haven't been in my shoes, and 2) you can't see where I'm coming from either. It's okay to be blind in one eye, but that's like being blind in both eyes. 

You totally misunderstood the problem. The problem is not my eyesight. It's my VISUAL PROCESSING ABILITIES. Those are two very different things. It's not fixed by contacts or glasses or anything like that. It's fixed by THERAPY, NOT BETTER EYESIGHT. Therapy meaning TRAINING MY EYES TO DO WHAT I NEED THEM TO DO SO THAT MY BRAIN CAN EFFECTIVELY PROCESS VISUAL INFORMATION. This is actually a scientifically proven and very real medical issue. It's not some hazy thing that I'm trying to make up to blame my problems on something else. I've always had trouble reading, but most other people don't. Most people can read something and understand it immediately (and I'm talking about reading really simple text). Often times, I read something, and I don't know what I read. That's because my brain isn't processing the information. 

You have totally misunderstood the entire thread. Please understand the situation BEFORE you comment.

And also, this thread really doesn't have very much to do with your intelligence, even though I mention it as a factor. If your eyes don't work properly, then it really doesn't matter how smart or dumb you are. Everyone has trouble comprehending certain subjects. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about comprehending as in "I heard exactly what you said, but I don't know what it means." It's comprehension as in, "I heard you... wait, what did you say?" or "I read it, but I can't remember a lick of what I just read literally two seconds ago." If you were trying to relate to where 5BLD and I and that other guy (I'm too lazy to go back and check his username) were talking about autism and school and stuff, that was really just us getting off topic for a moment and just chatting, but that was not the main subject at all. 

And was Jorghi really BS-ing? Then great. Whatever. I really don't care. He probably misunderstood the subject too, but I seriously don't care. I hope you guys have fun laughing together.

Also, I know that Luigi is Austin Moore. I called him Luigi because I felt like calling him Luigi.

EDIT: Would you like me to explain all this in another place, like PMing? I could, in case you still don't get it. You could probably even call up your local opthomologist (not optometrist) and ask him about it. I'm sure he could explain to you the purpose of vision therapy and why people sometimes need therapy to process information.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 4, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> I read the whole first post, but pretty much gave up on taking it seriously after the first paragraph. Obviously your best random Ao12 is going to be much faster than what you get on a normal basis. That's why it's your best Ao12. Do you think I get anywhere near 9.61 average every day? I've never even had another average within .5 seconds of that. The best I get on a normal day is around 10.3-10.5.
> 
> I wear contact lenses just about every day. I sometimes wear glasses around the house, but I prefer contacts. I have done averages with contact lenses, with glasses, and without visual assistance, and there have been absolutely no differences. I still improve at a fairly quick rate, and never hit a major wall in speed. The most I have ever been stuck at an average is ~1 month.
> 
> ...



Muscle memory xD

But OP I think that guy has a point o-o


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 4, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Muscle memory xD
> 
> But OP I think that guy has a point o-o



lolwtf
wat does muscle memory have to do with eyesight and lookahead?


Off-topic: Great signature, that "Screw Look ahead xD" attitude will surely get you fast :tu


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 4, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> lolwtf
> wat does muscle memory have to do with eyesight and lookahead?
> 
> 
> Off-topic: Great signature, that "Screw Look ahead xD" attitude will surely get you fast :tu


 
You don't even need to look ahead?! You can just watch the entire cube and you can find pieces faster without having to slow down.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 4, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Muscle memory xD
> 
> But OP I think that guy has a point o-o


 
As you could see by what I posted in response to theanonymouscuber, I'm still taking that into consideration. I have to. It's not like I'm rejecting his point, because yes, he does have a point. 

But he didn't understand the thread. That's what my problem with him was. He commented without understanding.

Do you understand the thread at all?

EDIT: Also, I don't know what how muscle memory could possibly relate to the topic either. Of course those two parts of the brain are highly interconnected, but you're still missing the point of the thread.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 4, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> I only have one "good" eye. My right eye I need to have prescription glasses for, but my left eye was 20/20 last time I had it checked. My right eye is like 20/25 I believe, I can't quite remember. My point is that I feel like I haven't reached my full potential of F2L yet (granted I'm stil a 16-17s on average [full solve]), but I feel like my eye condition isn't the case. I do feel however if somebody had a more sever medical condition, this could certainly be the case, but my best guess is that on average it is not.
> 
> You guys should have some fun with this. Try solving with only one eye open. Try solving with only the other eye open. Make it fun, do a an average of 20 or something each, not just a few solves (I was going to suggest average of 50 but figured that'd be far too much).
> 
> ...



You're talking about eyesight. I'm not talking about eye sight. I can see just fine with my glasses on. I can solve a Rubik's Cube just fine without my glasses too. Yes, it's ridiculously blurry because my EYESIGHT is horrible, but my times are only slightly worse without my glasses, with or without squinting.

I'm talking about visual processing. Look it up. And look up how vision therapy is used to correct visual processing problems and why visual processing problems would arise in a human being.

EDIT: But yes, I'll try out what you've told me to try, with the bad lighting and whatnot.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 4, 2011)

I understand it. But I don't think any of us have any idea about how the Brain works scientifically so we are all making basic observations. The only thing to do is practice.

I read the whole thing about what Vision Therapy is.. "inappropriate development of the "fusion center" of the brain"

Don't you think that many technology causes that????! Almost none of us have any answers lol.

"spending nearly all my time solely on improving my look-ahead"

You can't really improve look ahead that much. What about recognition?


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 4, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> I understand it. But I don't think any of us have any idea about how the Brain works scientifically so we are all making basic observations. The only thing to do is practice.
> 
> I read the whole thing about what Vision Therapy is.. "inappropriate development of the "fusion center" of the brain"
> 
> Don't you think that many technology causes that????! Almost none of us have any answers lol.


 
What causes it? Who knows? But I already have the problems. I care more about correcting it. 

And yeah, I don't know much about how my brain works either. That's why I'm trying to learn about my brain by doing research projects like this. The more I learn about my brain, the easier it will be to learn techniques to enhance my mind.

Why not just consider the possibility that my eyes don't do what they're supposed to do, and that this is preventing my brain from processing the information? I'm not saying that it is. It's just a research project. The title is a hypothesis. Have I proved it? No. There's no reason to argue against it until more data has been collected it. But hypotheses are based off of observations. I'm observing two things in my life, and I'm wondering if the two are related. That's all. Nothing more. 

You know the old saying: "Don't dis it before you try it." Wouldn't hurt to do a bit of research. I'll learn in the process. It's a learning experience, right? 

EDIT: "inappropriate development of the 'fusion center' of the brain"? Sounds like that might make sense, if the fusion center is where sensory information is processed, but that doesn't explain the problem very well to _you_, does it? Maybe you should talk to an opthomologist too. He'd probably explain it better.

EDIT 2: Also, I want to go into pediatric neurology. Researching stuff like this is fun for me, and it won't give me any REAL experience in the lab, but it'll help me to be a bit better prepared for doing research in college. That's part of the reason why I do it.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 4, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> "spending nearly all my time solely on improving my look-ahead"
> 
> You can't really improve look ahead that much. What about recognition?


 
Do you know the limits of the human mind? The possibilities are practically limitless. We humans only use about 10% of our brains (I'm not positive about that being the exact average percentage), but if we used 20% of our brains... Man, speedcubing would be a BREEZE. I'd be sub-5 seconds cuz I felt like it. We'd probably all understand God's algorithm perfectly well too. 

EDIT: If we learned how to use even 2% extra of our brains, we could probably look-ahead without even trying to do so.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 4, 2011)

DaKrazedKyubizt said:


> Do you know the limits of the human mind? The possibilities are practically limitless. We humans only use about 10% of our brains (I'm not positive about that being the exact average percentage), but if we used 20% of our brains... Man, speedcubing would be a BREEZE. I'd be sub-5 seconds cuz I felt like it. We'd probably all understand God's algorithm perfectly well too.
> 
> EDIT: If we learned how to use even 2% extra of our brains, we could probably look-ahead without even trying to do so.


O-o I don't even know why I am arguing with you o-o. Now I feel like Ubercuber.

Instead of wasting time following a Corner and edge making you have to slow your TPS tracking it all I do is focus on the entire cube so you can notice everything and whats happening so you can solve what you see first instead of having to track all the time.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 4, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> O-o I don't even know why I am arguing with you o-o. Now I feel like Ubercuber.
> 
> Instead of wasting time following a Corner and edge making you have to slow your TPS tracking it all I do is focus on the entire cube so you can notice everything and whats happening so you can solve what you see first instead of having to track.


 
....... That sounds like a description of look ahead. In fact, that sounds like a description of REALLY ADVANCED look ahead. Looking at the whole cube and noticing everything (which is, at the least ALL the F2L pairs visible) is really hard, and is practically the same thing as look-ahead. Look-ahead is basically when you look around the cube while moving it so that you know what you're going to do next so that when you finish solving an F2L pair, you're not sitting there like a duck for a whole second or two trying to find two pieces. I can't solve for beans without look ahead. I'm glad I invested in it. That's how I pushed myself down from 20-sec avg.

EDIT: lolcensorshiplol. I typed a rather benign word, and it was censored, so I replaced it with "duck"... Understandable, but still kinda funny, especially when some pretty inappropriate things are posted on here every once in a while...

EDIT 2: And it's hard to focus on the whole cube with high TPS if you're not used to it and haven't worked up to watching the cube at that speed. To be able to find something immediately and NOT pause is so hard. That's like having to figure out what to do on one cube and then having someone hand you a new cube immediately and then ask you to start moving it at the same speed as soon as it reaches your hand and doing all the right moves too, or risk being killed. That's impossible. Your brain needs to do some processing of the colors on the cube. That takes at least a little bit of time.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 4, 2011)

Well I don't mean it like that "forcing to track all pairs". But just noticing whats happening. But its kinda easy I think. My F2L average is 12 seconds so I think I might need 7 to break sub 20.

@EDIT2: Not everyone starts with high TPS. Well people who are 12 and have low TPS then grow bigger hands to be 15 and get high TPS.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 4, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Well I don't mean it like that "forcing to track all pairs". But just noticing whats happening. But its kinda easy I think. My F2L average is 12 seconds so I think I might need 7 to break sub 20.


 
It's still kinda hard to "notice what's happening", whatever that's supposed to mean... Actually, I can't say that it's hard because I still don't see the difference between that and look-ahead. That sounds like learning look-ahead without slowing down.

EDIT: But if you can "notice what's happening" on the whole cube, then your brain's processing of peripherial visual information must be very good, which means you should be able to pretty easily learn how to speed read. Speed reading requires reading in chunks of words, or reading "entire ideas", you might say.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 4, 2011)

I suck at speed reading xD But I did this:
http://www.readingsoft.com/ and got 386 words per minute with 90% comprehension. But screw reading and all this junk! 

Cubing is all that matters in cubing xD cya I'm gonna go cube xD


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 4, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> I suck at speed reading xD But I did this:
> http://www.readingsoft.com/ and got 386 words per minute with 90% comprehension. But screw reading and all this junk!
> 
> Cubing is all that matters in cubing xD cya I'm gonna go cube xD



I'm sorry, did I sound really stupid in that argument? I don't mean to. I'm just trying to figure out what you meant... but yeah, let's end it right there, because I probably won't be understanding what you mean any time soon...


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 4, 2011)

Sorry for the off-topicish post, but, Jorghi, if you know so much about this "better" form of lookahead you are talking about, why aren't you sub-15? It doesn't require high TPS at all to be sub-15, so you can't make that as an excuse; all you need is lookahead.


----------



## tozies24 (Aug 4, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> Sorry for the off-topicish post, but, Jorghi, if you know so much about this "better" form of lookahead you are talking about, why aren't you sub-15? It doesn't require high TPS at all to be sub-15, so you can't make that as an excuse; all you need is lookahead.



It's cuz his last layer xD is 15 seconds xD xD xD xD


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Aug 4, 2011)

DaKrazedKyubizt said:


> You have totally misunderstood the entire thread. Please understand the situation BEFORE you comment.


You say that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't "understand the point of the thread" even though most of the people you said this to were making legitimate points. Just because someone doesn't think what you're saying has an effect on cubing doesn't mean they automatically don't know what you're talking about.



> And was Jorghi really BS-ing? Then great. Whatever. I really don't care. He probably misunderstood the subject too, but I seriously don't care. I hope you guys have fun laughing together.


What does me telling you that Jorghi has absolutely no idea what he's talking about have to do with any of this? Now you're just making assumptions that have no backing at all.

Finally, why did you mention all of the other stuff, like intelligence and eyesight, in the first place? Why not just post the main point of this thread? It would certainly help make your point easier and avoid any confusion over what this thread is supposed to be about.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 4, 2011)

Sigh ...jorghi just likes to make unjustified assumptions/statements that are most of the time wrong. Don't bother flaming him or replying to him... Lets just ignore him.

By the way, the point of this thread is doing an experiment. No point saying that this is BS, or, even saying it's completely true and works. 
The idea of the experiment is to experiment, so we need to experiment and THEN find the results.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Aug 5, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> You say that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't "understand the point of the thread" even though most of the people you said this to were making legitimate points. Just because someone doesn't think what you're saying has an effect on cubing doesn't mean they automatically don't know what you're talking about.



You didn't listen to me. Never mind. Don't worry about it. And there's nothing to disagree with. No actual argument has been made. I didn't try to prove anything yet. I don't have anything to back it up. It's still just a hypothesis. 

I did not disagree with you. I only said that you misunderstood the thread. You mixed up eyesight with visual processing. You just weren't fully understanding what I was researching, as far as I can tell. Or maybe you misspoke. Or maybe I misspoke. Or maybe both of us misspoke. I don't know. But that's sure what it looked like to me. 



theanonymouscuber said:


> What does me telling you that Jorghi has absolutely no idea what he's talking about have to do with any of this? Now you're just making assumptions that have no backing at all.



I always thought the definition of BS-ing was lying just to make someone believe something for the heck of it (like a more subtle form of trolling), not pretending to understand the topic. I guess I misunderstood you there. 

In high school, I lived with someone who BS-ed to me a lot, so I always thought that the way he did it was the definition of BS-ing. I guess it's not. Or maybe there's two definitions? I guess my experiences built an incorrect definition in my mind. Dearest apologies.



theanonymouscuber said:


> Finally, why did you mention all of the other stuff, like intelligence and eyesight, in the first place? Why not just post the main point of this thread? It would certainly help make your point easier and avoid any confusion over what this thread is supposed to be about.



You want me to remove some more stuff? Sure. I can do that, if it'll make the thread less confusing.

EDIT: Okay, I think I fixed it. Is it less confusing now? Does it make sense? I'm trying to make progress, and I could use a good opinion. Thanks.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 10, 2011)

Blaming lack of improvement on specific things outside of your control just sounds like an excuse to me.


----------



## Carrot (Aug 10, 2011)

DaKrazedKyubizt said:


> Yay autism. I'm have Asperger's Syndrome. We could be autism buddies!


 
Can I join please?  (PDD-NOS)


----------



## chrissyD (Aug 13, 2011)

Odder said:


> Can I join please?  (PDD-NOS)



of course


----------



## michaelfivez (Sep 5, 2011)

"Feliks, I wonder how you fast can read. If you're reading this Feliks, could you please tell us how fast you can read? (*I'm pretty sure I saw an book of the Eragon series in one of your videos... or was that somebody else?*) And how about the other top notchers? Morten? Erik? Harris? Anthony? Rowe? Luigi? Anyone else in the top 100 or so that I have forgotten? How fast can you guys read? "

Having read a book of Eragon or whatever doesn't say that you are a good reader, there are a lot of 6-8 year olds who read books of 1000 pages (like lord of the rings).

But I think reading fast has to do with practice, so if someone is good at reading it just says something about how much he has practiced it. I read prety fast but that is because I read a lot, often before I go to sleep I read from 11-12 till 2-3am.
(I got 500wpm at your test but only 65% accuracy, but keep in mind that English is not my primary language, I actually speak 3 languages better then English)


----------

