Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Willr0wH00d OP t1_iz2ddiq wrote

I have solved many Rubik's cubes in my life. I have also had a good amount of alcohol in my life. Of course I have done the occasional solve while intoxicated, but I have always wondered how exactly the amount of alcohol in my system would impact my timed solves.

The experiment was simple. 160 solves with a shot of 90 proof liquor at each interval of 20. Starting with a control group before anything took effect and ending with an extra 20 solves, not wanting to drink anymore, were the only variations in my alcohol consumption. All data was tracked by csTimer and put into Excel in order to make a nice graph the day after.

The results were pretty straightforward. Times, as expected, worsened and varied more as more alcohol entered my bloodstream. Below are a few stats from the session. For reference, I average about 12.5.

Best Time: 10.29 (Solve 72)

Best Ao5: 11.52 (Solves 37-41)

Best Ao12: 12.30 (Solves 27-38)

Worst Time: 23.91 (Solve 107)

Worst Ao5: 17.36 (Solves 140-144)

Worst Ao12: 15.36 (Solves 138-149)

Feel free to ask any questions. This was fun! Would not do it again.

178

AntiqueEconomist2018 t1_iz3ox9o wrote

How was BAC measured? Are you just estimating it?

58

jsvannoord t1_iz54wj5 wrote

Accurate BAC devices are readily available and fairly affordable.

19

Macrophage87 t1_iz5cmwi wrote

But they really measure breath alcohol content rather than blood. There can occasionally be some discrepancy.

3

jsvannoord t1_iz5gzhj wrote

I think it’s safe to assume OP didn’t draw 160 blood samples.

16

bloodalchemy t1_iz40419 wrote

You need another test to extract the alcohol as the only variable. We need another 160 solves with a shot of water every 20. By comparing the two we can cancel out mind/finger fatigue from the results. Any time differences left should only be from the alcohol.

52

ShaunDark t1_iz4ae11 wrote

Maybe the difference could be explained by the taste left in his mouth after the shots.

7

YouDontKnowMe74 t1_iz3my98 wrote

I don’t understand. How long did you wait between the shots? The alcohol would have to start affecting you first which isn’t really the case if you’re doing back to back shots.

41

ChezBoris t1_iz2x7nu wrote

This gives *some* evidence for the Ballmer Peak (but not a lot).

113

1minatur t1_iz3qvnp wrote

Doesn't this show the opposite? He pretty consistently gets worse the higher the alcohol content

24

MufuckinTurtleBear t1_iz3rq7e wrote

There's a notable dip in completion time just beyond BAC 0.12%

37

1minatur t1_iz3ryfo wrote

The whole thing about the ballmer peak though is that performance is higher than when completely sober

6

MufuckinTurtleBear t1_iz3s18m wrote

That's not what the XKCD graph shows.

3

1minatur t1_iz3sbb1 wrote

That's exactly what it shows, 0 BAC has a lower performance level than at ~0.14

9

MufuckinTurtleBear t1_iz3ssf4 wrote

At the "Ballmer peak", yeah. Performance is lower than when sober everywhere except that point.

That's not the same as "performance always higher when drunk"

7

1minatur t1_iz3swud wrote

That isn't what I was saying. The Ballmer Peak specifically shows that performance at the peak is better than when completely sober. In OP's case, performance was only slightly better than the % above and below it, but still significantly worse than at 0

4

MufuckinTurtleBear t1_iz3tam8 wrote

The baseline/0 BAC is just over 14 seconds. The dip just beyond 0.12 is a smidgen beyond 10.

2

1minatur t1_iz3tm7y wrote

Single solve times have a lot of random variance, that could just be a random cube pattern that allowed him to skip several steps when solving. The average dips slightly at that point, but not below the beginning average

−1

MufuckinTurtleBear t1_iz3tzfb wrote

Yes, which is why

> This gives *some* evidence for the Ballmer Peak (but not a lot).

Slight dip on the average. One exceptionally quick game. Not conclusive supporting evidence. Some evidence

2

doobieman420 t1_iz4olej wrote

No, it gives no evidence. Not “not a lot of evidence”. Zero evidence. The “dip” (I wouldn’t call it that) you refer to is two, maybe 3, consecutive data points below the average. Would you call three consecutive coin flips coming up tails evidence of a biased coin? You also need to consider streakiness, warm-up time, all that good stuff. You aren’t as smart as you think you are. You completely misinterpreted that poor persons reply about the ballmer curve!

1

Sahih t1_iz5b003 wrote

To me, evidence of a 'Ballmer peak' would be any evidence of high performance. If this was the only study, which for the comments it is, I would say this leads to an idea that the 'Ballmer peak' is on average slightly lower skill level at the point, but a larger standard deviation of skill level, leading to occasional brilliance while consistent performance is slightly worse than at 0.

I haven't looked up what the actual 'hypothesis' of the Ballmer peak is, but this shows that some elements of high performance could exist and that kind of thing leads to rumors, plus fun experimentation.

1

ChezBoris t1_iz4gl1g wrote

Ballmer Peak is a joke AND this data is (mostly) a joke... but... the two fastest times in their dataset are at about 0.1% and 0.12% (which would show up as a peak).

3

ABahRunt t1_iz58shj wrote

This is exactly what i was thinking about too! Need more granular shots to prove it. IV schnapps anyone?

2

FishyFrie t1_iz4frcj wrote

I also notice when only slightly drunk my brain tends to work a little faster in specific occasions.

E.g. I can write faster and more accurately on my phone when I've had a few beers.

1

Strykerz3r0 t1_iz5h0ds wrote

Ah, yes. Otherwise known as 'The Doctor Johnny Fever' effect.

1

chemist612 t1_iz2h24e wrote

I feel like these times are not significantly different from each other (statistically speaking). I would love to see the control limits from the before and during (or even before vs end) to see if my visual intuition is correct.

36

carlos_6m t1_iz2k8lv wrote

It makes kind of sense that they're not different, solving a rubiks cube is done following a set of different move algorithms that after enough practice become muscle memory, so alcohol will only impair this very little, same way you can type almost as well sober as with a bit of alcohol, muscle memory will only fail you once you start to get pretty wasted

18

acatterz t1_iz45np1 wrote

OP is solving in 12-15 seconds. At that level the algorithms required to solve the cube require some quick analysis of the cube faces at each stage to use the more optimal moves, particularly during the F2L stage. This involves quick mental visualisation to find the corners and matching edges to complete those first layers. I would have expected alcohol to have a bigger impact.

11

You_Stole_My_Hot_Dog t1_iz4lemo wrote

Idk, you get to point where you literally don’t even think about it. I was never as good as OP (more in the 20-30s range), but even then there were algorithms that I can done so many thousands of times that I barely even needed to register that there was a pattern. Muscle memory kicks in and just takes care of it.

I haven’t been into it for the past few years, but once I stopped practicing daily, I’d do periodic “check-ins” to see if I still remembered how to solve it. At one point I had gone like 6 months without touching the cube, and was still able to easily solve it. I didn’t even quite remember what the algorithms were or what I was looking for, but muscle memory seems to remember for a lot longer lol. So it doesn’t surprise me that it doesn’t phase him much. Not unless he was really hammered.

4

x_AdSF_x t1_iz4xmxc wrote

Being someone who solves around 15secs, the difference between 20/30 secs vs 12 is abysmal. Yes, one can do the last layer without thinking even a bit, but f2l takes quite a lot of focus at OP's level

Yes, he'd be always able to solve it under ~25secs due to muscle memory, but to keep it that consistent is impressive

3

carlos_6m t1_iz4l6j8 wrote

In the end its all colours and shapes and op has reached up to 0.2% blood alcohol, which is the limit for driving in many places, I'd say up to that point it makes sense to see little change, it would be later on when I would expect to see impairment showing

2

FourierXFM t1_iz4of4d wrote

0.2% is nearly 3 times the limit for being intoxicated, which is commonly 0.08% in the US.

2

jsvannoord t1_iz54lsn wrote

And 0.05% is the most common limit worldwide. I don’t think anywhere is at 0.2%.

2

carlos_6m t1_iz6h7f1 wrote

Yeah I think I'm getting it mixed up with alcohol on breath levels maybe?

1

jsvannoord t1_iz6ot6q wrote

Not sure. The BAC monitor I have reads breath and gives a blood alcohol percentage reading but I can’t speak to all models.

1

jterwin t1_iz2ncsv wrote

Not individually, but I think the trend should be. There's enough points that it seems significant to me even though the it's only a slight increase.

3

gremlinbro t1_izf8mwh wrote

Yeah OP can you get drunk and solve an additional N = 1000 cubes?

1

Kangster1604 t1_iz2g9fu wrote

Now this is worthy work. I would love to see you expand this to golf, and lawn darts.

29

NegativeCap1975 t1_iz3b7rn wrote

I wonder how much the increase in average time around 0.150% is due to increased BAC or simply mental fatigue from doing it so many times. How would this compare to 160 solves with no alcohol at all?

11

Extra_Intro_Version t1_iz3dtz7 wrote

Good point. This test needs to be randomized to avoid the confounding factors.

10

momomosk t1_iz3qufn wrote

Also it’s an n=1 so we need a Rubik’s cube club or something for replication

6

TommyTuttle t1_iz32q9w wrote

I like how the solve time improves again from .180% to… uh… the second .180% — the chart maker’s BAC tracks with the chart itself apparently 💁‍♂️

9

I-Pop-Bubbles t1_iz58rhe wrote

Interesting experiment and results. As a bit of constructive feedback on the data visualization, I would say that the actual solve times should be points instead of a continuous line. The avg solve time is fine as a line, though.

8

Goojus t1_iz2s4py wrote

So, what you’re saying is there’s a sweet spot at being drunk where you can go with your day by day routine with no issues

3

trollsmurf t1_iz4325r wrote

Oh seconds. I was going for hours.

3

Adamantiun t1_iz444ar wrote

"I swear I'm good to drive officer, just check my 3x3 solve time!"

3

GoingMenthol t1_iz46ai8 wrote

So if I'm reading this correctly, you're less efficient between 0.150% and 0.180%, but slightly more efficient between 0.180% and... 0.180% again?

3

dml997 t1_iz5is9v wrote

He was drunk when he made the last two points.

1

udmh-nto t1_iz2yuls wrote

Not including zero on Y axis is misleading, especially with bar charts.

2

dogsnifel t1_iz47uy1 wrote

Not in this case since he’s just interested in how much the time changes not how fast he solves it.

2

LOSTandCONFUSEDinMAY t1_iz493bk wrote

Yeah the differences are so small that if the y axis started at 0 all the details on the graph would become too small to see.

4

udmh-nto t1_iz4ko1v wrote

Relative magnitude of the change is important. If time changes from 10 seconds to 10.1 seconds, it's not the same as time changing from 10 seconds to 20 seconds. If you don't include zero, you can scale the graphs to look the same.

1

geek66 t1_iz30myy wrote

You need to do this with Dr. Johnny Fever…

2

anotherorphan t1_iz3a79s wrote

first thing i thought of. i might be showing my age

1

geek66 t1_iz4ownf wrote

Ha… well someone got the reference…

1

246TNP t1_iz3tc7i wrote

Can you try doing a scatter plot of (BAC, Solve Time) pairs? The correlation might be better visible there.

2

cbeiser t1_iz3dsbb wrote

My friends all learned this and became pretty good at it.

One time, we were drunk in college near the end of the night. One of my friends does blast thru a rubiks cube and says "I can use this to tell how drunk i am". Not 5 minutes later he threw up. XD

1

Davyjoetee t1_iz43w3w wrote

It’s higher than ballmer but very cool to see. Very real phenomenon

1

MellifluousSussura t1_iz480gt wrote

What I’m hearing here is that I need to get very, very drunk for my finals. Or at least a little drunk. Tipsy. Slightly buzzed…

1

AwkwardDilemmas t1_iz4uecs wrote

Not continuous data, misrepresented graphing.

1

Bmacku t1_iz57g0k wrote

looks like .1 BAC is the sweet spot

1

dml997 t1_iz5iplh wrote

Looks like around .05 is ideal.

1

Cremaster166 t1_iz5wulq wrote

That doesn’t even count as slightly tipsy. Do it again and drink more!

Edit: never mind, the UOM was per cent. Well done! 👍

1

Willr0wH00d OP t1_iz5x2s3 wrote

.18% is over two times the legal driving limit haha. I was having a hard time talking and walking- muscle memory just works in strange ways

1

Cremaster166 t1_iz61xlj wrote

What got me is that we use ‰ in Finland. Anything over 0,15% is pretty respectable 😄

1

Outrageous_History87 t1_iz61umd wrote

It usually takes me 5 minutes or so to do a Rubiks Cube. Extrapolating, my BAC was probably 456%.

Never argue with the data.

1

jaxpaboo t1_iz6ed19 wrote

What solution do you use for level 3?

What happened during your high peaks?

How long did it take from start to finish and what was your steps? Scramble, Solve, Blow?

1

gremlinbro t1_izf84zg wrote

This is what I'm here for.

1

Karnex97 t1_izskvvp wrote

If this is accurate it's crazy impressive, most people are either passed out/ throwing up at bathroom/ can't even walk at 0.18% , but here you are solving rubiks in 20seconds..

1

Nathan-Stubblefield t1_iz4ko5v wrote

Do the math. Calculate the correlation, (r) and see if it is statistically significant. There is a confound between practice ir fatigue and the independent variable, so as another commenter says, repeat with shots of water instead of alcohol. And it still wouldn’t prove much, because it would be easy to influence the results one way or the other.

0