How many circles can you see in 10 seconds in this mind-boggling optical illusion?
TEST your IQ by finding as many circles as possible in ten seconds in the optical illusion below.
Take a look at the image to put your observational skills to the test.
2
It shows black and white squares atop a grey background.
But when you start to look at the picture, the squares start to shift into a not-so-circular pattern.
Set yourself a ten second timer and count how many circles you find before it runs out.
T h e image has left social media users confused as they try to make sense of the illusion.
Even if you concentrate hard, the lines never become fully clear, making it challenging to accurately count.
As you look at the image, it morphs into a 'pretzel' pattern, created by the circles appearing to overlap.
Being able to accurately count the circles could be a sign of creativity, and strong intuition.
Optical illusions can be a great way to test your brain function.
To decipher the puzzles, your brain and eyes have to work together to make sense of what you're observing.
Everyone can see the pearls, but you need the eyes of a hawk to spot the diamond in less than 10 seconds
While your brain determines what is logical, it might not actually be what your eyes are seeing.
The shocking answer to the image reveals that there are, in fact, four circles.
While the alternating monochromatic colours make it difficult to put the image into perspective, if you stare long enough the shapes should become clearer.
The image is then revealed to show four rings, rather than the obscure 'pretzel' shape that was originally observed.
How can optical illusions and brainteasers help me?
Engaging in activities like solving optical illusions and brainteasers can have many cognitive benefits as it can stimulate various brain regions.
Some benefits include:
Cognitive stimulation: Engaging in these activities challenges the brain, promoting mental agility and flexibility.
Problem-solving skills: Regular practice enhances analytical thinking and problem-solving abilities.
Memory improvement: These challenges often require memory recall and can contribute to better memory function.
Creativity: They encourage thinking outside the box, fostering creativity and innovative thought processes.
Focus and attention: Working on optical illusions and brainteasers requires concentration, contributing to improved focus.
Stress relief: The enjoyable nature of these puzzles can act as a form of relaxation and stress relief.
You can also test other parts of your brain with different types of brainteasers.
This image of pearls can be a great way to test your eyesight - as you're asked to find the diamond in less than 10 seconds.
Brainteasers offer a great way to test your IQ and keep your mind sharp.
This maths-based brainteaser is a great way to train your brain and improve your critical thinking.
2
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
Teenagers who report addictive use of screens at greater risk of suicidal behaviour, study shows
Teenagers who show signs of being addicted to social media, mobile phones or video games are at greater risk of suicidal behaviour and emotional problems, according to research. A study, which tracked more than 4,000 adolescents for four years, found that nearly one in three reported increasingly addictive use of social media or mobile phones. Those whose use followed an increasingly addictive trajectory had roughly double the risk of suicidal behaviour at the end of the study. The findings do not prove screen use was the cause of mental health problems. But they highlight that compulsive use, which appears to be very common, as a significant risk factor that parents and healthcare services should be alert to. Dr Yunyu Xiao, an assistant professor of population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine and first author of the study, said: 'For parents and educators, the discussion around mobile phones and social media has focused on limiting or banning use, but our results indicate more complex factors are involved. 'Testing interventions that work against other types of addiction may be one way to approach this type of social media and mobile phone use.' The findings come amid escalating mental health problems in young people and as governments are grappling with how to enforce safeguards around smartphones and social media. Against this backdrop, scientists have faced a near-impossible challenge to try to pin down evidence of how rapidly evolving and highly personalised screen use might be linked to young people's mental health. The latest study tracked almost 4,300 adolescents aged nine to 10 when they started the study. Rather than simply measuring screen time, the scientists assessed participants for 'addictive use', such as whether technology was interfering with activities like schoolwork and exercise and whether people experienced craving or feelings of distress when screens were withdrawn. Machine learning was used to cluster participants into groups based on their screen use trajectories. For mobile phones, about half of the children reported high addictive use from the start of the study that remained high through early adolescence, and a quarter developed increasing addictive use as they aged. For social media, 41% of children had high or increasing addictive use. For social media and mobile phones, the high and increasing addictive use trajectories were associated with a two to three times greater risk of suicidal behaviours and suicidal ideation compared with the low addictive use trajectory. More than 40% of the youths had a high addictive use trajectory for video games. These adolescents were significantly more likely to report suicidal thoughts or behaviours, as well as symptoms of anxiety, depression, aggression or rule-breaking. By contrast, the total amount of time spent on social media, mobile phones and video games was not associated with future suicide-related or mental health outcomes. What mattered most was whether their use showed signs of compulsion, distress or loss of control. Xiao said: 'There are many factors that would induce addictive feelings, such as the designs of the social media or video games, some kids may also experience bullying and more adverse childhood that they find using phones more comfortable, but later they cannot stop using it.' The findings, published in the journal Jama, raise further questions over how parents should manage children's screen use. 'We do not know if just taking away access will help, unless it is taking away access 24/7, because we know from studies of addiction management that partial access can quickly reinforce the addiction,' Xiao said. Prof Amy Orben, who leads the Digital Mental Health Group at the University of Cambridge, said the study could not prove that technology use caused mental health problems. An alternative explanation would be that poor self-control could be the root cause for problematic screen use and mental health outcomes. 'Yet the study importantly highlights that why and how young people use technologies, and how they feel technologies affect their lives, may matter more to their mental health than the time spent online,' she added. 'As those reporting such issues are not a small proportion of the population, supporting them should be taken seriously.'
The Sun
4 days ago
- The Sun
Conspiracy theorists spot baffling ‘proof' new Space Station clip is FAKE & say: ‘They are NOT in zero gravity'
CONSPIRACY theorists have claimed that a space station video is fake - because of a glass of water. Online sceptics blasted a video of China's Tiangong Space Station which showed a glass of water in zero gravity behaving in a so-called unnatural manner. 3 3 In the viral footage, three astronauts are seen standing on board the station, with a glass of water on a table to their left. The glass and the water inside it appear to be completely still - despite the microgravity environment. Tin foil hat-wearing social media users poured out online - slamming the "unbelievable" footage and calling the whole thing a stunt. Many speculated that water's behaviour on a space station should see the liquid rising into spheres and floating around the room. Rather than stay in its glass, the water should be able to fly around the room in bubbles just like in the movies, baffled theorists said. One confused user said on X: "Call me crazy but if I was orbiting the Earth at 17,500 mph in Zero Gravity surrounded by complex computers…I probably wouldn't risk an unconcealed glass of water resting on the table." Another suggested: "The water wouldn't stay in the glass. It would be floating." Although the online hysteria sent many conspiracy theorists into a debunking frenzy - there is actually a simple explanation for the water's seemingly unnatural behaviour. But this didn't stop others jumping on the bandwagon, with another user saying: "That water should be floating around like bubbles." Scores of curious viewers came to the conclusion that the video must have been filmed on Earth. Incredible video shows how US will mine the MOON to help humans establish new home in space One user said: "Apparently they are not in zero gravity as water stays in the glass." Another weighed in: "Yep, it's fake. They are not in zero gravity." A third user even asked: "So, they're not in space?" Theorists were then sent down an even deeper rabbit hole after Elon Musk's Grok AI system started misinforming users in response to their questions. In one response, Musk's AI chatbot claimed: "Yes, water would float out of a glass in a space station due to microgravity." Still puzzling viewers, the video confused even more users who then seemingly lost their temper. One raged: "This is ridiculous. The water wouldn't stay in the glass. Why do they insist in surrounding us in a sea of lies?" Another blasted: "They are not in zero G it's an act. They are walking on an uneven surface to create a slight floating effect by they are still grounded." While another fumed: "At this stage I think they are doing it on purpose, to wake people up. "You can't tell them, you have to show them." However, there is a rational explanation for the water's behaviour in the video. The most important thing to note is that according to science, this is exactly how an open glass of water in microgravity should act. Space historian Jordan Bimm told AP: "Water molecules like to stick to glass and also to other water molecules more than they like to disperse in the air. "So if there is no external force, water remains in 'clumps' in the weightless environment, and in this case inside the glass." How does zero gravity affect water? by Harvey Geh Water is composed of slightly positive hydrogen atoms and slightly negative oxygen atoms. These pull towards each other, much like opposite ends of a magnet. In zero gravity, water can form into floating blobs that drift freely. But this effect also gives water a strong surface tension, which helps it stick to surfaces and hold its shape. The liquid sticks to surfaces like glass because water molecules naturally cling to each other and whatever they touch. When the surface tension kicks in, it acts like an invisible skin that keeps the water in a neat, round shape. With no gravity to pull it down, tipping a glass won't make the water move. That's why astronauts use sealed pouches and straws to drink, instead of open containers. Water does not float out of glasses in space because of how its molecules behave in microgravity. The molecules in water are strongly attracted to each other and to the glass, which keeps the liquid clumped together and stuck to the inside of the cup. This effect, known as surface tension, means the water can sit still and appear as if it's behaving normally — even without gravity holding it down. In fact, astronauts often struggle to pour liquids in space. That is why they are usually seen drinking from squeezable pouches and using straws, not open containers. It can actually be very hard or even impossible to get water out of an open container in microgravity. The glass of water seen in the video was part of a lesson. The clip was taken from a broadcast called Tiangong Class, where Chinese astronauts perform science demos for schoolkids back on Earth. In this case, they were showing how buoyancy works differently in space, using water and a ping-pong ball to explain the science. Another video posted on Chinese site Weibo shows one astronaut carefully filling the same glass with a straw before carefully sticking it to the table with Velcro. One sharp-eyed viewer hit back at the theorists saying: 'It's not like you couldn't just spend five minutes researching this stuff.'
The Guardian
5 days ago
- The Guardian
The Genius Myth by Helen Lewis review
What makes a genius? Pushed to define it, we might say it's a combination of extraordinary talent and drive, often accompanied by a dash of eccentricity or madness. Ultimately, the designation is conferred by hype; it's essentially an offshoot of celebrity, which is why, as journalist Helen Lewis notes in her new book. 'A genius needs a story as well as achievements'. Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso all made pioneering breakthroughs in their respective fields while living unconventional lives that later became the stuff of legend. Lewis wants us to look at these figures in a more clear-eyed way, and see them as the selfish characters they often were. The lustre of genius, she observes, can provide cover for a multitude of sins: 'alcoholism, family abandonment, unfaithfulness, abuse, weirdness, failure to take responsibility'. Since others invariably have to pick up the slack, this amounts to a form of exploitation. Reflecting on Leo Tolstoy's treatment of his wife, Sophia Tolstaya, over the course of their 48-year marriage, Lewis concludes that the Russian novelist 'was a genius, and a parasite'. The concept of genius presupposes a hierarchy of innate talent, and this comes with baggage, because the science of intelligence testing belongs to the same intellectual tradition that brought us eugenics and so-called scientific racism. Lewis introduces us to some of its notable thinkers, beginning with the Victorian anthropologist Francis Galton, whose 1869 book Hereditary Genius proposed that 'greatness' ran in families, and including several of his 20th-century disciples, such as the British social psychologist Hans Eysenck and the US physicist William Shockley. Surveying the lives and works of these men, we notice certain recurring themes: iffy research, a tendency to overlook the importance of structural and material factors in determining success, and an enthusiasm for racial hierarchies. 'Something about the subject of intelligence has a warping effect on its most furious proponents,' writes Lewis, though it's probably the other way round – the subject seems to attract people who are neurotically fixated with dominance. For such individuals, the idea of genius functions as a self-validating affectation; it 'makes a fetish of contrarianism, and flatters the 'free thinker' or 'heterodox intellectual' into moving from scepticism to conspiracism'. For his admirers among today's online right, Elon Musk's gaucheness is only further proof of his smarts. The book's central message is that we should refrain from putting people on pedestals just because they happen to be talented. This is sensible, and Lewis's suggestion that we should apply the term 'genius' to specific works, rather than individual people, is persuasive. But the idea that large swathes of the reading public urgently need to be disabused of 'the genius myth' is questionable. In one of several sweeping assertions written in the first-person plural, Lewis declares: 'We love to contemplate lone rebels, indulge tortured artists and downplay the contributions of those around the genius to paint a more satisfying portrait of superhuman achievement.' Do we? There is an irritating circularity about such pronouncements, whereby the author projects on to the reader the very cliches that underlie her own analysis. The Genius Myth is one of those popular nonfiction books in which an author sells you the disease in order to sell you the cure. As is customary in this genre, it comes with its own bespoke jargon: Lewis has coined a term – 'the deficit model of genius' – to denote the prevalence of certain handicaps or character flaws among extremely talented scientists and artists. A banal truism is thus passed off as sociological insight. Lewis strives for the easy, conversational style of a Ted Talk, but her attempt at a pally register comes off stilted and ingratiating. The prose is remarkably heavy on italicisation, which lends a rather laboured feel to the exposition – at times, Lewis sounds as if she is trying to convince herself, quite as much as the reader, that something worthwhile is being imparted. A striking feature of this book is its tone of ambient philistinism, which comes through in a number of revealing asides. Reading Lewis's kooky capsule summary of James Joyce's contribution to English literature ('what-if novels, but harder to read'), her high-handed dismissal of 'self-conscious precocity and ambition' in film, and her unnecessarily conspiratorial admission that she found Peter Jackson's Beatles documentary, Get Back, 'quite boring', one can't help wondering if her misgivings about genius might be a bridge for certain personal hangups about rarefied art, and the people who make it. Lewis chides Eysenck for his 'airy, assured judgments', but she's not above emitting some wind of her own. Her contention that Picasso's womanising provided 'an aspirational ideal to lower-status men trapped in bourgeois domesticity and wage slavery', and that Donald Trump is therefore his 'analogue', is little more than a therapeutic rant. And Lewis surely overstates her point when she says that Picasso is 'revered' not in spite of his personal shortcomings, but literally 'because of them'. Again, her own viewpoint is projected outwards: since it's simply inconceivable that people could care that much about the artworks, anyone who admires Picasso must admire him primarily as a shagger, not a painter. Those credulous Musk fanboys notwithstanding, belief in innate genius – and the special prerogatives afforded to those thought to possess it – is probably less pronounced today than at any point since the 60s. We are increasingly familiar with the stories of brilliant artists who are, or were, terrible human beings, thanks to a slew of articles over recent years, as well as books such as Claire Dederer's Monsters. With The Genius Myth, Lewis clambers on to a bandwagon that was already starting to creak when, in 2023, the Brooklyn Museum in New York hosted a widely panned exhibition dedicated to interrogating Picasso's misogyny. At some point, it will grind to a halt. The Genius Myth: The Dangerous Allure of Rebels, Monsters and Rule-Breakers is published by Jonathan Cape (£22). To support the Guardian order your copy at Delivery charges may apply.
