I was reading wikipedia article on working memory and there was some interesting info.
Working memory is the system that actively holds multiple pieces of transitory information in the mind, where they can be manipulated. Working memory is generally used synonymously with short term memory, depending on how these two forms of memory are defined. ... Capacity Working memory is generally considered to have limited capacity. The earliest quantification of the capacity limit associated with short-term memory was the "magical number seven" suggested by Miller in 1956. He noticed that the memory span of young adults was around seven elements, called chunks, regardless whether the elements were digits, letters, words, or other units. Later research revealed that span does depend on the category of chunks used (e.g., span is around seven for digits, around six for letters, and around five for words), and even on features of the chunks within a category. For instance, span is lower for long words than for short words. In general, memory span for verbal contents (digits, letters, words, etc.) strongly depends on the time it takes to speak the contents aloud, and on the lexical status of the contents (i.e., whether the contents are words known to the person or not). Several other factors also affect a person's measured span, and therefore it is difficult to pin down the capacity of short-term or working memory to a number of chunks.
I remembered watching some Korean interview with English subtitles and I could barely catch up, something that very rarely happens when somebody is speaking European languages with English subtitles. Clearly Korean speach is faster from a linguistic point of view. In the same article there is also this:
Measures of working-memory capacity are strongly related to performance in other complex cognitive tasks such as reading comprehension, problem solving, and with any measures of the intelligence quotient
So I remembered that SK is really high compared to other nations on IQ tests.
So is this it? Faster language allows for larger effective working memory and faster internal dialogue (and cognition as a result)?
It can be argued that at high level of expertise at the task the cognition takes form not in words but in images, and that it's irrelevant what language one speaks. On the other hand starcraft game is a complex one and can't be reduced to only automatic actions (like tetris for example), you still need to actually think. This also explains why foreigners are prone to choking more when they get thrown off their game, because in the instances of troubleshooting they would be disadvantaged compared to Koreans.
Then Japanese people would be just as good at starcraft, since both languages share about 70%+ of their grammatic. Now they aren`t, but they are also damn smart. The corrolation between IQ and spoken Language might has some potential, throwing SC in it however is useless - it is a cultural thing.
On November 20 2013 08:00 Cheerio wrote: I remembered watching some Korean interview with English subtitles and I could barely catch up, something that very rarely happens when somebody is speaking European languages with English subtitles. Clearly Korean speach is faster from a linguistic point of view.
Watching one subtitled interview is clearly a good basis for your theory...
The simplest explanation is often the best explanation. Koreans are better at Starcraft because they play more Starcraft. Q.E.D.
On November 20 2013 08:00 Cheerio wrote: So I remembered that SK is really high compared to other nations on IQ tests.
I am not sure it is indicative of anything. South Korea is also a nation where private tutoring to prepare for IQ tests exists. Among upper class children, that sort of ridiculous cart-before-the-horse extracurricular activity is not uncommon.
next time anyone tries this line of reasoning again, think about how patently ridiculous the following statement is:
"clearly koreans have undergone extensive genetic selection and linguistic construction over at least the past 200 years to be superior at playing a video game that had its origin in 1998."
it isnt anything inherent in their genetics or even in their linguistics; it is a function of how much they are able to play the game.
On November 20 2013 10:23 itsjustatank wrote: next time anyone tries this line of reasoning again, think about how patently ridiculous the following statement is:
"clearly koreans have undergone extensive genetic selection and linguistic construction over at least the past 200 years to be superior at playing a video game that had its origin in 1998."
it isnt anything inherent in their genetics or even in their linguistics; it is a function of how much they are able to play the game.
Not saying I prescribe with the theory. But, cultural influence in highly valuing education and intelligence goes far beyond 200 years of history. Selective breeding of intelligience through culture is not an unlikely theory.
It's all about the environment. Children's brain is so powerful, just look how kids can pick up languages. Now Korean kids were watching BW on TV instead of cartoons. They had not even started to play the game yet, but had seen hundreds of hours of players microing, scouting, making decisions, seeing expansion timings, etc. They were just so much steeped in BW. When I was their age, all I did for months was to play vs CPUs, turtle on one base and built 20 Carriers/BCs...
On top of that, take in account the percentage of the population playing the game, when you have such a large crop, the top is obviously very creamy (could be proved wrong easily based on the relative failure of SC2 in Korea while Korean still dominate... but we're talking about BW right?)
And of course, once BW was established well, pro-game teams with their sick training schedule and coaching staff sealed the deal.
On November 20 2013 10:23 itsjustatank wrote: next time anyone tries this line of reasoning again, think about how patently ridiculous the following statement is:
"clearly koreans have undergone extensive genetic selection and linguistic construction over at least the past 200 years to be superior at playing a video game that had its origin in 1998."
it isnt anything inherent in their genetics or even in their linguistics; it is a function of how much they are able to play the game.
I would respond that "clearly you have no idea that random chance is precisely the mechanism through which natural selection acts." Any leap in human ability due to natural predisposition to the new task inherently functions much as you described in your "patently ridiculous" statement.
When humans began using spears for hunting, for example. Some hunters were more effective than others with this new technology. Some were possessed of better eyesight, coordination or strength. It's not that certain humans evolved specifically to huck spears, it's just another manifestation of natural selection for a certain emerging trait valuable to the population.
Semi On-Topic:
Something else came to mind reading this stall-wall thesis - probably due to watching Susan Polgar commentate the World Chess Championship over the past week. I remember a NatGeo documentary about the Polgar sisters from years ago, concerning their father's notion that some genius can be taught, that training & repetition during childhood developmental stages (when the brain is still growing & learning its' priorities) teaches the brain how to perform a task more efficiently.
This theory has since been demonstrated - children who begin training in early childhood developing a "chess vocabulary" in parallel with their language vocabulary. Meaning the instantaneous image-to-action conversion process that you mention regarding language is seconded for chess positions, rewiring the language centers of the brain for this additional purpose. Laboratory imaging results show activity in the speech & language centers whenever one of these properly conditioned players thinks about chess.
What for most people is considered "chess intuition", maybe having a feeling for what the optimal move is in a given position, in some of these individuals becomes instant subconscious evaluation. In the same way that some rare mathematical prodigies can manipulate vast numbers in their minds seemingly without conscious thought, and have the answer simply appear in their mind, so too can these players evaluate complex positions subconsciously in the "chess node" that their brain has repurposed for this task.
I'm certain something like this happens with video gamers who start young & play intensely as well. In some kids it's not really that noticeable or remarkable: maybe when solving certain types of problems, perhaps better intuition when leading a target in shooting sports due to FPS games - who knows. But in some cases, you get a good natural candidate in the right training system & that's when the magic happens .
Slightly More On-Topic:
I guess it's possible that a more efficient language grammar/syntax structure kind of 'saves compute cycles' in Koreans, translating (seewatididthar) into efficiency of play. However, this would only be an advantage over a non-Korean if both are speaking and playing uniformly & continuously, at the same time.
As others have replied, I think it's more to do a greater population of malleable minds training to become a StarCraft-playing machine. It is interesting, however, that you hit on what I believe to be the mechanic behind the ability of the human brain to do so.
On November 20 2013 10:23 itsjustatank wrote: next time anyone tries this line of reasoning again, think about how patently ridiculous the following statement is:
"clearly koreans have undergone extensive genetic selection and linguistic construction over at least the past 200 years to be superior at playing a video game that had its origin in 1998."
it isnt anything inherent in their genetics or even in their linguistics; it is a function of how much they are able to play the game.
I would respond that "clearly you have no idea that random chance is precisely the mechanism through which natural selection acts." Any leap in human ability due to natural predisposition to the new task inherently functions much as you described in your "patently ridiculous" statement.
When humans began using spears for hunting, for example. Some hunters were more effective than others with this new technology. Some were possessed of better eyesight, coordination or strength. It's not that certain humans evolved specifically to huck spears, it's just another manifestation of natural selection for a certain emerging trait valuable to the population.
I am making a distinction between the advances all human beings have made over the long course of history, which may or may not be applicable to how all of us can approach this new thing called 'video games,' and the dangerously racist implication that groups of people are genetically superior to others as if they are part of a different species.
On November 20 2013 13:06 Hilltop_Razorback wrote:
On November 20 2013 10:23 itsjustatank wrote: next time anyone tries this line of reasoning again, think about how patently ridiculous the following statement is:
"clearly koreans have undergone extensive genetic selection and linguistic construction over at least the past 200 years to be superior at playing a video game that had its origin in 1998."
it isnt anything inherent in their genetics or even in their linguistics; it is a function of how much they are able to play the game.
I would respond that "clearly you have no idea that random chance is precisely the mechanism through which natural selection acts." Any leap in human ability due to natural predisposition to the new task inherently functions much as you described in your "patently ridiculous" statement.
When humans began using spears for hunting, for example. Some hunters were more effective than others with this new technology. Some were possessed of better eyesight, coordination or strength. It's not that certain humans evolved specifically to huck spears, it's just another manifestation of natural selection for a certain emerging trait valuable to the population.
I am making a distinction between the advances all human beings have made over the long course of history, which may or may not be applicable to how all of us can approach this new thing called 'video games,' and the dangerously racist implication that groups of people are genetically superior to others as if they are part of a different species.
notice how all the winners of marathons are black? it's not racist, just some races are more predisposed to certain things, whether that is a cause because of cultural influence or genetic, (possibly both) is up for debate.
On November 20 2013 10:23 itsjustatank wrote: next time anyone tries this line of reasoning again, think about how patently ridiculous the following statement is:
"clearly koreans have undergone extensive genetic selection and linguistic construction over at least the past 200 years to be superior at playing a video game that had its origin in 1998."
it isnt anything inherent in their genetics or even in their linguistics; it is a function of how much they are able to play the game.
On November 20 2013 08:00 Cheerio wrote: I remembered watching some Korean interview with English subtitles and I could barely catch up, something that very rarely happens when somebody is speaking European languages with English subtitles. Clearly Korean speach is faster from a linguistic point of view.
Just out of curiousity, is this in any way a real fact or did you just randomly made it up? Because in my experience (as someone who knows korean) the problem with english subtitles is that Korean often features short structures that are difficult to translate into English (hence a lot more text).
EPT
