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).
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.
You seem to be obsessed with qualifying evolution & finding racists. Nobody here has brought this up but you (twice). OP was talking about language, which is a function of culture. Not genetic bigotry.
I don't think Korean dominance in StarCraft is a function of any sort of genetic superiority. I do, however, entertain notions that there may be some cultural advantage at play. Whether it's the social acceptability of video games, or a difference in structure or function of the mind's passive processing or recall abilities (due to either language/thought pattern differentials, as discussed, or something deeper) is up for debate. Clearly the community finds the topic fascinating, as there is endless discussion.
On November 20 2013 18:33 Stratos wrote: 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).
Yeah this probably has more to do with the reason than anything else. This seems like mostly an east/west problem; one culture group prioritizes concepts or fundamentals that another disregards, so they have a one-or-two-syllable term to describe something that requires an entire sentence from the other. And vice-versa (which is why you sometimes see random English interspersed with foreign text, it's easier to adopt the English term & explain the meaning than repeatedly describe it in their native language).
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.
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.
Looks like somatic marker theory in practice. Every normal human being is capable of that kind of intuition (even a bad chess player would "feel" bad when confronted with the possibility of sacrificing a queen for nothing). It's just that when one practices something a lot, more and more patterns get learned and evaluated so it's easier for intuition to pick one up. And probably kids are much more effective at learning such patterns than adults and adolescents.
I don't think SC in English, I think it in the language of StarCraft. I only translate the language of StarCraft to English because it is too gosu for most noobs like yourself to understand.
You could also take ye old Artosis point of view (from 2007), in which he decides Koreans are not as smart as foreigners, but they are more dedicated to practicing standard builds that give them an edge in that they don't have to think about what they're going to do they just do it. Although I don't necessarily agree with 2007-Artosis on that. [to be fair before someone thinks I'm calling Artosis racist, I mean that's what he said they prioritized compared to the top BW foreigners at the time]
I don't know about Korean, but in Japanese the subject of the sentence is dropped if they think the context is obvious (even in formal language). We do the same thing sometimes in very casual English, it just isn't very natural to read. You could make English as efficient if you wanted to -- could make english as efficient if wanted. Certainly we don't, but the meaning in your brain gets encoded the same way. You don't remember word for word what someone said, you remember the general idea of what someone said and then you reconstruct it in a logical way if someone asks you to. At least, that's what I'd guess. I'm no neuro-scientist and I doubt even neuro-scientists would know for sure.
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).
Its the Asian language in general.
Asian language represents a word with the least amount of "syllables" as possible. Similar sound words have completely different meaning if it is followed by/follows a completely different "characters". Like in Chinese, there is a word of "Dian Hua" which means "Telephone", a simple two sounds/syllables representing 3 syllable one. So essentially Asian languages are 50% more efficient than English and thus 50% "faster".
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).
Its the Asian language in general.
Asian language represents a word with the least amount of "syllables" as possible. Similar sound words have completely different meaning if it is followed by/follows a completely different "characters". Like in Chinese, there is a word of "Dian Hua" which means "Telephone", a simple two sounds/syllables representing 3 syllable one. So essentially Asian languages are 50% more efficient than English and thus 50% "faster".
Yeah I can see how that works considering a lot of Korean words is based on hanja. 50% seems like a pretty random number though, I assume that's just your estimation?
On November 21 2013 08:57 gg_hertzz wrote: This is just an excuse to not work hard.
And if the speed of the language is the key then India must be the land of sleeping progaming giants?
Language probably don't have anything to due with gaming.
Case in point, Alliance in DotA2 is wreaking all the Chinese teams. I would say that its mostly about ethnics and infrastructure. But to hone that infrastructure, you need to have guys to build it and that's risks and dedication. And I'm afraid that North Americans don't rely on "getting good" to make a living. I would say that almost 100% of SC2 fans are foreigners and foreigners supports their country's heroes by watching them stream which is how the "professional gamers" earns their money and streamers' popularity is based upon their personality and less about their gameplay. So most of the foreign "professional gamers" don't have to aspire to be the "very best".
I would rather hang out with a foreign player
But I would rather look at Koreans as a role model.
On November 20 2013 19:21 mizU wrote: its the kimchi, guys obviously the kimchi
Haha, you may be more right than you know. Kimchi is actually one of the healthiest things u can eat, as it it promotes robust gut bacteria, which is a factor in such things as mood, energy, focus, etc.
When people say 'it's cultural', that actually means a heck of a lot of things; and yes, food and language are some of them
On November 20 2013 08:07 N.geNuity wrote: it's because they had a bunch of 15-18 year olds who essentially dropped out of high school to play for 10 hours a day
It's really something more like this. Lots of players are going to school or working because they don't have a team house to live in and feed them while they play. However EG and root really should be a lot better then they are because they have a team house and things, by that logic. But seriously how many parents in the US would let you drop out of school to play video games, I hope zero.
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).
Its the Asian language in general.
Asian language represents a word with the least amount of "syllables" as possible. Similar sound words have completely different meaning if it is followed by/follows a completely different "characters". Like in Chinese, there is a word of "Dian Hua" which means "Telephone", a simple two sounds/syllables representing 3 syllable one. So essentially Asian languages are 50% more efficient than English and thus 50% "faster".
What the fuck are you talking about? There's no such thing as "the Asian language," and having the least amount of syllables is by no means a common feature to all Asian languages. It's not even the case for Korean and Japanese, which as a matter of fact are capable of having words with absurdly high numbers of syllables (consider the Korean word for "hello" or "or" or "stapler"). Moreover, a language with high information density (i.e. having less syllables per information conveyed) is generally spoken more slowly. The reason Japanese and Korean are spoken quickly (which, indeed, they are) is because their syllables give you relatively little information. It takes less time to process a low-information Korean syllable, so Korean can be spoken more quickly without being too cognitively taxing. Mandarin, the language you cited, is more or less equivalent to English in these areas.
EPT
