EPTThere is supposed to be a very large difference in reaction speed to auditory or visual stimulus. Something like 50-100ms I think.
Yeah, audio is a lot faster than visual (maybe 50ms, haven't seen research in a while)
http://cognitivefun.net/test/16
Is it really true that CS GO is mostly talent? - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20326 Posts
Yeah, audio is a lot faster than visual (maybe 50ms, haven't seen research in a while) http://cognitivefun.net/test/16 | ||
|
beg
991 Posts
Played 6 years of CS and became kinda good, high amateur level, but quit playing. Many years laters, CSGO got released and I started playing again. My skills still carried me to global elite easily! So, no. It's not talent. But to become a real pro... I don't know. Maybe it can be done. I just never was that good. Global elite is possible though! | ||
|
Laserist
Turkey4269 Posts
| ||
|
Faruko
Chile34173 Posts
but what is talent without propper hard work ? talent wont give you all those small details like map awareness for example. Michael Phelps trains twice a day every day bar sunday, Bolt goes to the gym 2 times a day for 90 minutes workout and thats without the normal run in the morning, again six days a week | ||
|
paxconsciente
Belgium91 Posts
On June 20 2017 02:41 ldv wrote: as with all things, talent is a baseless myth, and deliberate, high efficiency, professional practice is the right way to improve at anything. Talent isn't a myth but otherwise yea, you're right | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
one of the world's best supports in dota will say that although he's not very good at microing his hero, he's still just damn good at strategising and managing his team or, by contrast, one of the world's best cores will just blow your mind when you realise just how much mental focus and precision he has at controlling his hero personally i think 'talent' is very relevant. the chance of someone who is not particularly talented at something becoming very good at that thing over the space of 5, 10 or 20 years is going to be many-fold smaller than that of a person who is naturally good at things. yes, you can easily say it's possible for someone who is not talented to compete on the level of someone who is, and it's very easy to say 'they only have a 5 year head start', but how many people go on to be successful at something that they are on average 5 years worse than other people at doing at baseline? i ate an entire milkybar whilst writing this, that's how many people | ||
|
-Switch-
Canada506 Posts
| ||
|
Essbee
Canada2371 Posts
| ||
|
Kadungon
41 Posts
Yet some other people can come from seemingly nothing, and beat people with much more practice and experience. There are small children that somehow understand how to play chess decently, and they easily beat their peers or weak players. And they may also progress quickly. Other people have to struggle hard, read books, study games, do tactical exercises to get some improvement. https://sportsscientists.com/2012/03/10000-hours-vs-training-debate/ | ||
|
KrOjah
United Kingdom68 Posts
| ||
|
BaronSamedi
United States3 Posts
| ||
|
alpenrahm
Germany629 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11798 Posts
Skill Talent Reflexes Are all completely different things. Skill is the most obvious and also the least interesting. Skill just means "How good you are at the game". And as a tautology, if you have more skill (are better at the game) you are better at the game (win more). What exactly skill entails is usually very hard to describe exactly beyond "Whatever allows you to win more" Decisionmaking can be in there, and fast correct reactions to stuff. In a game like CS, Aim is probably also involved in skill. And coordinating with your team. In some games, like for example soloqueue in any multiplayer team game, skill can sometimes mostly consist of doing stuff that stops your team from turning toxic, and be mostly unrelated to the game itself. Skill is hard to pin down, and it is not defined where it comes from either. Talent on the other hand is some innate ability that some people have and others don't, which is especially not something that can be trained. While training can increase your performance, and thus your skill, it can by definition not increase your "talent". Once again it might be hard to clearly figure out what that talent exactly is. Reflexes on the other hand are usually a subset of skill, and often partially based in talent and partially based in training. Reflexes involve two parts. How quick you react to stimuli, and how correct that response is. Both of those can be just some innate ability which you have, but they can also be trained. More experience can lead to your brain reading a situation quicker and more correctly, leading to a quicker and more correct reaction to it. The main discussion here is about whether in CS-GO, your skill consists mostly of talent, or mostly of training. Or, to put it another way, what is more important? Your innate baseline abilities which you somehow have due to genetics or upbringing or whatever, or the concentrated training efforts you put into the game. Obviously both are relevant in some way, and most people would probably prefer it if training was the more important part. Because this leads to a much more satisfying narrative. If training is the most important thing, the people at the top are there because they worked harder and more efficiently than the others, and anyone has a chance to get there. If talent is more important, then the people at the top are there because they won the genetic lottery. As a comparison from another sport, in basketball your success is highly dependent on how large you are. Training is obviously necessary, but if you are 1.70m high, no matter how much you train, you will never be a top basketball player. On the other hand, if you are larger than 7 feet in the US, you have a high chance of playing in the NBA. So basketball is a sport which is based in talent (being very large) rather than training. | ||
|
willdiam
1 Post
| ||
|
alexstrem
Canada1 Post
| ||
|
xsnac
Barbados1365 Posts
| ||
|
Maddysonn
Australia2 Posts
| ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
On September 26 2021 02:04 xsnac wrote: nah, I dont understand tallent and I believe there is no such thing. given a sample of players sure some will improve faster in the first 100 hours than others. but given a sample where everyone played 10.000 hours, they will all be quite the same. i would say that if you took a random off the street and gave them a game to play for 10,000 hours, the chances that they become as good as a pro is slim. | ||
|
ZoeHansen
United States5 Posts
| ||
| ||
