|
Please, read this again:
On January 26 2010 06:14 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I also read an article that said if you the ability to run fast you might do well in track.
I think the main reason none found it funny is because it have nothing to do with the OP. If he had said something like "I also read an article that said if you have large leg muscles you might do well in track" it would be another story, but as it was he was just being stupid. And about that, having large leg muscles do not correlate that well with being good in track, same as having a large brain do not correlate that well with being smart.
On January 26 2010 23:43 Etherone wrote:
their conclusion? that people who learn faster, and adapt quickly ( i e the more intelligent people) did better.
No, their conclusion was that people who had more of certain parts of the brain which they believe to be associated with those traits seemed to do better in the games. It is not the same thing. Also 39 is not a small amount of people for mainstream research, if you want to prove something controversial you will need thousands to get people to believe you but for something like this 39 is certainly enough.
as you said you could obviously have told this to the researchers before they even begun, so why even use a single person?
|
'hurrr lets dumb everything i dont understand down to some retarded strawman argument'
Mind boggling stupidity from Incontrol here. If you can't comprehend how and why the scientific knowledge that can be gained from these results are significant you probably shouldn't voice your uneducated opinion on it.
|
Baa?21245 Posts
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/bhp293v1
That is the full research article. You'll note that it goes much more in-depth and you can easily how parts of it might be significant. It goes into more detail on what parts of the brain were associated with what. No, it's not totally revolutionary, but it's still interesting and can potentially be practically applied, and it's not like anyone's pushing this for receiving a Nobel prize, now is it? Not every scientific discovery needs to be groundbreaking; more often than not progress is made through numerous small contributions.
|
On January 27 2010 04:39 Frits wrote:
'hurrr lets dumb everything i dont understand down to some retarded strawman argument'
Mind boggling stupidity from Incontrol here. If you can't comprehend how and why the scientific knowledge that can be gained from these results are significant you probably shouldn't voice your uneducated opinion on it.
gonna have to voice otherwise.
Inc was much more entertaining than the content of the OP.
|
|
|
On January 27 2010 03:56 Klockan3 wrote:Please, read this again: Show nested quote +On January 26 2010 06:14 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I also read an article that said if you the ability to run fast you might do well in track. I think the main reason none found it funny is because it have nothing to do with the OP. If he had said something like "I also read an article that said if you have large leg muscles you might do well in track" it would be another story, but as it was he was just being stupid. And about that, having large leg muscles do not correlate that well with being good in track, same as having a large brain do not correlate that well with being smart.
Incontrol is merely pointing out that this whole study is obvious. Honestly, who hasn't realised that bigger or more active parts of the brain is related to skills useful for computer games? Plus, the study was barely done in a way to be thoroughly conclusive, so I mean put the two together and the article isn't worth reposting on TL. He's making stupidly obvious statements to further this point, and yes, large muscles does correlate with doing well in track, much moreso than the size of parts of the brain to success in videogames.
|
On January 27 2010 06:57 m1LkmaN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2010 03:56 Klockan3 wrote:Please, read this again: On January 26 2010 06:14 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I also read an article that said if you the ability to run fast you might do well in track. I think the main reason none found it funny is because it have nothing to do with the OP. If he had said something like "I also read an article that said if you have large leg muscles you might do well in track" it would be another story, but as it was he was just being stupid. And about that, having large leg muscles do not correlate that well with being good in track, same as having a large brain do not correlate that well with being smart. Incontrol is merely pointing out that this whole study is obvious. Honestly, who hasn't realised that bigger or more active parts of the brain is related to skills useful for computer games? Plus, the study was barely done in a way to be thoroughly conclusive, so I mean put the two together and the article isn't worth reposting on TL. He's making stupidly obvious statements to further this point, and yes, large muscles does correlate with doing well in track, much moreso than the size of parts of the brain to success in videogames.
Lots of things about the brain that 'common sense' would indicate are obvious are simply false. Brain size doesn't correlate with intelligence within species for example. While this study probably isn't revolutionary, it adds another small piece of the puzzle to the whole and that's how scientific research works. No study on its own is going to be thoroughly conclusive, especially not one on such a complex matter as brain mechanisms. I thought the results of the study were pretty interesting and worth posting, especially since it was on gaming and that's what this website is all about.
|
plus inc was just being a complete douche
|
Some of you may be interested in reading "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould. It goes into great detail about the ways in which worth, intelligence and other traits have been measured over the years. In particular, it talks about the myth of bigger brains = more intelligent.
Well worth reading.
|
On January 27 2010 06:36 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2010 04:39 Frits wrote:
'hurrr lets dumb everything i dont understand down to some retarded strawman argument'
Mind boggling stupidity from Incontrol here. If you can't comprehend how and why the scientific knowledge that can be gained from these results are significant you probably shouldn't voice your uneducated opinion on it. gonna have to voice otherwise. Inc was much more entertaining than the content of the OP.
However, not the most educative/informative five minutes of my life, I spent on reading and replying to him.
|
On January 26 2010 06:14 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Interesting.. so you are saying there is a link between how smart you are and how good you'd be at video games?
Well fuck me sideways.. that is a tremendous breakthrough. I also read an article that said if you the ability to run fast you might do well in track.
Yeah, these things may seem obvious when looking back, but the results are not certain until the research is done. Hindsight bias is a horrible evaluation of research.
|
On January 27 2010 07:23 Lovin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2010 06:36 Mora wrote:On January 27 2010 04:39 Frits wrote:
'hurrr lets dumb everything i dont understand down to some retarded strawman argument'
Mind boggling stupidity from Incontrol here. If you can't comprehend how and why the scientific knowledge that can be gained from these results are significant you probably shouldn't voice your uneducated opinion on it. gonna have to voice otherwise. Inc was much more entertaining than the content of the OP. However, not the most educative/informative five minutes of my life, I spent on reading and replying to him.
It was your choice to waste your time uselessly.
After all, this is not some scientific research forum, its TL, and inc will troll your favorite threads into oblivion!
Besides, the topic title was dealt terrible terrible damage to the topics subject.
|
funny article
but i think we can all agree starcraft is easily one of the more demanding games out there, if not -the- most demanding game.
|
On January 27 2010 03:23 Zack1900 wrote:
I wonder if in the future their will be special video games designed to stimulate intelligence and non-violent behavior.
that would be an epically dull game!
|
But if your 3 and playing that game it might be awesome. They did say that juvenile delinquents were to old to help so it's to late for all of us anyway.
|
This article is pretty interesting. It doesn't merely say "bigger brain means smart means better gamer" as incontrol kept spouting (thank god he got banned). It looked at sizes of different PARTS of the brain and concluded that only the size of the striatum was correlated.
So basically they've isolated the video game section of the brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
