Video game success may be in the mind

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.

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.

On January 26 2010 06:23 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Yes and hopefully the discovery that the brain helps with playing games will propel our understanding of grand theft auto 4

On January 26 2010 06:34 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
The study also tells us to have compassion for noobs - it's not their fault they suck, it's genetic.

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.

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.

On January 26 2010 06:55 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
oh my bad.

This thread just became FUCKING AMAZING.

GUYS.. the size of the brain had no correlation to how smart you are

On January 26 2010 06:55 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
oh my bad.

This thread just became FUCKING AMAZING.

GUYS.. the size of the brain had no correlation to how smart you are

On January 26 2010 07:01 hifriend wrote:

Well not necessarily. For instance they're mentioning that people with greater reward systems tend to succeed to a higher degree. We don't really know for certain in what way if any intelligence is linked to sizes of different portions of the brain. Although this study might indicate that (I don't know, I haven't read it.)

On January 26 2010 07:09 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Do you think the amount of money you have might correlate with how rich you are?

On January 26 2010 07:18 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Yep I am probably really dumb based on my posts in this thread.

On January 26 2010 06:55 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
oh my bad.

This thread just became FUCKING AMAZING.

GUYS.. the size of the brain had no correlation to how smart you are

On January 26 2010 07:23 Lovin wrote:


Nope, it doesn't.. In fact, different kinds of intelligence require a different kind of brain. Say for instance, the male brain is about.. I think 3 billion cells larger than the male one, but they still are mathematically more intelligent [citation needed] (I'm not assed to find that source)

On January 26 2010 07:24 {88}iNcontroL wrote:

the male brain is bigger than the male brain eh?

On January 26 2010 07:09 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Do you think the amount of money you have might correlate with how rich you are?

On January 26 2010 07:33 Koltz wrote:



Suppose many centuries ago someone decided to prove that the integer 3^200 > 2 ^ 100
Now people like you would say "LOL thats useless of course it's bigger... thanks for contributing (nothing) to society"

Now suppose that he has some overly complex proof, stuff that you do not understand, stuff you think is taking away from the immediately useful, and you complain loudly about this, since it is not (in your opinion) necessary.

So this mathematician invents modular arithmetic, and by reducing both 3^200 and 2^100 by some prime number he concludes 3^200 > 2^100. Later on, this technique can be used to compare other such numbers like 3^1876 and 2^1000 which are not as trivial as the previous example.

Now because of this encryption and decryption becomes more advanced, further advancing technology.

The point is, just because some research isn't immediately useful in your opinion, theres no point bashing stuff which people put hard work into. Get an education and maybe you'll understand.

On January 26 2010 07:37 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
comparing past discoveries that seem basic now to a "discovery" that being smart helps you play video games is terribad.

I don't need an explanation about seemingly insignificant discoveries of the past. lol

On January 26 2010 07:40 Koltz wrote:

Of course your conclusion of the premise of this research "being smart helps you play video games" is one that only someone with a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension would conclude.

On January 26 2010 07:55 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Except, the article mentions nothing about being "smart," itself a very vague categorization. It just says a particular part of the brain has been identified with video gaming skills - which with more study can be narrowed down to reflexes, decision making, etc. - very useful in the study of how we categorize what parts of the brains are responsible for what.

It is a step forward in allowing us to treat brain disorders that much more effectively, instead of blindly stabbing away and hoping that we hit the part of the brain that's responsible for a particular condition.

Tl;dr, it's useful, it doesn't even say what you think it's saying, stop being an asshole.

On January 26 2010 07:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Not finding a thread interesting and posting conclusions one receives from an OP is not "being an asshole"

Telling said person they are stupid to not view a thread the way they do and calling them names or asserting their reading comprehension is low IS being an asshole.

Hey guys, sorry that I didn't find portions of the brain being linked to video game adequacy interesting. Seems REALLY obvious that you use certain parts of the brain for video games and people with more activity in that portion would do better at video games.. how the hell is that really fascinating?

On January 26 2010 08:03 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
It is interesting to some, and if you don't care good for you, why even post incessant trolling one liners in the thread?

On January 26 2010 06:58 Gigaudas wrote:
iNcontroL using his popularity, influence and terrible wit to derail yet another thread?

Who will stand up for Undisputed, the little guy?

On January 26 2010 08:05 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Because those one-liners are in response to attacks against me. I didn't find it interesting, I posted as such. Someone took the time to refute what I said, so I did that in kind. Then people started to name call, so I responded in quip fashion.

I also have long drawn out posts explaining my thoughts. And they don't include theories about the other person's reading comprehension, their intelligence or anything of the sort..

But thanks for singling ME out as the problem lol

On January 26 2010 08:09 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Why bother even posting if you didn't find it interesting? And if you don't, why did you come back to the thread at all? Because you posted with the original intent of trolling and decided to check up on your little project?

On January 26 2010 07:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Not finding a thread interesting and posting conclusions one receives from an OP is not "being an asshole"

Telling said person they are stupid to not view a thread the way they do and calling them names or asserting their reading comprehension is low IS being an asshole.

Hey guys, sorry that I didn't find portions of the brain being linked to video game adequacy interesting. Seems REALLY obvious that you use certain parts of the brain for video games and people with more activity in that portion would do better at video games.. how the hell is that really fascinating?

On January 26 2010 08:11 opsayo wrote:

It's not so much finding that fact and actually locating the actual sectors of the brain.

But if you're all against scientific advancement, why are you using that computer?

On January 26 2010 08:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Why post on a forum at all? Do people need to find everything fascinating or agree with the OP? Nope. I posted, came back to check my post (oh btw, this is how forums function..) and saw I had replies. So I replied.. etc etc.

Do you post, then go away? Cause it wouldn't be me that has the strange habit then dude.

On January 26 2010 08:13 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Difference is you're doing it for something you say you find uninteresting, so were forced to conclude you posted with the intent of being a douche.

Also I guess we should all make a post in every thread stating our disinterest.

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.

On January 26 2010 08:25 hyst.eric.al wrote:
without handicaps, incontrol is unstoppable.

On January 26 2010 08:12 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


The conclusions people draw are astounding.. you think I am against ALL scientific advancements, and you deduct this from where?

People have the audacity to call me stupid yet I am having my reading comprehension assessed, my intelligence weighed and my body mocked because I deign to disagree with the fascination of an OP..

THis has been a great case study of some of the TL posting community haha

On January 26 2010 08:03 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
This isn't why people have natural talent to video games. It is a conglomeration of things. Surely you saw the pattern between intelligence and being good at video games right? Did you really need a thread about brain activity/size in certain parts to tell you that that could be linked to video game playing ability?

The brain doesn't have an area dedicated to video games guys, lol. It has a portion of the brain dedicated to skills/abilities that lend themselves towards playing video games. This was known. Having more mass there / activity would probably aid in the ability to play video games.. WOW!

On January 26 2010 06:55 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
oh my bad.

This thread just became FUCKING AMAZING.

GUYS.. the size of the brain had no correlation to how smart you are

On January 26 2010 08:12 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


The conclusions people draw are astounding.. you think I am against ALL scientific advancements, and you deduct this from where?

People have the audacity to call me stupid yet I am having my reading comprehension assessed, my intelligence weighed and my body mocked because I deign to disagree with the fascination of an OP..

THis has been a great case study of some of the TL posting community haha

On January 26 2010 08:28 Hypnosis wrote:


You do realize that this will be the next great breakthrough in science? Random conclusions drawn from absolute bullshit.

Oh wait that's physics LOL

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.

On January 26 2010 08:28 Hypnosis wrote:


You do realize that this will be the next great breakthrough in science? Random conclusions drawn from absolute bullshit.

Oh wait that's physics LOL

On January 26 2010 09:06 starfries wrote:
... it's really bizarre that this thread is the one being trolled.

On January 26 2010 08:28 Hypnosis wrote:
You do realize that this will be the next great breakthrough in science? Random conclusions drawn from absolute bullshit.

Oh wait that's physics LOL

On January 26 2010 09:04 bburn wrote:
"10 men, 29 women - who had spent less than three hours each week playing video games in the previous two years"

This seems like a pretty small sample size to be drawing conclusions from. I also believe the article is misrepresenting the science.

"But those players who ultimately performed best on the game in which priorities changed had larger sections deep in the centre of the brain, known as the caudate and putamen...This makes sense, because these areas have been linked to learning procedures and new skills, as well as adapting to changing environments."

So essentially this is not any new information they just used a different medium (video games) than they have in the past for these type of experiments.

On January 26 2010 09:30 V6 wrote:
sulky incontroll bashing thread
people frustrated
people bashing incontroll
incontroll bashing people
nerd rage
me entertained
incontroll gets banned

On January 26 2010 09:38 CultureMisfits wrote:
I think incontrol has proved why is better at bw than most of you here.

On January 26 2010 07:09 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Do you think the amount of money you have might correlate with how rich you are?

On January 26 2010 06:26 Koltz wrote:


"Yes and hopefully the discovery that you can add each individual segmented area under a curve to get the (shocking) entire area of the curve will propel our understanding of Calculus"

It's just that easy...

On January 26 2010 08:12 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


The conclusions people draw are astounding.. you think I am against ALL scientific advancements, and you deduct this from where?

People have the audacity to call me stupid yet I am having my reading comprehension assessed, my intelligence weighed and my body mocked because I deign to disagree with the fascination of an OP..

THis has been a great case study of some of the TL posting community haha

On January 26 2010 16:26 OpticalShot wrote:
woa, why is incontrol banned -_-;;
i was thinking it's just fun e-drama, maybe turning too sarcastic and personal for the moderators' taste.

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.

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.

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.

On January 27 2010 03:56 Klockan3 wrote:
Please, read this again:

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 27 2010 06:57 m1LkmaN wrote:

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 06:36 Mora wrote:


gonna have to voice otherwise.

Inc was much more entertaining than the content of the OP.

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.

On January 27 2010 07:23 Lovin wrote:


However, not the most educative/informative five minutes of my life, I spent on reading and replying to him.

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.