|
This is like players in bronze league with a few thousand games already... I'm sure they're trying hard. But this will never make them "good" players. Like taking a look at top master league players. They will have a huuuuge spread in games played - however their ranks will be fairly equal (and yeah, I know like ½ their games are customs - but you got my point, right?).
I don't want to call it a biological/genetic advantage. But I will call it natural talent!
|
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
Truly hard work and brilliant analytical play are TALENT and SITUATION based. Just saying that since I have both the time and the internet access to be a better gamer does not mean everyone else can. Just because every idiot under 35 believe they could run away to a buddhist temple and become a martial arts master doesn't mean they can. In fact they couldn't and in the IMMENSELY tiny circumstance that they do, it was merely because they were gifted to begin with.
True, almost anyone can hit the 98th percentile, but to someone standing on the 99.8th percentile the 98th percentile seems like trash beyond comprehension. The Ubergamer is someone with the hard work AND the brilliance AND the compatible situation. Not everyone can be Boxer of 2002, but everyone can be... well... Hyuk of 2008. And that's actually pretty damn good.
|
This topic is far too complicated to reduce down to talent vs hard work in it's simpliest forms.
For example, nobody has even mentioned the way the brain develops and the result of learning there in. It is much easier to learn new skills when you are younger, and every activity a young person is engaged in is developing their mental and physical capacity. In relation to SC2, most people are starting to play when their brains are for the most part fully developed. However the different experiences of similar activites such as hand-eye co-ordination exercises, would obviously have an influence over their relative skill capacities.
Then there is the QUALITY of learning. Some practice is better than others. Also, external factors might hinder your development, such as if you are distracted by social pressures.
It's hard to argue against genetic predisposition in really any scenario, however external influence is acting upon the brain and body from the moment you are born, and it can radically change the nature of who you are.
So, just because the amount of practice someone puts in is not directly proportional to their skill level, does NOT mean that they were instead born with insane abilities.
|
On March 10 2011 18:48 Axeinst wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 18:32 Supamang wrote:On March 10 2011 17:17 TheBlueMeaner wrote:
Hey Axeinst what rank are you on the ladder? His rank is "as good as IMMVP if I tried as hard as him", just like the rest of us... Axeinst, the burden of proof lies with whoever takes the position against the general state of things. There is no hard evidence for God existing and having an impact in our lives, so therefore the burden of proof lies with the Christians. Currently, there ARE pros who excel far above other pros who also practice ridiculously hard. This may not be your desired proof, but it is evidence and the general state of the world. There is no evidence and there are no cases showing that anyone and everyone could be as good as the super stars if they just tried as hard. Tell me again, why does the burden of proof lie with us when it is your side that is going against the status quo? Because it only proves, that there is only few people as good as those top pros. It doesnt prove genetic gift. Scientifically, it doesnt prove that they have genetic gift that others do not posses. You can assume as much as you can, but it does not prove anything. Btw, alot of people believe god exist. You are so wrong about that if enough people believes in something it will make it valid argument. There is false argumentation called "Argumentum ad populum". Your argumentation just relies in popular opinion. Please, stop using logical fallacies in argumentation.
AGAIN, NO.
Jesus christ, im not sure if youre intentionally "misreading" my posts just so you can continually repeat your "I NEED PROOF" arguments. My argument is, the current state of the world shows people excelling above others despite comparable training time. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS PROOF. I am saying that neither, let me repeat, NEITHER of us has absolute proof to defend our positions. However, since there are, and always have been, people who rise up as stars among other exceptional people, my position is better supported as it is now. THEREFORE, the burden of proof lies with you.
If you want to talk about logical fallacies, you saying that "I am so wrong about that if enough people believe in something it will make it valid argument" is a strawman. That is a weaker and more incorrect position than the one I am holding, and you put it up to shut it down to make yourself seem right.
|
You just dont get it.
I am done with you, learn to make arguments.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On March 10 2011 20:49 Axeinst wrote:
You just dont get it.
I am done with you, learn to make arguments.
Learn to address them instead of walking away with your nose in the air.
Anyone here can see that I made completely legitimate arguments, you just ignored them. You can go ahead and believe that fairy tale of "anyone can become anything they ever want to be," but you can't demand us to show you proof when we say "no you can't." It is your job to prove us wrong, not the other way around.
|
On March 10 2011 21:22 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 20:49 Axeinst wrote:
You just dont get it.
I am done with you, learn to make arguments. Learn to address them instead of walking away with your nose in the air. Anyone here can see that I made completely legitimate arguments, you just ignored them. You can go ahead and believe that fairy tale of "anyone can become anything they ever want to be," but you can't demand us to show you proof when we say "no you can't." It is your job to prove us wrong, not the other way around.
Not everyone can become anything they want, because there is people with mental retardness or physical disabilities.
|
this guy is bronzie for sure, he won't accept the reality that he might never make it pro in sc2... really sad imo, why can't we play sc2 for fun?
|
On March 10 2011 02:26 ElPeque.fogata wrote:
We are not equal.
We are not equal in terms of either intelligence or dexterity.
And i'm not talking about disabled people. I'm not disabled, i do pretty good at football (soccer), yet i will never be a Messi (not even Missi with his legs cut below the knee).
And i'm not mentally disabled either, i actually consider myself above average, yet would never accomplish half of what let's say, Albert Einstein could have accomplished while being in coma.
And intelligence is not a linear magnitude, it is multidimensional. It is time and spacial sensitive. It's the ability to both abstract and generalize scenarios. Its knowing how to extrapolate and predict using only partial information. It's skill at the time of assigning a value to a situation compared to other. It's the ability to empathise with the opponent, which happens to be another human, and thus be able to use such information as an advantage, as a deceit, or psychological warfare. It's being able to do all this things in speed. It's being able to have many ideas in mind at the same time. It's about being organized.
This kind of stuff is in part genetic and in part learned. And we are not equal in either of them. What you have been doing, and what your surrounds were will make you develop some skills better than others, always limited by genetic factors.
And the stage in life in which you approached them also makes a dent. It is easier to learn some things when you are young than as you grow older.
So the only truth about success in whatever, is that you will get better with practice. Comparison with other people other than playing some matches is meaningless.
If talking about "chance", you can be pretty sure you are not going anywhere near GSL. It is just statistics.
The same way there is "disabled" people, there are "super-able" people. And if we as a society are reluctant to see it and try to shield our thought-to-be damaged dignity by being "politically correct" and hug the "Little engine that could" tale without really trying as an excuse for sucking then we are bound to be mediocres compared to what each, individually could have been compared to ourselves, not others.
I'm not saying that it is "bad". In the end it is all about being happy right? But it is the kind of retarded happiness i could smile upon in a monkey, not in the superior animals we usually like to think we are.
excuse my english, maybe it came out messed up.
We are equal, but not in everything. We develop different skill through our biography. Some are good to math because math is/was the thing they need to climb up society (mom said she likes math teacher) while others did not see the utilitary behind "math". We are not equally good for everything, but we are equal overall.
|
bahahahahah freakin hilarious, tempted to post on fb lulz
|
On March 09 2011 21:21 Axeinst wrote:
That has nothing to do with the fact, that every single humanbeing with normal intelligence are able to become top notch pro gamer. It is just matter of proper training and that training must be fitted perfectly for that persons needs.
Prove it. You just made this statement about 10 times (and used it as the basis for your shoddy and flawed arguments) while offering absolutely zero proof for it. Have you done empirical studies to show that all kinds of different people with normal intelligence can all become progamers given the correct training? Do you even know what their intelligences are (in different areas)?
Like someone said, intelligence is multi-faceted and encompasses dozens of different areas (IQ is far too simplified and narrow). Can you even test people's intelligence in all conceivable areas even remotely accurately? (No)
No? Didn't think so. Meanwhile, you keep asking others for proof to counter your own proof-less assumptions. The burden of proof is on you. As I said earlier, you're full of shit.
On March 10 2011 19:07 Axeinst wrote:I should be banned because I will not stand any logical fallacies what many people here do keep posting?
LOL, the number of logical fallacies you've made I can't even count on one hand. Get over yourself.
|
On March 10 2011 21:42 Axeinst wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 21:22 Supamang wrote:On March 10 2011 20:49 Axeinst wrote:
You just dont get it.
I am done with you, learn to make arguments. Learn to address them instead of walking away with your nose in the air. Anyone here can see that I made completely legitimate arguments, you just ignored them. You can go ahead and believe that fairy tale of "anyone can become anything they ever want to be," but you can't demand us to show you proof when we say "no you can't." It is your job to prove us wrong, not the other way around. Not everyone can become anything they want, because there is people with mental retardness or physical disabilities.
There you go. You just agreed that people can differ significantly on a biological level, whether it be physical or mental. You also agreed that "not everyone can become anything they want" due to these disabilities.
Mental retardation is clinically defined as being below roughly 70 to 75 IQ. Obviously, there are people within the high 70s, 80s, and 90s range of IQ who are below he average IQ of 100. You said "mental retardedness" can preclude peoples ability to become anything they want. Is there some magical curse that once you are officially labeled "mentally retarded" that prevents high achievement, or do you admit that there are differences in intelligence that can allow gifted people to rise above others? Are you telling me that people without mental retardation within the 80s to 90s range will be able to function as well as people up at the 120s to 130s range as long as they practice long enough in SC (or anything else for that matter) just because they arent "mentally retarded" by definition?
Let me repeat my argument so you cant just ignore it. You just admitted biological differences can stop people from become anything they want. But you also said people can get to the top purely through practice. So which is it? Can people or can people not overcome their biological deficiencies with practice?
Note: I am not usually the one to defend pro SC as a "sports worthy" feat, but i think its ridiculous to deny that being at the top in anything that requires skill should be noteworthy.
|
If human is not mentally retarded and has the average of 100 IQ then there should not be problems.
It is scientifically proved that if IQ is lower than 100, then humanbeing starts to have kognitive problems.
|
People want easier games because they can't handle hard ones. He's not saying you can't be a pro gamer if you practice your ass off and have talent. But if you don't have talent then no matter how hard you try July will show his golden mouse up your ass.
|
I think I speak for everyone on the internet when I say LATE PASS @ the OP; however, the video did strike me in a profound way about 3 years ago when I first saw it. The game industry, for the most part, is working very hard to rope in the "casual" gamer and keep him entertained/sucking on the teet of the game industry. Can't blame them for that; it is a business. Competitive players make up a very small percentage of people who play video games these days. Casual players are the majority. Of course they're going to cater to casual players.
This brings me to another point though. Some casual players think they can be competitive. And of course, they're idiots, most of the time. Take fighting game players. Hardcore players are capable of ripping apart casual players easily. This usually has one of two effects: to the scrub (that is, the idiot who will complain of cheating, abuse, cheapness, etc. to explain his loss), it makes him want to quit and never play again. The n00b, however, will sometimes take this as a learning experience, and sometimes, become a decent competitive player.
I dunno where I was going with this rambling, but yeah. Videos from the internet that are 3+ years old are fun to post on forums.
|
On March 11 2011 14:37 Axeinst wrote:
If human is not mentally retarded and has the average of 100 IQ then there should not be problems.
It is scientifically proved that if IQ is lower than 100, then humanbeing starts to have kognitive problems.
IQ of 100 is the mean of the population. Statistically, roughly 50% of the population would be below an IQ of 100. Are you seriously suggesting that half of the people in the world have cognitive problems? I honestly dont know here so Id like to see where you got that information.
Also, since you said in an earlier post, "None of what you said, prooves that there is mystical talent that gives some people ability to get higher than other without this mystical talent," Im going to have to throw your argument back at you in this case. What is the mystical anti-talent that suddenly happens if you happen to be below that magical 100 IQ mark?
Finally, it seems like youve conceded your original argument. Practice is apparently not the only deciding factor for how good you can be at SC anymore. Apparently you admit that intelligence is also a significant factor. So why is it that 100 IQ is the be all end all deciding factor here? 85 IQ is obviously worse than 100 IQ. 115 is obviously better than 100. What makes it so an 85 IQ person cant perform as well as the 100 IQ person, but the 100 IQ person CAN perform as well as the 115 guy?
|
There is no proof that 100 iq person couldnt compete as well as 115 iq guy.
Reason: it is not proved that starcraft is so complicated that it would require higher than 100 iq to master it perfectly.
Btw, my iq is 110 according to one test. So there should not be any biase.
|
On March 11 2011 15:23 Axeinst wrote:
There is no proof that 100 iq person couldnt compete as well as 115 iq guy.
Reason: it is not proved that starcraft is so complicated that it would require higher than 100 iq to master it perfectly.
Btw, my iq is 110 according to one test. So there should not be any biase.
Pretty good troll, but too obvious now. Still you had a good run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
