|
On October 08 2011 18:38 Big J wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 08 2011 18:28 Gurblechev wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 18:03 Big J wrote:
Like EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS PURE PRACTICE, SC is pure practice as well.
Ofc everyone is born slightly different, but from the day the egg and the sperm meet, everything becomes learning and being taught.
There is no such thing as natural skill. Mozart didn't just start making music. He was raised that way. All he ever saw was his father and sister making music.
Just ask any progamer out there:
-) training the game
-) thinking about the game
-) talking about the game
-) experimenting in the game
-) experiencing the game
-) practicing the game
-) focusing on the game
-) playing the game
...
that's all they ever talk about, if they tell you what makes them good players. 2GD: "Why are you so good MC?"
oGsMC: "Uh... maybe good brain."I think it is generally well understood that Starcraft skill primarily requires intelligence. It is impossible to learn or benefit from training if you are a dullard. When Artosis gushes over Nestea he gushes about how he is a genius with a massive brain, not his practice regimen. And where does intellegence come from? Learning, getting taught and raised... Nothing that could not have been acquired by anyone else, but some people simply don't choose to do so
It's called genes!
|
Stop talking about studies that have been done several time.
First result on Google gave me that : http://www.jlevitt.dircon.co.uk/chargen.htm
Which is more interesting and more accurate than most of what you guys are talking about.
|
On October 08 2011 19:18 DertoQq wrote:Stop talking about studies that have been done several time. First result on Google gave me that : http://www.jlevitt.dircon.co.uk/chargen.htmWhich is more interesting and more accurate than most of what you guys are talking about.
While there are interesting points on this page, I personally feel bothered with some stuff and the way it's turned. How do you make a difference between an artist IQ and a musician IQ? And how can you define a person being a philosopher or a scientist?
Why constantly looking for a natural disposition when it's obvious that you have to learn in order to know. :/ As it is said in this article, it's 99% sweat, but what about the 1% part? Genes? IQ? Gravity? Who knows? Nobody...
|
Vatican City State334 Posts
I hate the word "talent". It's a word people only use because they watch players do something and they think "amazing!".. but they didn't see the thousands of times the player failed in those same situations while practicing. It's why I'm almost never impressed by anything any player does.. ever.
At lower levels the reason some people can play fewer games and seem to just *get* stuff, rocketing right up to Diamond while someone else is stuck in Gold for ages is because they have a better method of breaking down tasks to a base level and understanding them than others. They're using logic to their advantage, and the principals of logic can be applied to many, many situations. They may have been taught how to think in this way, or just worked it out by trial and error through past experiences themselves.
It's like particle physics and the real world. If you understand the fundamental building blocks which make up matter, for example, then you can begin to understand how things made of matter will behave. If you understand logic then you can apply it to not only Broodwar but Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, chess, poker, a school test, a business deal, and so on.
|
On October 08 2011 14:49 IzieBoy wrote:
honestly it's mostly intelligence
intelligence teaches you how to train
intelligence helps you read your opponent
training just helps macro (which is actually much easier than playing an instrument - i have yet to see a gamer practice with a metronome). training also helps micro (more muscle memory and mouse-speed than anything else). intelligence is what defines a progamer from the rest - being able to piece together an overpowered gameplay or better yet a build that counters the opponent.
True, the mechanical aspect of SC2 is heaps easier than playing a musical instrument - it only matters what button you hit and when you hit it, not how you hit it. Going 300 APM is fine and all, but now do that on a piano while keeping all your strokes at exactly the same touch. Take something like this: Loosely calculated and assuming that each chord counts as one note, that is rougly 650 APM, real minutes. While also worrying about touch.
This is why I don't believe mechanical skills are all that much related to talent for SC2. Sure, some people are naturally clumsy, but I believe anyone with at least some interest in SC2 can attain an average APM of 100+ if they only use hotkeys and shake bad habits, and make up for that clumsiness.
What I think is a much bigger factor is how people learn. It's been shown that for normal school/academic learning, people have different methods, so to speak. Some learn visually, by visualising the concepts they are studying, making connections and/or seeing it in action. Some learn very well from someone talking them through something (something visual thinkers are notoriously bad at, including me: I've just stopped listening to lectures for the most part, only looking at the BB/sheets). Some need to apply the course material being taught for themselves before they remember/understand.
I think these learning/thinking styles can have a very profound effect on your progression as a player in SC2. The visual thinker might watch a replay and attribute his loss to his bad formation, while the analytical thinker might start looking for holes in his/her strategy immediately. The practical learner might just not watch the replay at all and spam games in order to get better.
Some approaches are more or less suited for improving yourself as a player, I think.
|
considering people actully go from bronze to masters i think that concludes that its all about how much will you have to improve.
|
On October 08 2011 18:38 Big J wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 08 2011 18:28 Gurblechev wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 18:03 Big J wrote:
Like EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS PURE PRACTICE, SC is pure practice as well.
Ofc everyone is born slightly different, but from the day the egg and the sperm meet, everything becomes learning and being taught.
There is no such thing as natural skill. Mozart didn't just start making music. He was raised that way. All he ever saw was his father and sister making music.
Just ask any progamer out there:
-) training the game
-) thinking about the game
-) talking about the game
-) experimenting in the game
-) experiencing the game
-) practicing the game
-) focusing on the game
-) playing the game
...
that's all they ever talk about, if they tell you what makes them good players. 2GD: "Why are you so good MC?"
oGsMC: "Uh... maybe good brain."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b-qufr0eqYI think it is generally well understood that Starcraft skill primarily requires intelligence. It is impossible to learn or benefit from training if you are a dullard. When Artosis gushes over Nestea he gushes about how he is a genius with a massive brain, not his practice regimen. And where does intellegence come from? Learning, getting taught and raised... Nothing that could not have been acquired by anyone else, but some people simply don't choose to do so
Intelligence comes from your genes.
DNA markers associated with high versus low IQ: the IQ Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) Project.
General cognitive ability (intelligence, often indexed by IQ scores) is one of the most highly heritable behavioral dimensions. In an attempt to identify some of the many genes (quantitative trait loci; QTL) responsible for the substantial heritability of this quantitative trait, the IQ QTL Project uses an allelic association strategy. Allelic frequencies are compared for the high and low extremes of the IQ dimension using DNA markers in or near genes that are likely to be relevant to neural functioning. Permanent cell lines have been established for low-IQ (mean IQ = 82; N = 18), middle-IQ (mean IQ = 105; N = 21), and high-IQ (mean IQ = 130; N = 24) groups and for a replication sample consisting of even more extreme low-IQ (mean IQ = 59; N = 17) and high-IQ (mean IQ = 142; N = 27) groups.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8024528
On October 08 2011 19:41 paulinepain wrote:
How do you make a difference between an artist IQ and a musician IQ?
You give them both IQ tests, subtract one from the other, and the result will be the difference between their IQs.
On October 08 2011 19:41 paulinepain wrote:
Why constantly looking for a natural disposition when it's obvious that you have to learn in order to know.
Not all brains are equivalent. Some are more capable of learning than others.
Someone with average or below average levels of intelligence can't just learn how to become a great Starcraft player. Their brain is not capable of the fast reaction times and cognitive functioning that is demanded of professional level players.
|
On October 08 2011 20:26 IIIOmegaIII wrote:
considering people actully go from bronze to masters i think that concludes that its all about how much will you have to improve.
Some people also stay in Bronze forever.
The people who eventually reach masters were fortunate enough to have advantageous genes for intelligence which made them capable of reaching that level.
|
Improving faster and getting a better grasp of the game is talent in itself, don't understand how hard this is for some people to get.
I guess too many people here were taught with the "you can do anything" mentality. Truth is you can't because genetics matter in just about everything when you want to become the best in the world. Yeah, okay, you can get places and become good with a lot of practice, but truth is there are people out there with both hard work and also just a natural affinity in what they're doing.
Intelligence of all forms including music, math, etc. (I'm sure starcraft 2 could come next on this list as well) is heavily based on genes and it's been backed by a lot of studies.
|
oh come on, genes are the excuse for dumb people why they are allowed to be lazy, when in fact their lazyness has made them dumb.
Also I really don't want to argue about those science papers. Ask a psychologist what he thinks about intelligence, then ask a biologist...
And then ask a teacher what kind of students are the better ones:
The ones that are lazy and don't attend classes, or the ones that are interested in the topics and work hard.
May it be that genes make a difference, but after all there has never been a great person in the entire history of mankind who has achieved something outstanding without hard work, while the chance is pretty high that due to family/society/origin pressure, some of the people who did something great, have learned to do so, even without having better genes than anyone else for their task.
|
On October 08 2011 20:53 Big J wrote:
And then ask a teacher what kind of students are the better ones:
The ones that are lazy and don't attend classes, or the ones that are interested in the topics and work hard.
I suppose some of your teachers would tell the pupils that attend classes are the better ones, but I know where I am the best students (who are really levels above the others) are those who : don't attend classes, sleep when they attend, and don't give a fuck about the lessons. Just saying. :D
|
On October 08 2011 20:32 Gurblechev wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 20:26 IIIOmegaIII wrote:
considering people actully go from bronze to masters i think that concludes that its all about how much will you have to improve. Some people also stay in Bronze forever. The people who eventually reach masters were fortunate enough to have advantageous genes for intelligence which made them capable of reaching that level.
I see the point you're trying to make, but the way you're wording it right now is kind of offensive.
Keep in mind that very many people do not play to get to masters. Out of the ~15 SC2 players I know, only me and one other guy are actually trying to improve. The rest just play games, try to eek out of a win and that's it. Of course those players are never going to make masters, and it has nothing to do with them not being intelligent enough (3 of them are theoretical physics students and good ones at that).
In short, you're assuming that every single player has made it their personal goal to get to masters, therefore anyone that hasn't must not be smart enough.
|
On October 08 2011 21:29 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 20:32 Gurblechev wrote:On October 08 2011 20:26 IIIOmegaIII wrote:
considering people actully go from bronze to masters i think that concludes that its all about how much will you have to improve. Some people also stay in Bronze forever. The people who eventually reach masters were fortunate enough to have advantageous genes for intelligence which made them capable of reaching that level. I see the point you're trying to make, but the way you're wording it right now is kind of offensive. Keep in mind that very many people do not play to get to masters. Out of the ~15 SC2 players I know, only me and one other guy are actually trying to improve. The rest just play games, try to eek out of a win and that's it. Of course those players are never going to make masters, and it has nothing to do with them not being intelligent enough (3 of them are theoretical physics students and good ones at that). In short, you're assuming that every single player has made it their personal goal to get to masters, therefore anyone that hasn't must not be smart enough.
That's pretty much the thing. For many many players practice to get better just isn't that high on priority list. You can play 100000 of games and still be stuck in low league because you don't care for improving even if you have so called "potential" for it. It has nothing to do with "talent" or "genetic predisposition" but more with actual will to improve at a very specific game that really only minority of player base has.
How many of players that play SC2 don't even bother with 1v1/ladder and play custom games or AI stomps for sake of fun rather than trying to be "pros"?
In the end, to be good at any given game, first and foremost you need to want to be good at it, practice hard, learn from your mistakes, see what you did wrong and then work on improving those bits. You won't be good at any game just because you can extract a square root of 8254 in memory.
|
On October 08 2011 21:39 SynthFae wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 21:29 DarQraven wrote:On October 08 2011 20:32 Gurblechev wrote:On October 08 2011 20:26 IIIOmegaIII wrote:
considering people actully go from bronze to masters i think that concludes that its all about how much will you have to improve. Some people also stay in Bronze forever. The people who eventually reach masters were fortunate enough to have advantageous genes for intelligence which made them capable of reaching that level. I see the point you're trying to make, but the way you're wording it right now is kind of offensive. Keep in mind that very many people do not play to get to masters. Out of the ~15 SC2 players I know, only me and one other guy are actually trying to improve. The rest just play games, try to eek out of a win and that's it. Of course those players are never going to make masters, and it has nothing to do with them not being intelligent enough (3 of them are theoretical physics students and good ones at that). In short, you're assuming that every single player has made it their personal goal to get to masters, therefore anyone that hasn't must not be smart enough. That's pretty much the thing. For many many players practice to get better just isn't that high on priority list. You can play 100000 of games and still be stuck in low league because you don't care for improving even if you have so called "potential" for it. It has nothing to do with "talent" or "genetic predisposition" but more with actual will to improve at a very specific game that really only minority of player base has. How many of players that play SC2 don't even bother with 1v1/ladder and play custom games or AI stomps for sake of fun rather than trying to be "pros"? In the end, to be good at any given game, first and foremost you need to want to be good at it, practice hard, learn from your mistakes, see what you did wrong and then work on improving those bits. You won't be good at any game just because you can extract a square root of 8254 in memory.
First and foremost would be the level of intelligence required for success.
Training to put that natural ability to use would necessarily be secondary.
|
A pretty clever guy wrote alot about this, not sure if it's relevant for the thread or if they have already been posted... but:
“Genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work...”
― Albert Einstein
“I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.”
—Albert Einstein --- To Carl Seelig – March 11,1952. AEA 39-013
“Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.”
—Albert Einstein --- To J. Dispentiere – March 24, 1954. AEA 59-495
"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious."
- Albert Einstein
From what I gather he greatly believed that anyone can achieve their goal, and the one's that exceed at certain aspects (whether it be sport, academia, or even sc2) are the one's who have an interest in it and thus work their asses off to excel at it.
|
On March 21 2011 22:18 JeLLe04 wrote:
Hey, guys.
My friend and I were talking about this last night after watching Destiny answer some questions on Reddit (I wanna be a pro, how much do you make, how do I join ROOT, etc. etc.) and it got me to wondering - how much of a given person's success in SC2 can be attributed to a natural affinity for the game or for video games in general?
I say none, my friend says a lot. His argument is that SC2 is just like any other sport. Nearly all of the players in the NHL, NFL, MLB, etc., got to that league through a combination of favorable circumstances, loads of practice, and natural skill. However, SC2 is different in that one's physical qualities have almost no bearing on gameplay - the exception would be hand speed and reflexes, which, in my opinion, can be trained.
My stance (and Destiny's, from what I could tell) is that even the lowliest Bronze player could theoretically make it to the GSL one day, with a metric fuckton of work and a lot of dedication. Look at Koreans, for instance. Koreans are typically better at SC2 for one of two possible reasons. The first is that Koreans are just born with a Gauss rifle in their hands and are veritable SC gods from the moment they exit the womb; the other is that Korean family values tend to stress hard work and dedication much more than the typical American family does, and Koreans therefore just work much harder at the game.
What do you guys think? If you're high Diamond or Masters, do you think you've worked enough to deserve it, or do you think you were just "born that way"?
Natural skill is something that puts someone over the top same as many sports, but EVERY talent is obtained through practice. You can lift weights all your life, run longer and faster, but if you don't train to play football you would still suck at it.
|
On October 08 2011 21:47 cunningstunt wrote:
A pretty clever guy wrote alot about this, not sure if it's relevant for the thread or if they have already been posted... but:
“Genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work...”
― Albert Einstein
“I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.”
—Albert Einstein --- To Carl Seelig – March 11,1952. AEA 39-013
“Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.”
—Albert Einstein --- To J. Dispentiere – March 24, 1954. AEA 59-495
"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious."
- Albert Einstein
From what I gather he greatly believed that anyone can achieve their goal, and the one's that exceed at certain aspects (whether it be sport, academia, or even sc2) are the one's who have an interest in it and thus work their asses off to excel at it.
Well there's all sorts of hard data demonstrating that intelligence is highly heritable (genetic)... but if a famous person who was not a geneticist said something which could be vaguely be interpreted to disagree with that data we might as well ignore it!
|
haha I didnt say that I was merely quoting a guy, whether I agree with him is a different, jsut figured i'd add something else to the convo rather than just stating my opinion which seems to just be the same thing reiterated over and over again.
|
I feel like trying to explain one more time why anyone who thinks talent and intelligence is non existent and that it's all about hard work is wrong.
As for the cute einstein quotes, he was a humble man. There are clearly many people out there working incredibly hard at being genius scientists and there's a reason very that have come after him have reached his level of genius. It's because they aren't able to, it's not a lack of people working incredibly hard. It's not like einstein just worked 100000 times harder then everyone else that's literally impossible given the amount of time we live. He's one of the once in a life time geniuses, only a fool would deny that.
I'm a mid-high level master player that barely plays any games at all and when I do I often face top 10 masters and I'm as good as them even tho they play hundreds and/or LITERALLY over 1500 1v1 games in one season alone which is waaaaay more games then I've played in my entire life with no prior rts experience or competitive gaming experience. In addition at times I have had the ranking to be matched up with and defeat professional players. I've played 60 1v1s all season long.
So for those of you who are saying that it's about someones goals or the amount they practice that's clearly not true or I'd be nowhere close to the level of these players that are expressly trying to reach rank 1 masters or grand masters. If everyone had equal talent I wouldn't be anywhere near these players levels based on the amount of effort we each put in.
There are many lower level players that play many many more games then I ever have (and they are in fact trying to improve and reach masters) and based on the trends of how fast they are improving they will likely never be as good as someone like me.
This isn't any sort of brag or a way to put people down either as I don't even consider myself good at this game. I know I might sound like a dick saying that there are differences between people and some people might not be able to reach my level because they aren't as smart but I'd rather talk about reality then deny it like a fool.
Anyway my point is it's fairly obvious its a mixture of talent and hard work, hard work and practice are just the means of reaching your potential. And maybe you do have the potential to be great or the greatest, but the reality is not everyone does no matter how hard they try.
|
As for the cute einstein quotes, he was a humble man. There are clearly many people out there working incredibly hard at being genius scientists and there's a reason very that have come after him have reached his level of genius. It's because they aren't able to, it's not a lack of people working incredibly hard. It's not like einstein just worked 100000 times harder then everyone else that's literally impossible given the amount of time we live. He's one of the once in a life time geniuses, only a fool would deny that.
Of course he was a special guy, and of course he he clearly had something different about him. But from what I gather (and what I personally believe) is that his keen interest and hard work enabled himself to make the most of that gift he had as a scientist...
Which I guess is what you mean by:
Anyway my point is it's fairly obvious its a mixture of talent and hard work, hard work and practice are just the means of reaching your potential. And maybe you do have the potential to be great or the greatest, but the reality is not everyone does no matter how hard they try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
