EPT
Is SC skill natural or trained? - Page 30
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Hashmeister
Germany238 Posts
| ||
|
Merlimoo
France192 Posts
From what I have seen here, you have two ways of evaluating "talent". 1. Performance. Is the painting good ? Does it require a special kind of skill to paint it ? Does it require a specific knowledge (in the mix of colors or others) to transmit a specific feeling, etc. 2. Speed of execution. If you take the case of math problem solving, you will compare if two people are able to solve a problem or not, and if they do, you will measure the time they took to do so. Every time you do that, you evaluate the capacity of somebody to solve that specific problem, fix it in time, and make a statement about their aptitude to so. (that will probably determine if the individual will pursue in this kind of practice or not) When you compare theses persons, even if they have the same school background, you can't really ensure that they are at the same point. Maybe one has not clearly understood some key math aspect of the problem (because he was sick during the lessons, and it was not that critical for him at the time to fully grasp it), maybe the other one has already done a ton of exercise that look like this one, and know of to solve it. You can't really measures and compare theses kind of things. But they will clearly make a big difference, even bigger that the fact that "your brain is supposed to help you with that". Most of the time in school, you don't have to solve a problem from scratch. We show you how to do it, and you have to do it on a similar problem. To understand the method, you just have to have fully understood the notions it is based on (like building workers before worrying about the units composition). The goal is then to identify the kind of problem you have, and apply the right method to solve it. It is kind of the same in starcraft. You don't develop your builds from scratch yourself. A pro shows it, you identify where and when to use it. And you succeed or not depending on your execution or identification of the strategy or actions to do at each steps in the game... Even you are unable to develop one yourself. It is the same here, even if you could also follow some methods to develop your own builds. It exists methods that teach you how to learn. Day9 tries to show you that sometimes... Anyway. From my personal experience : + Show Spoiler + Back in my early early school days, after a test that is mandatory to evaluate scientific skills, a teacher told me that I couldn't do scientific studies, because my mind and way of thinking were not appropriate. I did not have the "right" scientific method built in. A few years after that, another teacher told me that I had "the thing" for science. I was able to understand theses stuffs really quickly. Right now, I am a Ph.D student, solving mathematical problems every day. So what happened ? I tend to think that everybody should be able to do everything, if : 1. He know what he must do to succeed 2. He train sufficiently to apply correctly the method In this way of thinking, a genius if somebody that will learn a new thing quicker. But as you may know, we learn mainly with examples and analogies. For instance, look at the time you spent to learn your first build and the time it took the learn another one. Analogies probably allowed you to learn it quicker, by making assessments like, the first part is like my first build, then I have to only learn the second one. So a genius is just somebody that already have a lot a knowledge to make analogies from. The knowledge he has thus far just happened to be the perfect combination to master a subject quickly. With just a thing more, luck. When you have to do something that you have not clue at how to do it, you will try random stuff. If you happened to find the good solution quickly and if you take time to understand it, by doing this a lot a time, you will be more equipped to be a genius. Scientists know that the brain is quick flexible, and that there are few physical difference from people to people. They can't even explain Einstein "genius". And the so cold 20 years old barrier is not even true anymore. For me, we all have to same resources, it is just a matter of what we do with it. Some have been showed (or luckily find quickly) how to make tools and fire sooner, thus learning other stuff sooner that will help them master others skills. Knowledge, practice and focus are everything. You just have to dedicate yourself to it, taking the time to master what you are lacking for this specific task, by not judging yourself and have faith. If you seems to lack something, it is just that you have dedicated your time early to something else that what you might have needed to success in this task quicker. Exemple: people who spend a lot of time in bars, will probably have better social skills, but that the ones who stayed at home studying will solve math problem quicker. In the end, evaluating and judging somebody at specific moment in time (especially early on) is stupid. It could arm the motivation and the quality of the investment made in the learning of a task. We are always evolving. Maybe the thing that hold you in gold league, will be understood and overcome in a few days, allowing your other skills to be expressed to become a master player. Some people find this way of thinking terrible, because they are not happy with themselves, and does not believe in them. So they tend to blame mother nature, be fatalist. Don't blame yourself either, don't judge, just do. Just by not seeing the path you have to follow to fulfill your goals, does not means there aren't. | ||
|
vileChAnCe
Canada525 Posts
| ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
That's where the training comes in. When those people (your Thorzains/Nesteas/Stephanos) get their mechanics right and start playing around they blow people away. Genius is also notoriously hard to define, but if I was pressed to come up with a definition for it, it is the ability to discern true patterns from false patterns and to recognise the relationships behind those patterns. So that might be by ear (music), by word (literature) or by mathematics (physics/chemistry). | ||
|
BritWrangler
United Kingdom120 Posts
| ||
|
HappyChris
1534 Posts
Talent,skills. The X-factor whatever you want to call it its something unique for each person on the planet. In sports we see this all the time. Sometimes a person comes along and just dominate not becuase he train more then others but becuase he got this X-factor. Like a Messi,Ronaldo,Maradona etc They just got this extra something that makes them unique. We see it also in Starcraft 2. Stephano comes to mind. 17 kid with half the practise as other pro´s and still he just won 2 major international tournaments. He got this X-factor and with more training who know what he can become. So, yea I belive talent and training is very important. 50/50 | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
| ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
Can you get into the top 10% in anything? Yeah probably with only 3-4 years work - and i mean WORK, not spending 2-3 hours a day fiddling with something i mean 7-8 hours a day of busting your ass. Can you get into top 0.1% well then you are getting into the realms of the differences in all people not being identical - but even these must be framed in the light of the MANY other factors that will effect your rate of improvement. Environmental, physical, psychological. I'd say yeah talent matters - but not everyone with talent is going to find what they re talented at and even those that do are likley to have some traumatic event / crap method of training that wont get them to their potential - so it really wont affect YOU. I play music, i practise every night for 2 hours. I am not gifted, i just love it and its taken a lot of work to become reasonable. One of the KEY things is effective practise. The main thing for me is learning how to learn and refining that. The other key thing is persistance, its easy to maintain a level through practise, but when you are at a high level at something then not practising will cause it to drop off frighteningly fast. Relearning is easy (in that it just takes time instead of having to figure out what you need to know) but you will never feel like you are as good as you were in terms of raw skill. You will now be better with a different (probably deeper) understanding instead or raw ball crushing skill. So the argument is moot in 99.99% of cases imo. The real reason why i HATE innate ability arguments is that it takes responsibility way from the person who wants to get good. If its not under your control then why try? Its easy to rationalise these things into pointlessness and peopel who are at the top probably arnt having this stupid conversation. If you care then do it. Its like morality, even if there is probably no freewill it does no good shouting it about because in the event you are wrong you just caused a lot of people to deny their responsibility for their actions. That is evil. Its an inevitable argument. Also getting better for the sake of it is pointless. Achieving perfection means you can go no further - dont aim for it. | ||
|
HappyChris
1534 Posts
On October 25 2011 20:49 nihlon wrote: Talent is overrated. Sure it exists in some form (physical and mental limitations) but overall a good work ethic with a heavy/good training regime can transform players that you might not consider talented to extreemly good players. Imo it only makes a difference at the highest of levels. I don't agree with poster above me saying it's 50/50 in training vs talent. It's more like in the league of 95/5 or something like that. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-secrets.html Take a look at this article. It would proberly change you mind. There has been many scientific studies on the matter | ||
|
Stimpk
France165 Posts
1. being able to make quick and optimal decisions, 2. being able to compute information from minimal and sparse sources (scouting) into your opponent's game plan and mindset, 3. being able to physically play quickly, 4. having a knowledge of the game. I sure might be missing points but here, points 1 through 4 can be acquired through practice, learning the game, watching other's games. I think natural talent (physical ability as well as "intelligence" - but I don't like this word, the skills are different from those required for being good at maths, logics, pure brain computation or IQ tests) determines the learning curve of each of the above aspects. For example, one can improve slowly but continuously, someone else can have a very good start, then stay stationnary for a while and improve again later, one can even find his limits at some point (horizontal curve). just my view of the thing. | ||
|
Xenomorph
United States137 Posts
I think that natural talent can keep your skillful in video games for an extended period of time but constant training helps fine tune your skill-set to become even more masterful. I'm "teaching" my friend how to play SC2, but his natural talent helps him quickly climb the ladder. He started as a bronze, helped him get to high silver, but his own natural talent is pushing him into high gold as he develops a greater understanding. | ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
I don't know for you, but that's quite an example that there is players with natural skill at the game. :/ | ||
| ||
