EPTGaming as an adult: Are you too slow? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Natespank
Canada449 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 03 2012 08:39 iAmJeffReY wrote: I'm still young, but I guess being only a year younger than you? I'm soon to be 24, and I always play high...and I feel the only thing I have going for me is my insanely fast thinking rate and reactionary ability. I'm mid-high masters on two accounts atm, with avg APM around 160-170. I feel better at RTS than I did when I was 16-19 playing TFT, and younger playing BW. We didn't have all these insane resources to look at and use like I feel we do in SC2. Well I'm actually not even close to being 25 yet, so you are not a year younger than me, but multiple years older instead  On point though, your mention of playing while high brings up an interesting idea concerning dissociative thinking and how that might affect your play. Being high increases dissociative thought, no? I wonder if someone could provide input on that, along your line of thought | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Instrumentalists do not lose the ability to use these skills at such early times. Decrease in motor skill in this regard only happens at really high ages, like 80 or 90, and even then you'd be surprised. Musicians that are very old almost always retain their speed, and in terms of pure speed, it's something that simply doesn't vanish with age. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 03 2012 08:41 Natespank wrote: the pictures or links in your spoiler section are broken, nothing displays. thanks for pointing that out! I fixed it :D On January 03 2012 08:50 DoubleReed wrote: Physical motor skills do not decline like that. Especially computer skills, which are extremely quick, agile, precise motions (as opposed to say heavy lifting or endurance). It's much more similar to playing an instrument. Instrumentalists do not lose the ability to use these skills at such early times. Decrease in motor skill in this regard only happens at really high ages, like 80 or 90, and even then you'd be surprised. Musicians that are very old almost always retain their speed, and in terms of pure speed, it's something that simply doesn't vanish with age. Actually you're wrong about that -- cognitive decline including decline affecting motor functions happens well before 80s/90s, on average. Of course, some people might not experience this decline til 80s/90s! | ||
|
InvictusTT
United States47 Posts
| ||
|
Diks
Belgium1880 Posts
| ||
|
SKYFISH_
Bulgaria990 Posts
what the fuck man, that happens to people who are way over their thirties. the only impairment i have is that i dont have the stamina to play 8+ hours non stop , im simply not that hooked on video games anymore not to mention that i dont have the spare time , with work and all | ||
|
moltobenny
5 Posts
My ability to play SC2 is probably worse, but my ability to enjoy playing it is much greater. Old guys FTW! | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 03 2012 08:41 Musketeer wrote: You say it's "well-documented" yet fail to provide any proper documentation. It is true that ON AVERAGE, there is brain decline. On average, people stop using their brains once they establish a career, and they generally lose cognitive ability as a result. Diets and lifestyle deteriorate as well. That has little to do with age outside a few minor cognitive deficits. Sure, the brain decreases in size, but mostly only useless neurons and supporting structures are lost (and there are cognitive benefits to this, with very few detriments). Conversely, white matter increases after age 25; shouldn't this make you smarter? We're not here to theorycraft. There have been BILLIONS of dollars spent on researching aging and cognition. It doesn't matter if there "intuitively" "seems" to be a decline in X, Y and Z when the scientific literature has already reached its own conclusions by actually studying the issue. I would spend more time trying to write something that's actually based on science, but almost everything in the OP is either a disgusting simplification, misinterpretation of results or just dishonest. You're suggesting CALORIE RESTRICTION as a means of increasing cognitive performance? Really? You want to put the health of a young player at risk because a small handful of studies have shown that calorie restriction increases the lifespan... of rodents? It's hardly even been tested on humans, and the research that we do have on its effect on cognitive performance are very, very inconclusive... Yet you're recommending that random, uneducated SC2 players try it? At best, as far as we can tell with limited data, calorie restriction has no effect on cognitive performance. However, there's plenty of evidence that it may prove to be substantially detrimental for certain types of task. Do you know why we have limited data on calorie restriction in humans, by the way? Because it's difficult to find enoguh subjects who are willing to potentially compromise their well-being for extended periods of time to test it. Be careful guys, don't believe everything you read on the internet... If you are experience cognitive decline in age (after ensuring that you have proper diet, exercise (physical and mental) and outlook, there are plenty of safe, healthy and effective methods and drugs that allow almost anybody to operate at peak mental performance. Um, you totally misinterpreted what I'm saying. Re-read and re-consider please. Caloric restriction is in fact a way to mitigate cognitive decline due to aging. Not unhealthy restriction, but simple healthy eating - according to researchers at Harvard. Did you simply not bother to look at the Nature pics i provided? Maybe it's because they weren't loading, but they should be working now. These are reasonable, scientific hypotheses based on solid evidence. It's not as if I'm making an outlandish claim in saying "healthy eating probably means less neuronal connectivity decay" I see where you're coming from, but your criticisms are wrong, plain and simple. I'm not suggesting people cut out calories to a dangerous extent. I'm suggesting people eat healthily -- that's what I meant by caloric restriction. Why would I want anyone to do anything dangerous? Suggesting that people eat healthily and exercise frequently is good advice, IMO -- very sorry if you are upset/disagree about it... edit: This part is the part that is flatout wrong: That has little to do with age outside a few minor cognitive deficits. Sure, the brain decreases in size, but mostly only useless neurons and supporting structures are lost (and there are cognitive benefits to this, with very few detriments). Conversely, white matter increases after age 25; shouldn't this make you smarter? You don't know that. Are you suggesting that loss of oligodendroglia would result in cognitive benefits? That loss in synaptic complexity would increase cognition? Developmental neuroscientists would argue otherwise. You might be right, but you just can't say what I've emboldened. White matter increases --> therefore smarter? That's flat out incorrect! White matter is the supportive material to which you refer -- the glia, the myelin sheaths, etc. Evidence suggests there is a loss of glial cells, so please cite the "white matter increases with age" claim so I can be sure what you mean...right now it makes no sense. If it increases at the brain, this suggests there is ongoing glial proliferation, but how exactly would that make you smarter? Do you know what white matter is? Moreover, it's known that the brain does shrink with age as I pointed out in the OP. If you're still adhering to your claim that as we age, we gain white matter at the brain, then it is necessarily true that grey matter is LOST, according to your logic. Grey matter consists of neurons -- but surprisingly few neurons are lost, in fact. How do you reconcile that contradiction in reference to your claim? | ||
|
Hurricane Sponge
868 Posts
Interestingly, I'd say the enjoyment derived from gaming has remained very constant, however. This leads me to a surprising conclusion that being good at a game does not directly correlate with enjoying the gaming experience and, more importantly, being bad at a game does not equate to a less enjoyable experience. | ||
|
devPLEASE
Kenya605 Posts
| ||
|
EndOfLineTv
United States741 Posts
I can tell you with certainty that the brain is plastic (meaning it adapts and changes( more nueral connections for example, nervous density) This means that if you do an activity, you WILL get better at it, period. So what might limit you is TIME. Young guns dont work as long or as much as us older chaps - so they usually haev better mechanics due to more games played. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 03 2012 09:03 EndOfLine wrote: As a biologist/Personal trainer/ Kinesiologist I can tell you with certainty that the brain is plastic (meaning it adapts and changes( more nueral connections for example, nervous density) This means that if you do an activity, you WILL get better at it, period. So what might limit you is TIME. Young guns dont work as long or as much as us older chaps - so they usually haev better mechanics due to more games played. I know a thing or two about brain plasticity -- specifically cortical plasticity in response to injury or learned activities. What I'm talking about here refers to the concept of NMJ and complex synapsing deterioration, which is observed in older animals in comparison to younger counterparts. In other words, cognition decreases as a result of loss in connections, etc, even though the brain is capable of plastic rearrangement in some circumstances. So let's say your visual cortex is expanded due to plasticity in response to certain aspects of your life. It's still true that these connections will "slim down" later on in life, leading to cognitive decline (along with other possibilities, such as loss of myelination, etc). I picked visual cortex for no reason, but the concept of decline applies to others regions of the brain | ||
|
dde
Canada796 Posts
| ||
|
CryMeAReaper
Denmark1135 Posts
But hey, I'm a dumb 15 year old so what do I know ^-^ | ||
|
Musketeer
142 Posts
On January 03 2012 08:59 FallDownMarigold wrote: Um, you totally misinterpreted what I'm saying. Re-read and re-consider please. Caloric restriction is in fact a way to mitigate cognitive decline due to aging. Did you simply not bother to look at the Nature pics i provided? Maybe it's because they weren't loading, but they should be working now. I see where you're coming from, but your criticisms are wrong, plain and simple. Well, I admit that you're right, it DOES reduce cognitive decline from aging! In rats, because you've failed to provide research on humans! Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if it mitigates the effects of aging on cognition anyways, because it causes its own problems with cognition according to about half of the (very minimal) research on it. The other half maintains it has no immediate effect on cognition but still delays aging. If saying what I said is "wrong, plain and simple" is the only evidence you can come up with against what I said, you should probably start catching up and doing your research. I did see the images, and it seems like you consulted a negligible portion of the research available and presented it as fact. If you bothered to read my post, you would have noticed that I admit that age and cognition are RELATED. However, there is little causal relationship until old-age and you completely neglected discussing this in your post. Where's the control data? How are people intended to reach conclusions from your data? If this is the data that YOU used to reach your conclusions, how con you possibly believe that age CAUSES (significant) cognitive decline in the first place? You showed NOTHING to demonstrate this at all. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 03 2012 09:14 Musketeer wrote: Well, I admit that you're right, it DOES reduce cognitive decline from aging! In rats, because you've failed to provide research on humans! Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if it mitigates the effects of aging on cognition anyways, because it causes its own problems with cognition according to about half of the (very minimal) research on it. The other half maintains it has no immediate effect on cognition but still delays aging. If saying what I said is "wrong, plain and simple" is the only evidence you can come up with against what I said, you should probably start catching up and doing your research. I did see the images, and it seems like you consulted a negligible portion of the research available and presented it as fact. If you bothered to read my post, you would have noticed that I admit that age and cognition are RELATED. However, there is little causal relationship until old-age and you completely neglected discussing this in your post. Where's the control data? How are people intended to reach conclusions from your data? If this is the data that YOU used to reach your conclusions, how con you possibly believe that age CAUSES (significant) cognitive decline in the first place? You showed NOTHING to demonstrate this at all. I'm not sure what the issue is. You're asking me to do rigorous things that one might do in an academic paper, such as go in-depth with the correlations and explore direct links. This is Team Liquid, not Nature. I merely wanted to share some things I've learned at school this year that happen to touch on this concept that people toss around -- that age hurts gamer-ability. What I've learned: -Age strongly correlates with cognitive decline (sure, I can't show you a strong direct link -- can anyone? nope. as you said, lots of money is being spent on that now) -Caloric restriction mitigates this & increases life expectancy What I wanted to say: -Although these are real concepts, it's not accurate to attribute them to loss of ability as a gamer. edit: to be fair, I guess I should've not recommended "caloric restriction", per se, but rather "healthy eating". I was wrong to conflate the terms, because you're right -- dangerously high caloric restriction is...dangerous. | ||
|
Iwbhs
United States195 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On January 03 2012 08:54 FallDownMarigold wrote: thanks for pointing that out! I fixed it :D Actually you're wrong about that -- cognitive decline including decline affecting motor functions happens well before 80s/90s, on average. Of course, some people might not experience this decline til 80s/90s! Motor decline like running and things like that. Not twitch reflexes and muscle memory (or at least not as much). They function differently. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 03 2012 09:20 DoubleReed wrote: Motor decline like running and things like that. Not twitch reflexes and muscle memory. They function differently. But why would these synapses and connections be immune to natural processes of synaptic decay? Are these motor neurons in some kind of a special environment? Maybe you're right, but I'd like to know the specifics | ||
| ||
