Hello, a little while ago I stumbled upon a concern regarding the loss of the ability to play SC2 after a relatively young age -- say, at around 25 years old. Unsurprisingly, this idea has popped up many, many times here at TL and in other forums as well, undoubtedly.
People have expressed concerns for their favorite progamers who are getting up there in age. Players like Nada, Boxer, and other longtime pros come to mind in particular. Is it true that perhaps they've lost some skill due to a "slowdown" of the brain?
I decided it might be useful to shed some light on this idea. Intuitively, it seems totally reasonable that as we age, we lose the ability to execute deft motor commands, perform accurate mental calculations, and draw rapid, dissociated comparisons in order to form intelligent, useful, meaningful, and innovative ideas -- things crucial to success in SC2. Indeed, we do undergo cognitive decline as we age. But to what extent, when, and does it actually noticeably affect SC2 performance? Probably not, but let's take a look.
So the big question -- what exactly is it about adults, or growing up, that gives us this intuition that as we age, we suck more at games? It turns out it's true that aging of the brain entails a natural process of cognitive decline, for reasons that are being explored now (question: what is it about age that induces cognitive decline?). It's been well documented: + Show Spoiler +
Our brains gradually get smaller -- not due to loss of neurons, but by decay of supportive scaffolding, neural insulation, and inter-connectivity: But what do these physical changes at the brain entail? Specifically, what types of things or processes are affected, and how do they differ in severity? What about things important to gaming, such as attention and rapid problem-solving? (average results are similar to the above for both attention & problem solving!)
However, it's important to keep in mind that not everyone undergoes cognitive decline to the same degree of severity. In fact, you might not even experience much cognitive decline at all for a long, long time (into your 40s, 50s, and do on). The fact is, though, that decline does start to happen in the late 20s/early 30s on average. I don't think it has much bearing on SC2 ability, though.
Has this talk of cognitive decline worried you a little bit? Rest assured! There are 2 things you can do to help prevent this natural process of neuro-cognitive decline, both of which have been studied extensively in various animal models and to a lesser extent in human models: + Show Spoiler +
Healthy eating & exercise! ^^^Notice how the young mouse neuro-muscular junction is more similar to the old mice NMJs that have had caloric restriction & exercise? Without caloric restriction/exercise, one could argue the brain literally 'rots', although that's stretching it quite a bit -- and a neuroscientist wouldn't be too happy to hear it phrased that way. Furthermore:
So TL;DR -- you're not going to automatically suck at games at 25 years old (or any arbitrary age). In fact, you might not experience any significant cognitive decline for quite a long time! That said, it's true that cognitive decline occurs -- often onsetting in the late 20s/early 30s. You can most likely **HELP** to avoid this process though by good diet and exercise -- but even then, maybe not. You can also increase your overall life expectancy adhering to those 2 things.
Just out of curiosity, I wanted to include a little poll to see what people feel about their own mental states as they age in relation to SC2:
Poll: [How do you feel about your own cognitive decline?
I'm too young to notice it -- I think I'm okay! (under 25 years old) (361)
43%
I'm getting old, but I'm still feeling as mentally amazing as I ever have! (over 25) (284)
34%
I'm young, but I've actually noticed a 'slowdown' in my cognitive abilities (under 25) (94)
11%
I'm getting old, and I've experienced cognitive decline (over 25; bad diet/no exercise) (69)
8%
I'm getting old, and I've experienced cognitive decline (over 25; good diet/exercise) (38)
4%
846 total votes
Your vote: [How do you feel about your own cognitive decline?
(Vote): I'm too young to notice it -- I think I'm okay! (under 25 years old) (Vote): I'm young, but I've actually noticed a 'slowdown' in my cognitive abilities (under 25) (Vote): I'm getting old, but I'm still feeling as mentally amazing as I ever have! (over 25) (Vote): I'm getting old, and I've experienced cognitive decline (over 25; bad diet/no exercise) (Vote): I'm getting old, and I've experienced cognitive decline (over 25; good diet/exercise)
Note: By using 25 as a benchmark, I'm not suggesting 25 years old is OLD. Don't interpret it that way. If you must know my personal opinion on what is "old", how about 65.
So, it's pretty clear that although cognitive decline is a real phenomenon, it is unlikely that it is the primary thing to fear as age increases with regard to success in SC2. That said, let's come up with alternative reasons to why we might 'decline' in our abilities to play SC2 and other games as we get older, such as loss of motivation/interest, etc.
On January 03 2012 09:02 Hurricane Sponge wrote: 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.
On January 03 2012 08:17 dearyuna wrote: It has been shown that when comparing older adults to college-age students, information processing differs. Older adults are more likely to use predictability mechanisms, in which they use what they already know to make sense of novel stimuli. In contrast, college-age students are more likely to use a form of bottom-up processing, thus are less reliant on preexisting schemas to make sense of any given difficulty. Students are faster at reading, but only when there is high contrast lighting. In low contrast lighting, adults are more adept at comprehending a sentence due use of predictability of words in context.
On January 03 2012 10:58 KingofGods wrote: The older you get, the more guilty you feel about playing.
On January 04 2012 02:47 Cel.erity wrote: I am 29 now and slower than when I was 18, sure, but I don't have a good way to measure how much slower. I haven't played competitive FPS in forever, and I'm sure the lack of practice also contributes to my slowness, but I don't have much trouble multitasking in SC2 or playing Osu! insane maps.
I'm pretty sure any difference in cognitive decline could only be seen at the very, very highest level of gameplay [fdm note: yes!], and maybe not even then. If Flash continues practicing as much as he does now for the next 10 years, I have a hard time believing he will be any worse of a player due to age. Note that in the case of a player like BoxeR, it's probably not old age holding him back, but the evolution of the game and the talent. Plus he's still crushing in Code S through all that. Cognitive decline is overrated.
I've always said video games is really common to female gymnastics in this way. In both people seem to hit their prime at like age 16. I think in RTS people can go a little older because there's more emphasis on strategy and slow reaction times are less of a big deal. But man, I remember watching a youtube of a 16 year old kid playing counter strike 1.6 that had me completely floored. Blew away any other highlight reel I'd seen from the big teams.
On January 03 2012 08:08 thirtythree wrote: I've always said video games is really common to female gymnastics in this way. In both people seem to hit their prime at like age 16. I think in RTS people can go a little older because there's more emphasis on strategy and slow reaction times are less of a big deal. But man, I remember watching a youtube of a 16 year old kid playing counter strike 1.6 that had me completely floored. Blew away any other highlight reel I'd seen from the big teams.
But according to data, it seems there wouldn't be much of a difference between a 16 yr old gamer and a 25 yr old gamer, on average, assuming equal training regimens and mindsets. Gymnastics has more to do with physical attributes IMO, similar to the idea that female swimmers also lose their 'peak' after around 18 on average
On January 03 2012 08:11 Telemachos wrote: As a 19-year-old, the thought that I am already past my gaming prime has me pretty depressed.
As a 19-year-old bronze player, I suppose it doesn't matter.
I'm saying you aren't though! You may very well not hit your 'prime' till around 30, or maybe 40, as evidence shows is the case in some individuals. My point is to say that just cuz you hit 19 years old does not necessitate a loss of cognition. Maybe a decrease in performance in your gaming can be attributed to mindset and practice, rather than natural brain decay
also, people should let me know if they can't see the images.. im realizing they aren't loading on my end :/
I'm 26 and feel as good as if not better than ever in my ability to focus, multitask, micro, etc. All skills have been steadily improving as I go.
The one thing I notice that has declined noticeably is my stamina. I used to be able to crank out 6-8 hour gaming sessions without taking a break, but now tend to experience fatigue (mental not physical) if I go any longer than 3 hours or so, resulting in very noticeable decline in performance. I'm not sure if this is a result of generally being more tired due to having less down-time when not gaming, or if it is the beginning of the end for my brain and gaming lol. I certainly hope not.
I'm 33 and I feel great. I'm certainly in better physical condition than I was in my twenties, and I'm also, I think, smarter and more contemplative (I'm sure getting a PhD was part of that).
I feel a little clunky playing SC2 sometimes, but it's my first RTS. I think it's just experience, not age.
I find this thread interesting for several reasons. In my cognitive psychology class we discussed a paper that was published, called "Reading in the dark: effects of age and contrast on reading speed and comprehension." article information (haha too lazy to APA cite).
It has been shown that when comparing older adults to college-age students, information processing differs. Older adults are more likely to use predictability mechanisms, in which they use what they already know to make sense of novel stimuli. In contrast, college-age students are more likely to use a form of bottom-up processing, thus are less reliant on preexisting schemas to make sense of any given difficulty. Students are faster at reading, but only when there is high contrast lighting. In low contrast lighting, adults are more adept at comprehending a sentence due use of predictability of words in context.
Having said that and applying this information to the world of gaming, a lot of people really overestimate neural decay. It's true that reaction times and alternative methods of thinking are delayed in general when people grow older, but many people fail to understand that these differences occur between significant age groups. In addition there's the whole "use it or lose it" mentality in the world of cognitive science, but that happens in early development, so as long as you keep the SC2 strategies well practiced, you should be fine. I don't think anyone needs to worry about BoxeR or Nada need to worry unless they turn like 60 or 70. If anyone begins to question the credentials of any older person, we might as well start freaking out everytime we see a surgeon in his late 40s or 50s. This statements supports the thread starter I guess The pros to BoxeR and Nada's long career is that they've racked up experience. This compensates for any possible setback; they're more aware and analytical of what they need to due given a difficult situation because more likely than not, they've been in that situation before.
On January 03 2012 08:15 ClutchSC wrote: White-Ra. Your argument is invalid.
I'm confused... How is what I said invalid? I'm saying you don't necessarily undergo cognitive decline no matter what, as some people seem to think. I even listed a couple ways you can avoid it. I especially noted that for some, it might be the case that cognitive decline simple never occurs!
On January 03 2012 08:17 OldManZerg wrote: I'm 33 and I feel great. I'm certainly in better physical condition than I was in my twenties, and I'm also, I think, smarter and more contemplative (I'm sure getting a PhD was part of that).
I feel a little clunky playing SC2 sometimes, but it's my first RTS. I think it's just experience, not age.
Very cool I think i'm inclined to agree with you -- that at least in healthy cases, the clunkiness is more due to experience rather than age. Of course, some of us unfortunately undergo rapid premature decline, such as in cases of parkinsons/AD/brain injury
I'm incredibly young for this forum and I've still spent periods in what I'm pretty sure is the exact kind of slow-minded, inelastic mentality that people often ascribe to old people who are unable to play the game well anymore. I don't that could be any more false. Anyone can approach this game with the wrong or right mindset regardless of age; even the best and greatest progamers fall into traps of playing too statically and predictably who are much more young than Boxer, NaDa and the like.
Look at whitera. He plays slow, he knows he does, hes even said so himself a few times. But if you know the game well enough and know what you're doing, make good decisions and what not, speed doesnt matter imo.
As long as youre not on like 20 apm then it shouldnt matter. I think its more of a mental game then physically playing, if you get me
generally if you're mid-late 20's or older then you have other responsibilities in life and therefore can't apply enough time.
whitera and nestea are easily two of the best players in the world, and they're both around 30 years old.
i read about some scientific data that proved that when you get older your brain changes to be more efficient at solving puzzles. therefore what you may lose in reaction times you will more than regain through greater decision making.
Has nothing to do with them being slower due to age in my opinion, in all likelyhood it's probably...
More people are going to begin gaming in their teen years than their 20s, and very few players are going to be able to remain dedicated to a 12+ hour practice schedule at 25 when compared with the number of 16 year olds that would be more than willing to do it. Besides, most pro-gamers are usually exhausted after years of hard practice like that, it's really difficult to give up everything to be the best at something, let alone remain that way for years and years. Most players are going to hit their stride 2-4 years into their career and then eventually burn out, as the practice you have to put in is extremely mentally draining.
Calling out WhiteRa is not a counter argument. Everyone is different, if you wanted a scientific experiment you would need to go back in time and pull out 18 year old WhiteRa and watch how he plays SC2 compared to current WhiteRa. Just because current WhiteRa can play well doesn't mean anything. Stating it as evidence is bunk. Go back to school. NOW.
The question is whether or not he is in decline due to age. Maybe 31 year old WhiteRa is a top player, but if he were born ten years later, maybe 21 year old WhiteRa would be an SC2 bonjwa dominating all GSLs and MLGs. Then later as he declines, he becomes merely good.
That said, it's practically impossible to get any sort of reliable information about this so it's just fun conjecture. I personally don't think any cognitive decline would really account for any real differences in results. Obviously a person with Alzheimers would be struggling, but even at the top level the game is very much about muscle memory and mechanics and experience.
It's not the speed that's declining -I'm 23 and I I've never been faster and better at RTS though I feel I kind of reached my limit at 80 APM- but the will to compete is completely gone because I've got more important things to do than playing video games.
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.
I honestly feel like I keep getting better the more I play. I'm in the boat of the players that play under 200 games a season on ladder, spread among 2-3 names. I do not watch replays, or pro replays, or GSL or the sorts. I don't study strategies, I don't even try to copy people. It's all really a matter of if you are good at RTS games and have the skill to put two and two together if you can keep getting better with age.
Aren't 'the best' players all over 25? Nestea and MVP I mean.
If reaction times blah blah really slow down that much by 25 then every footballer, basketball player, tennis player and F1 driver would retire by 25..... in fact most don't come in to their prime until then.
I think most of the "older people can't game" stuff comes from the fact that until very recently older people hadn't grown up with gaming. My generation have been gaming since the age of 5, any generation before it probably didn't start until way way later. I think we will see more and more older gamers as it becomes both more accepted in society and as the younger guys simply grow up.
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.
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
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.
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!
The main factor that should be looked at is the amount of time that players have to play ... instead of looking at their age. Teens, college folk, and those who have made e-sports a living have much more time to practice/play. Older people tend not to be masters at video games because they dont have the time to reach mastery.
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?
I'm 26 with good diet and exercise. I've noticed a marked decrease in my gaming performance in all kinds of genres (FPS, RTS, Sports games, even single player RPGs) from 5 years ago despite having less stress and more free time now than I did then. I don't really attribute it to losing physical or mental acumen, but rather on the decline in importance my gaming performance plays in my life. Being good at video games was much more important to me in my late teens and early 20's, and as I've taken on more diverse interests as an adult, my drive to excel at games has waned.
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.
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
I'm of the believe that it's all about time put in and perhaps to certain extend genetics. There are oldies playing the piano or violin whos speed is just fine, what matters is practice time and having a healthy diet and keeping your brain active imo.
But hey, I'm a dumb 15 year old so what do I know ^-^
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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!
Motor decline like running and things like that. Not twitch reflexes and muscle memory (or at least not as much). They function differently.
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!
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
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!
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
Speaking totally out of my ass, I think they are almost entirely in the cerebellum part of the brain, rather than cerebrum.
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!
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
Speaking totally out of my ass, I think they are almost entirely in the cerebellum part of the brain, rather than cerebrum.
Ah, okay. I can't think of any differences between the environments, though -- they're still both CNS. Is there some sort of protective activity unique to the cerebellum? It's a primitive brain region, so maybe you're right. Again, I crave more info
Nestea is 29 BoxeR is 32 Nada is 27 July is 25 Whitera is 31
Im only 20, so i cant tell from personal exeperiance, but when we look at the age of some pro players. i think we can conclude that your age will not pervent you from becoming an sc2 celeb
Only thing i noticed is that i (27) think too much. When i was younger i just did stuff. Now its first contemplation then action. I think that's what is slowing old ass men down. Also i remember gaming as a kid 10 hours were nothing! Now i don't think i can peacefully sleep in bed for 10 hours. The whole mental picture changes as you get older, other priorities come up, you have your head filled with all kinds of shit so you just can't concentrate and enjoy gaming as a kid. It really sucks but that's how it is. I don't think i am phisically in any regard constrained in starcraft but mentally i don't think i can perform like when i was 15 years old. I don't know, maybe this is not true, maybe i can be the best player in the world even now! (SLAP ON THE FACE) Not.
I'm in my mid 30's and I can tell that my apm has dropped a bit since my BW late 90's days. And it's not like I had periods of inactivity over the years. I've continously played BW and other rts, some fighter games and a few fps's and it was sometime about 5 years ago I realized I couldn't keep up with the young un's anymore.
Okay, I admit I no longer play 6+ hours of games a day anymore, it's more like 1-2 hours max.
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!
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
Speaking totally out of my ass, I think they are almost entirely in the cerebellum part of the brain, rather than cerebrum.
Ah, okay. I can't think of any differences between the environments, though -- they're still both CNS. Is there some sort of protective activity unique to the cerebellum? It's a primitive brain region, so maybe you're right. Again, I crave more info
Aside: thank you for changing your stance on the CR diet. I definitely know I play a lot better when I'm eating well and doing basic exercise compared to when I'm not and I think it's pretty much known that exercise and good eating are extremely important not only for playing Starcraft well, but also for just giving a top effort in all parts of your life. The problem is there's a lot of arguing about what exactly healthy eating is :-\
ed:
On January 03 2012 09:35 e4e5nf3 wrote: I'm in my mid 30's and I can tell that my apm has dropped a bit since my BW late 90's days. And it's not like I had periods of inactivity over the years. I've continously played BW and other rts, some fighter games and a few fps's and it was sometime about 5 years ago I realized I couldn't keep up with the young un's anymore.
Okay, I admit I no longer play 6+ hours of games a day anymore, it's more like 1-2 hours max.
To be honest, that's absolutely inactivity. Just because you don't 100% stop doesn't mean you are being completely active. It's also possible (I have no clue, just throwing it out there) that you've done some internal damage to your wrists/fingers if you play at a high APM through poor posture and stuff.
On January 03 2012 09:30 Kaien wrote: Nestea is 29 BoxeR is 32 Nada is 27 July is 25 Whitera is 31
Im only 20, so i cant tell from personal exeperiance, but when we look at the age of some pro players. i think we can conclude that your age will not pervent you from becoming an sc2 celeb
But keep in mind that these same players probably won't be ranked so high if there were a complete transfer of BW players to sc2. Say what you will about sc2 being a completely different game from bw, there is much to be said about the mechanical ability of the current BW elite.
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!
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
Speaking totally out of my ass, I think they are almost entirely in the cerebellum part of the brain, rather than cerebrum.
Ah, okay. I can't think of any differences between the environments, though -- they're still both CNS. Is there some sort of protective activity unique to the cerebellum? It's a primitive brain region, so maybe you're right. Again, I crave more info
Aside: thank you for changing your stance on the CR diet. I definitely know I play a lot better when I'm eating well and doing basic exercise compared to when I'm not and I think it's pretty much known that exercise and good eating are extremely important not only for playing Starcraft well, but also for just giving a top effort in all parts of your life. The problem is there's a lot of arguing about what exactly healthy eating is :-\
Yeah, Musketeer helped me to see that I worded it very poorly. I initially took offense because it seemed he was simply saying "U MADE IT ALL UP!" but I see what he meant now. It's not wise to stupidly throw the term "caloric restriction" around, then assume people know what I meant in reference to mouse studies, then assume they know what I mean when I suggest it as an idea applicable to real life. What I really meant to say was a good diet is probably beneficial both in terms of cognition and aging. I definitely don't want people to cut calories below a healthy level
I think age is only one of the factors in play here. Age, diet, and exercise combine to determine our ability to focus and multitask over a long period of time. Physical conditioning allows us to focus and practice over long periods without getting tired or diminishing skill level.
When we are young, I think most people can cram junk food down their throats and the natural metabolism is high enough to overcome the short term side effects.
As I get older (38 years) I find that my mental abilities are MUCH more effected by diet and exercise compared to my high school and college years. Before I turned 25, diet and lack of exercise seemed like a non-factor in how I felt, but now if I eat fast food and drink soft drinks, I ride a roller coaster of energy levels that doesn't allow me to focus for long periods of time.
TL,DR = After 25 you better eat right and exercise.
On January 03 2012 09:30 Kaien wrote: Nestea is 29 BoxeR is 32 Nada is 27 July is 25 Whitera is 31
Im only 20, so i cant tell from personal exeperiance, but when we look at the age of some pro players. i think we can conclude that your age will not pervent you from becoming an sc2 celeb
The talent pool for SC2 is so abysmally small and the players so relatively mediocre to what the world has to offer that players will be able to excel at advanced ages. If the talent pool was remotely as large as Basketball, Soccer, Football, baseball, etc I believe you'd see the domination of younger players and the slow regression of those past their 30's-- the same with all sports.
Unlike Chess, which is solely a cerebral game (you could make your moves with your feet if you wanted to), SC2 requires a remarkable amount of reaction time and coordination. It is proven that both of these decline with age. The shelf life for a SC2 pro gamer will definitely be longer than other sports, but do you honestly think a 50 year old could play this game at a pro level? Hell, the oldest people in our community are in their early 30's-- and white ra, boxer, and nestea aren't currently known for their insane mechanics and micro, but their decision making.
As gaming culture ( multi player over the net ) ... really didn't get great until around 97-98 ( rough guess ) ... so basically almost taking generation x'ers ( kids born 1964-81 ...... making them 30 to 47 years old today ) almost out of the equation , since by the time competivie culture started many were going of with other things in life ( except for those late 70's and early 80's ) ..... as people get older other stuff occupy their lives .... work ( gotta pay those dam bills ) , family ( wife or children ) ... and so on .... all the mentioned can provide stress ( which really makes your game play suck ... I know ) ... also time to practice and get better at the game is really limited with additional responsiblities in life ( which is huge )
Time will tell as the later generations ( that grew up around gaming culture ) get older and see how competitive they stay ....
I personally don't think that mid 20's is not the limit ..... white ra , boxer and nestea are currently proving that limit is fualty
Just a thought .... great topic
Guardian
Side Note : I am 39 ... high plat player .... basically only play with one hand .... imigine what I can do with 2 good hands and time to play more
I figure a lot of old people these days suck at video games because they have crystalline memory with no association to anything like video games and little fluid memory. As we, the gaming generation, get older though, I feel that the primary concern should be hand speed, something that could be easily resolved through something as simple as changing your playstyle. I would argue that the gaming generation would not experience a significant loss in effectiveness overall provided we play slower playstyles, due to the fact that we would have played games for decades, bringing mountains of experience for us to utilize.
On January 03 2012 09:30 Kaien wrote: Nestea is 29 BoxeR is 32 Nada is 27 July is 25 Whitera is 31
Im only 20, so i cant tell from personal exeperiance, but when we look at the age of some pro players. i think we can conclude that your age will not pervent you from becoming an sc2 celeb
The talent pool for SC2 is so abysmally small and the players so relatively mediocre to what the world has to offer that players will be able to excel at advanced ages. If the talent pool was remotely as large as Basketball, Soccer, Football, baseball, etc I believe you'd see the domination of younger players and the slow regression of those past their 30's-- the same with all sports.
Unlike Chess, which is solely a cerebral game (you could make your moves with your feet if you wanted to), SC2 requires a remarkable amount of reaction time and coordination. It is proven that both of these decline with age. The shelf life for a SC2 pro gamer will definitely be longer than other sports, but do you honestly think a 50 year old could play this game at a pro level? Hell, the oldest people in our community are in their early 30's-- and white ra, boxer, and nestea aren't currently known for their insane mechanics and micro, but their decision making.
A big factor in MLB, NFL, and NHL is injuries and the accumulation of their damage. RSI is probably a large contributor in people "losing a step" in their micro rather than age. It seems like players like BoxeR and Nestea are absolutely godly when it comes to the cognitive side of the game. BoxeR definitely lacks the speed he once has, which I'm sure is part age thing, but he also has RSI as far as I know and I would think that has more an impact on his ability to play as compared to the fact that he's 32.
The simple reason pro's go past their prime as they get later into their 20's in starcraft is because of two things mainly: 1. decreased motivation 2. increased competition. in regards to nr.2; by increased competition i mean that the amount of talent possessed by the younger generation at the top is higher, the older generation might have been the best out of a hundred thousand gamers while the younger generation is the best out of a million (numbers picked out of thin air just as an example, obviously)
I'm 40 years old, still play SC2. The cognitive part of the game is so easy for me. It's getting my fingers and hands to move fast enough to keep up that is the problem. I have early arthritis in my finger joints and it makes a big difference. Cognitive is not an issue.
I will be 30 next year, I do not feel that my mechanics or multitasking has gone down, rather it is the other way around. I take more into consideration and although I do not know for sure, it feels as if I can take in the game on a whole other level than when I played Brood War many years ago. It could also be because I am experienced with RTS since Dune II that the skill and decision making is much better now than when I was younger and that it is because of this that it is easier to play. My APM right now is around 90-100, not great, but I can take on most Master and GM players in regards to multitasking and getting things done without embarrassing myself.
it might be due to the fact that younger generations are bought up in the gaming industry, and they have a lot of spare time to practice, plus the fact that their brains are more active/prime or at least equal to an older brain. Physically it is quite impossible to have problems pressing keys fast. A lot of other factors like work and other things also have an impact.
On January 03 2012 09:58 Marconos wrote: You options are actually incorrect.
I'm 40 years old, still play SC2. The cognitive part of the game is so easy for me. It's getting my fingers and hands to move fast enough to keep up that is the problem. I have early arthritis in my finger joints and it makes a big difference. Cognitive is not an issue.
Err... Then that sort of implies your choice would be the "I'm getting older but haven't noticed cognitive decline". The poll inquires about your experience (good or bad) with cognitive decline -- not your experience with arthritis, joint pains, constipation, broken heart, or any other unrelated things that might ail you
Jokes aside, you bring up a good point about physical limitations on playing.
On January 03 2012 09:30 Kaien wrote: Nestea is 29 BoxeR is 32 Nada is 27 July is 25 Whitera is 31
Im only 20, so i cant tell from personal exeperiance, but when we look at the age of some pro players. i think we can conclude that your age will not pervent you from becoming an sc2 celeb
The talent pool for SC2 is so abysmally small and the players so relatively mediocre to what the world has to offer that players will be able to excel at advanced ages. If the talent pool was remotely as large as Basketball, Soccer, Football, baseball, etc I believe you'd see the domination of younger players and the slow regression of those past their 30's-- the same with all sports.
Unlike Chess, which is solely a cerebral game (you could make your moves with your feet if you wanted to), SC2 requires a remarkable amount of reaction time and coordination. It is proven that both of these decline with age. The shelf life for a SC2 pro gamer will definitely be longer than other sports, but do you honestly think a 50 year old could play this game at a pro level? Hell, the oldest people in our community are in their early 30's-- and white ra, boxer, and nestea aren't currently known for their insane mechanics and micro, but their decision making.
Yes. Or do you think every professional pianist at age 50 is no longer able to play technically demanding repertoire?
On January 03 2012 09:30 Kaien wrote: Nestea is 29 BoxeR is 32 Nada is 27 July is 25 Whitera is 31
Im only 20, so i cant tell from personal exeperiance, but when we look at the age of some pro players. i think we can conclude that your age will not pervent you from becoming an sc2 celeb
The talent pool for SC2 is so abysmally small and the players so relatively mediocre to what the world has to offer that players will be able to excel at advanced ages. If the talent pool was remotely as large as Basketball, Soccer, Football, baseball, etc I believe you'd see the domination of younger players and the slow regression of those past their 30's-- the same with all sports.
Unlike Chess, which is solely a cerebral game (you could make your moves with your feet if you wanted to), SC2 requires a remarkable amount of reaction time and coordination. It is proven that both of these decline with age. The shelf life for a SC2 pro gamer will definitely be longer than other sports, but do you honestly think a 50 year old could play this game at a pro level? Hell, the oldest people in our community are in their early 30's-- and white ra, boxer, and nestea aren't currently known for their insane mechanics and micro, but their decision making.
A big factor in MLB, NFL, and NHL is injuries and the accumulation of their damage. RSI is probably a large contributor in people "losing a step" in their micro rather than age. It seems like players like BoxeR and Nestea are absolutely godly when it comes to the cognitive side of the game. BoxeR definitely lacks the speed he once has, which I'm sure is part age thing, but he also has RSI as far as I know and I would think that has more an impact on his ability to play as compared to the fact that he's 32.
If anything, Boxer is faster than he ever was. I would say he's at the highest of his mechanical abilities right now. It was stated numerous times during his BW time that at the end of his career he was the best boxer, but others were simply better.
A big problem i assume between older and younger generations are the shifts that take place in games. The older you get, the more difficult it gets to change your grown habits. Starcraft evolves all the time, also mechanically in terms of how you execute stuff. If you've played Starcraft for 7 years for instance, and now your 30, and you've never used camera keys, you most likely won't start, even though it's more efficient. Newer, younger generations will adapt MUCH faster to such changes, or more likely, start already with them. So they're more efficient. Also the passion / motivation is another key issue. But just in terms of hand / eye coordination i don't think you get necessarily worse, but you'll get slower in adapting your style / habits as well as reacting to unknown situations. It's a common concept that the older you get, the more you think within a certain box.
I am 27...and I am a plat toss.and i feel the only reason why i am plat is because i play like a max of 30 games or 50 games per season on 1v1..thts it...otherwise i think if i prac..i cud atleast be low masters.. but i think if ur under 35...i dnt think u wud b slow unless u dnt exercise and have a decent diet
Its been said time and time again, age is not affecting people's ability to play. Honestly 30 is not old and your brain is not rotting. Its more to do with people's responsibilities switching away from games and onto other things. When you return to the game with less practice time of course you are going to have slower reaction times.
I don't see an issue with cognitive decline until you get a neurological illness. As op wrote, if you eat healthy and exercise your brain, you won't have issues for a long time.
Furthermore, you just need to train your muscle memory like a pianist does and the rest is decision making.
I'm 26-27, Master, and getting better every day and can't see any limit yet. Personally I think the calmness and analytical skills I learned in the last years are far more important than hyperactively clicking the shit out of everything.
you know you can train your brain and your body ... if you do that you will be at full potential until maybe 70th unless some illness or an accident affects that. But competitive sports in general are really unhealthy for the body. And i think your hands will fail before your brain does when you play computer games. The real problems gamer face is real life, a job takes away alot of time and unlike school for example you don't train your brain in most jobs. Also when you move away from home you have to take care of the household. The free time is cut, that you don't have enough time to train like you used to, thats why people get slower. Well and because the metabolism changes a bit, so you need to be a bit more extra healthy.
That being said gamers only get slower if they play less and thats what happens in most cases. Right now there are already gamers that are in their 40th and played games since turrican. And they are far away from having issues playing games. So don't worry, you can play games forever, but better read up on RSI if you don't do any physical sports, not something you wanna get.
I'm pretty sure that this whole topic is a hoax i.e. bullshit. I've never read about any study that would suggest a decline in videogameskill as you grow older.
Look at that guy, he's showing amazing precision and speed at the age of 70. What you guys are talking about suggests that this is impossible. I think it's more of a scapegoat thing, age is always an easy excuse. Bad at videogames because you're 30? Come on, people climb everest at 70.
I have noticed my apm slipped a good bit, not sure I believe it's due to age so much as time off between BW and Sc2, was ~200apm BW, now ~120apm Sc2, I don't cycle as much as I should and generally don't spam mouse clicks for movements, only in fights.
Senior citizens may be more mentally capable than previously thought
Not all health studies released on senior citizens are negative, as recent research from Ohio State University reveals the elderly can be as fast as their younger peers when it comes to accomplishing mental tasks.
Historically, children and the elderly have slower response times when it comes to making quick decisions in certain situations, but recent research implies that the slower response could be a conscious decision as seniors are wise enough to emphasize accuracy over speed.
“Many people think that it is just natural for older people’s brains to slow down as they age, but we’re finding that isn’t always true,” said Roger Ratcliff, professor of psychology at OSU and co-author of the studies.
The contrary is true in some cases, as healthy senior citizens can be trained to respond faster in some decision-making situations without risking their accuracy, meaning their cognitive skills are not worse than younger adults'.
What this article is saying, is 1) we don't know as much as we think we do on the cognitive development of brains, and 2) accuracy over speed is a trait people pick up as they get older.
I don't think you're severely disadvantaged when you're older because of handspeed or something.
The big difference is the amount of time you can sink in. When SC1 was hot, I was in university and played it 6-7 hours a day. As a result, I was pretty good at it by (C+ Iccup) . Now that SC2 is the thing, I have a wife, a lovely 2-year old daughter and a job. There is no way I can commit the time I need to commit if I want to get to GM. My Brood War mechanics is what keeps me in high Diamond, but I really have no clue about timings and all those little important things that stuff Tastosis and Day9 like to talk about. I just make drones and build stuff.
On January 03 2012 10:40 PepperoniPiZZa wrote: I'm pretty sure that this whole topic is a hoax i.e. bullshit. I've never read about any study that would suggest a decline in videogameskill as you grow older.
Look at that guy, he's showing amazing precision and speed at the age of 70. What you guys are talking about suggests that this is impossible. I think it's more of a scapegoat thing, age is always an easy excuse. Bad at videogames because you're 30? Come on, people climb everest at 70.
That's not at all what the topic says. Heh, I'm not sure how many more times I need to snake it into the OP that cognitive decline is different among people, and that some people show no cognitive decline for a long long time. Maybe the 70 year old dude in your video hasn't experienced cognitive decline? That's great for him, but it doesn't mean the topic is "a hoax", whatever you meant by that. If you think the data in the topic drawn from various sources (Nature, etc) is bullshit, that's okay I guess. Nowhere in there do I suggest age as the scapegoat for loss of ability. Am I not arguing the opposite -- that although cognitive decline is real, it probably doesn't impact SC2 success?
Age is usually something that (in progaming, and some sports) is looked at as - the older you get, the less physically able you become. But so many people in history have defied this: Michael Jordan, Cal Ripken Jr., Jackie Chan even (filming movies into his 50s). I think there is a misconception when it comes to age and gaming. Yes it is a young man's game, but not for the reason that they're physically unable. It's more that the older you get, the more real life responsibilities you need to own up to- girlfriends, families, financial burdens, long term thinking. A 15 year old is less likely to have to pay bills, support others (in fact they get supported in most cases), have relationships obligations (serious ones). The major difference is younger people have more time to put into a craft.
The older you get, the more guilty you feel about playing.
What age does affect is the ability to learn something new (which is why it's easier to learn a new language when you are young rather than when you are old).
Hmm, I will just aim to beat the system and keep going up until I hit 90 and then I can relax a bit =) As always with these population means there are people who increase in the ability instead of the decline. From 25 to 90 may be kind of unlikely but... at least most of the tests.
I would be very interested to see some of the sources. Do you know if there are any longitudinal studies that have looked at cognitive decline (and not only in the very elderly)? Would be interesting. There are a lot of possible sources of variance from the sample collection like generational aspects and differences in medication, access to food etc instead of biological aging.
Regarding the mice I would like to add that just having fun and being stimulated appears to have a big effect on "brain health" as well. Basically mice with access to a playground with tunnels and stuff have more well developed brains compared to those just the usual boring labcages (that could possibly make the brain of anyone shrink in size). So that and other things like mentally challenging stuff for elderly showing good effects makes me think that stimulation is a very important thing.
Oh and nice post, always nice with some pictures and interesting stuff.
I think there are many reasons there is this stigma attached to people slumping or getting worse around 25.
First, mandatory military service for koreans basically = gg to their familiar practice/training hours and schedule = slump.
On top of that, many people are reevaluating their life at that age, getting jobs, getting married, and life simply gets in the way of playing a game for 14 hours a day.
I have no doubt that mid 20's to even 30's can be very successful at gaming, it really comes down to practice, time investment and mindset.
On January 03 2012 08:29 ThatGuy89 wrote: Look at whitera. He plays slow, he knows he does, hes even said so himself a few times. But if you know the game well enough and know what you're doing, make good decisions and what not, speed doesnt matter imo.
As long as youre not on like 20 apm then it shouldnt matter. I think its more of a mental game then physically playing, if you get me
speed does matter though....look at whitera's tournament performance/results. He isnt exactly winning any titles lately in major tournaments. whitera is good dont get me wrong. hes a great player and im a big fan but his speed is holding him back imo
Personally, I think a lot of it has to do with keeping your brain 'in shape' so to speak. A lot of people under the age of 25 who play video games are in school until about that age, and that is a great way to keep your brain active, focused, and 'in shape'. Even if a person is very smart, when you get older and you get a steady job and stuff the amount of learning and exposure to new things is minimized, and I think that some cognitive skills that are helpful in games are used less, and therefore you get 'out of shape' in those areas.
Basically, mental skills are very much like physical skills, and if you don't practice them and KEEP practicing them regularly then they will decline. That doesn't mean you are actually dumber or slower or anything, it just means that you need to train your mind in those areas to get back to where you used to be. The problem for many gamers is that not everyone has time to do that, however playing StarCraft is definitely a good exercise for your brain =)
the results you show about the average cognitive decline are interesting, but they dont answer yet the question of how far the observed decline can be explained by biology and to what degree social phenomena play a role in it.
specifically, I believe that most forms of cognitive ability are trained by being in school/college. therefore, it seems very natural to me that most people start to lose certain cognitive abilities once they are out of school/college for some years and spend their time in jobs which usually only offer intellectual stimulation on a very narrow field of cognitive tasks. therefore, it appears, at least to me, that the observed begin of mental decline around the late 20ies/early 30ies is no coincidence and also no biological necessity.
I have no clue though whether this distinction bears any relevance for the question if the typical decline of gaming skills is the result of external factors like growing up, increasing responsibilities or of aging in the biological sense.
I'm 24, but I don't think I've gotten slower. I think it's because I'm a grown ass man and I don't have time to play Starcraft 2 all day so of course my skill level is going to diminish.
I'm married, I work full time, I try to go to school on the side, pay bills and etc. I don't have all day to play Starcraft 2 and be grandmaster. I really don't think my age is stopping me from being faster. It's my lifestyle that's stopping me from being faster and a better player.
This is the main reason why I play random in Starcraft 2. I really don't care to aspire to be pro or anything at one race. I just play casually for fun and hope to win some great long macro games. Not cheese my way to master's like the "stereotypical" random player.
Mentally I'm as sharp at 30 as I was at 20 -- only tempered with more wisdom behind it, and the ability to apply this knowledge to more areas of life than just whether I have enough marines to kill those lurkers or how quickly I can get that buffalo killed so I can shave 2 minutes off my Castle Age time.
Mechanically my handspeed is slower, but not because I'm older -- just because I'm not as well-practiced at it as I was back in the olden days. College + Job + all the other adult stuff that comes with making a life for yourself takes time away from keeping up your handspeed in games you haen't played in years.
Of course it is improving -- over the past year I've gone from a 60-70 APM SC2 player to a 180-200, simply by playing more -- not necessarily trying to play faster. The higher level I get, the more stuff I *want* to do. When you develop from a player who doesn't even remember to queue their production buildings while they're attacking, to a player who is macroing, building an expansion, and managing 2 drops and a nuke while doing an attack on the front at the same time, the hand speed has to naturally follow.
I'm sure a time will come when all this will decline -- but it's not 30, and it for sure isn't 25.
On January 03 2012 12:13 wishbones wrote: i would post, but it wont be pretty, so ill just put out a few words. its not real. no age limit resi blah blah blah bs. all bs.
What's not real? Cognitive decline? Nope -- it's real. What you probably meant was that you think cognitive decline is not the main reason for a decrease in gaming performance after the teens-twenties. I'd agree with that 100%!
On January 03 2012 12:15 ArcticFox wrote:
I'm sure a time will come when all this will decline -- but it's not 30, and it for sure isn't 25.
Yep -- the decline typically begins during the late 20s/30s, but I would imagine it wouldn't be bad enough for quite a while, and wouldn't have a meaningful impact on things like cognition and motor deftness with respect to SC2 performance for a looong time.
hmm im 23 and im actually getting faster week by week imo as long as i can get good sleep lol. I think the main problem with getting older is most people who arent playing full time lose a lot of time to practice ergo you get slower. APM isnt something you can really sit down and fly at 200apm. Most people start out much slower then what they finish their careers at. I also think that sleep and mood among older players is a bigger deal as when I was younger it was much easier to function on a lot less sleep.
realistically tho, i dont see why pros retire in late 20s. that just seems kind of silly. especially n ow since SC2 is alot easier than BW, we know the same amount of APM is not required.
with practice and consistent effort, i dont see any reason why this should be an issue until your mid-late 30s or 40s even. if randy couture fought till his mid 40's i think someone can play SC2 till the same age.
On January 03 2012 12:25 PhiliBiRD wrote: 22 so i cant say i have the issue.
realistically tho, i dont see why pros retire in late 20s. that just seems kind of silly. especially n ow since SC2 is alot easier than BW, we know the same amount of APM is not required.
with practice and consistent effort, i dont see any reason why this should be an issue until your mid-late 30s or 40s even. if randy couture fought till his mid 40's i think someone can play SC2 till the same age.
well i think like overall playing field has been made easier in the sense you get this much larger bunch of good to really good players since most can do really well with 80-100 apm. But to be a pro and the top you still need a pretty high apm and im not talking like pro as in you are on a pro team im talking about a force to be reckon with :D
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's no meaningful decline in brain functioning with respect to how well you can play a video game until you're heading well into the golden years. One need only look at existing pro sports where athletes can play well into their 30's and if it weren't for physical injuries, which would be almost a non-issue in esports, those athletes could likely play on further. In fact in your own graph that you cite in your original post, there's almost no difference between the brain of a 18 year old and the brain of a 50 year old. There are so many other important factors in regards to succeeding as a pro gamer than the minute amount of "brain decline" that this is a conversation not really worth having.
Pro gamers in esports retire at a comparatively young age for reasons other than brain decline. Or conversely, the reason most top pro gamers are very young is not because their brains are any better, it's because they have the free time to devote to a profession which by almost all standards does not pay very much. When you're an adult, you have responsibilities and you cannot devote 60-80 hours a week playing one video game.
But my hands are just shit now, due to gaming (wrist) and sports (fingers/hands). I am pretty sure that it's the physical toll that practicing 8 hrs a day deals one's hands that really shortens the careers of progamers. Heck I play maybe 2.5 hrs a day tops and my wrist already feels tight.
This is silly. People will feel 'slower' as they get older because they aren't using their brain as much. If you still work your brain as you age, you'll be just as fine mentally.
Saying this expecting to hit 70 and, barring some sort of brain disease or something, but just as quick-thinking as ever. (though my hands will obviously be old and slow lol)
The problem with age is mostly motivational issues. I feel like "older people" have a harder time to practice as much as someone who's around their ¨~20's. Sure there are exceptions but in general I feel like older people have a harder time to practice and therefor it will be keep up with the young guns.
I'm 20 (21 in a day) and I'm feeling at the prime of my video game "career".
LOL if anything I am faster then I was when I was younger. I started RTS games back in 03 and I had like 20 apm or less. Now im up to 60-80apm(new apm) in sc2 so I am much faster than I once was.
I'm not sure if I'm any slower physically or mentally than when I was younger, but I can definitely say that I'm just much more apathetic toward gaming in general so my performance is a lot worse overall than years ago just on that reason alone. I used to actually care about winning before and it encouraged me to spend more time and energy. Nowadays, gaming is what I do to zone out mindlessly in my free time and I really couldn't care less whether I win or lose.
On January 03 2012 12:25 PhiliBiRD wrote: i dont see why pros retire in late 20s. that just seems kind of silly. especially n ow since SC2 is alot easier than BW, we know the same amount of APM is not required.
with practice and consistent effort, i dont see any reason why this should be an issue until your mid-late 30s or 40s even. if randy couture fought till his mid 40's i think someone can play SC2 till the same age.
I'd imagine that it probably has more to do with the fact that after a certain age you start worrying about issues like making money and having some sort of stability in your life. Professional gaming is a ridiculously volatile pursuit and it doesn't get any less competitive as time goes on. And living in a cramped apartment with a bunch of kids and receiving your salary in the form of ramen noodles probably gets old after a while.
Take a look at plastic vs crystallized intelligence. As we get older, our plastic IQ decreases while our crystallized IQ increases. In other words, it makes sense that White-Ra is still a boss at starcraft, but that's because he's been playing for 12 years. If you want the best results at a new activity after 3 years of practice, a 16 year old will crush a 26 year old.
Reaction time does also decrease with age, and this is important in any fast-paced game. It can be overcome with greater decision making abilities and experience, but again if you pit two people with the same amount of skill and experience against each other (in a game where reaction time matters), I'll bet on the 20 year old over the 30 year old.
I don't buy this at all. I don't bother reading every page in threads like this any more, but one older thread about the same topic had a response about how musicians (pianists especially given how the instrument is played) progress well past the age you guys are talking about, and I don't see why it would be any different for something like a PC game.
On January 03 2012 10:40 PepperoniPiZZa wrote: I'm pretty sure that this whole topic is a hoax i.e. bullshit. I've never read about any study that would suggest a decline in videogameskill as you grow older.
Look at that guy, he's showing amazing precision and speed at the age of 70. What you guys are talking about suggests that this is impossible. I think it's more of a scapegoat thing, age is always an easy excuse. Bad at videogames because you're 30? Come on, people climb everest at 70.
That's not at all what the topic says. Heh, I'm not sure how many more times I need to snake it into the OP that cognitive decline is different among people, and that some people show no cognitive decline for a long long time. Maybe the 70 year old dude in your video hasn't experienced cognitive decline? That's great for him, but it doesn't mean the topic is "a hoax", whatever you meant by that. If you think the data in the topic drawn from various sources (Nature, etc) is bullshit, that's okay I guess. Nowhere in there do I suggest age as the scapegoat for loss of ability. Am I not arguing the opposite -- that although cognitive decline is real, it probably doesn't impact SC2 success?
I have to point out that Musketer while somewhat hostile was very right about the whole causation thing. Cognitive decline is "different among people" but it is also not some sort of disease that you start to get at a certain age and most of all you can't say that aging CAUSES cognitive decline. The graphs don't show that at all, but from your posts you appear to see it as inevitable (at 30, 40 or even 80...). Not how it works. While it is true that the body will deteriorate with age you cannot say that the results shown in the graphs are because of biological aging. Also it's very strange to assume that there would be some sort of onset and that it isn't an ongoing process.
So basically I am against your concept of a biological "cognitive decline" as something "real" that you have shown with your graphs (0 data or sources), because you haven't. Otherwise I think we are close in our opinion because I do think there is an ongoing deterioration because of normal aging but that the effects of this is likely very small until very old age. So until then lifestyle choices and environmental factors differentiating between generations will surely have a much greater effect on cognitive decline than any biological process. Of course this is also a hypothesis based on theory and the observed difference between populations.
Regarding the piano, as long as you keep playing why would it deteriorate. It's when you stop doing something that the problems are likely to start. With something like the piano that is about movement I guess the skill should stay pretty intact anyway. But instruments are not like computer games because skills from one game doesn't necessarily generalize to other games. Either way I think anyone can get good at SC2 but like pointed out mostly younger players have the possibility to even try to go pro.
On January 03 2012 12:25 PhiliBiRD wrote: realistically tho, i dont see why pros retire in late 20s. that just seems kind of silly. especially n ow since SC2 is alot easier than BW, we know the same amount of APM is not required.
Pros retire in their late 20s because it's virtually impossible to earn a good income doing it, let alone support a family.
I attribute alot of this "getting worse as you get older" to 3 things.
1) You care less about the video game, because you have other priorities. (i.e. less time and effort put into it)
2) you enjoy it less as you mature and grow.
3) bad diet, less exercise
This whole "cognitive decline" and reflexs being bad is garbage. Most professional atheletes hit their stride in their careers between 24-29. They are certainly not declining in the reflexes, decision making or speed departments. Only the absolute best rookies 18-22 make their respective pro leagues, and often they are more or less useless for a year or 2. (please dont list a few exceptions as counter arguments. Its irrelevant)
The only reason starcraft sees a younger age group is because the vast majority of players decide they want to focus on making money and building their lives rather then gaming because they cant make a living doing it (like pro sports) Gaming has a prime age because of social factors, not for mental or physical abilities.
If starcraft had a professional league with thousands of salaried players making millions, you would see a fuckload of older gamers doing just as well.
I mean come on people, 25 isnt exactly old. You are in the prime of your life.
I dont think there is an age where you become slower etc, while i am only 19, we see many older players doing well, NesTea and Whitera are oldys, and NaDa and Boxer are getting on, but they all play very well. I think after 10 years of being pro though, it might get hard to play 14hours a day. But physically you should be fine.
I also think you need a certain level of maturity and life experience, going pro at a young age would be really hard imo
^ I'm 27 years old and play in masters with little to no work. I think it takes true talent and dedication to be someone like Boxer or Whitera, but age is not a hinderance. Time and work are 100 fold more important than an absolutely tiny difference within the brain (if any). I am a much better gamer at 27 than I ever was in brood war at 17. I make more sound decisions and think more clearly rather than letting the adrenaline and pressure get to me. Also makes a LAN seem like a joke when I'm going up against a bunch of kids. WAHAHA
I have noticed a pretty noticeable decline in my speed, decision-making and reflexes when playing, and around 2000 I was much more sharp compared to now, even though I play more now. Most obvious is though how much slower I take in new information these days. I guess there is a reason the oldest OSL winner ever was 22 years old. Luckily WoL is so much less demanding than BW on every level so it is still possible to enjoy the game, but imagine a 30 year old playing Terran in BW, that would be interesting.
I haven't read the other posts in this thread, but as with everything else it's a matter of training. By training your mind you can retain and increase your cognitive abilities beyond that they were in your 20s np. On a group level (some) mental functions start to degrade but in case of individuals this can never be assumed to be true. If you are constantly training your mind I don't think a major decline in function would be seen for a very long time, which should be true for any Sc2 progamer.
As you grow older you gain more experience and you can compensate by that. Fe there was this great pianist that turned really old (50+) and couldn't play his piano as fast anymore, so what he did was slow down during the less-fast parts and which created the illusion of him playing faster as the contrast was bigger. It's sort of a stretch to compare it to SC2, but as you turn 50-60 something you might need to start adapting your play if you're at a pro level. Play smarter and with less APM.
I mean look at Nestea. He's like 35? and still owning ass. Doubt he's having any cognitive decline as he is evidently the smartest human on earth.
On January 03 2012 15:09 Mutalicks wrote: ^ I'm 27 years old and play in masters with little to no work. I think it takes true talent and dedication to be someone like Boxer or Whitera, but age is not a hinderance. Time and work are 100 fold more important than an absolutely tiny difference within the brain (if any). I am a much better gamer at 27 than I ever was in brood war at 17. I make more sound decisions and think more clearly rather than letting the adrenaline and pressure get to me. Also makes a LAN seem like a joke when I'm going up against a bunch of kids. WAHAHA
26, and is also pretty much how I feel, having dedicated a lot of time to Quake, CS and War3 when I was younger its seems that I know how to get ok at any multilayer game pretty quickly.
Only got back to PC gaming with the launch of SC2 with around 4-5 years without a PC prior to that >< never realized how much I missed it. Definitely much fitter / stronger / smarter now at 26 than when I was 17.
Obviously have much less time to squeeze in games these days, for example takes me 3-5 games to start playing ok and some nights after work ill only get to play the five and then its bed time tt.
Its like I only get to play my best starcraft during my days off which is when I can spam more games.
On January 03 2012 10:40 PepperoniPiZZa wrote: I'm pretty sure that this whole topic is a hoax i.e. bullshit. I've never read about any study that would suggest a decline in videogameskill as you grow older.
Look at that guy, he's showing amazing precision and speed at the age of 70. What you guys are talking about suggests that this is impossible. I think it's more of a scapegoat thing, age is always an easy excuse. Bad at videogames because you're 30? Come on, people climb everest at 70.
That's not at all what the topic says. Heh, I'm not sure how many more times I need to snake it into the OP that cognitive decline is different among people, and that some people show no cognitive decline for a long long time. Maybe the 70 year old dude in your video hasn't experienced cognitive decline? That's great for him, but it doesn't mean the topic is "a hoax", whatever you meant by that. If you think the data in the topic drawn from various sources (Nature, etc) is bullshit, that's okay I guess. Nowhere in there do I suggest age as the scapegoat for loss of ability. Am I not arguing the opposite -- that although cognitive decline is real, it probably doesn't impact SC2 success?
I have to point out that Musketer while somewhat hostile was very right about the whole causation thing. Cognitive decline is "different among people" but it is also not some sort of disease that you start to get at a certain age and most of all you can't say that aging CAUSES cognitive decline. The graphs don't show that at all, but from your posts you appear to see it as inevitable (at 30, 40 or even 80...). Not how it works. While it is true that the body will deteriorate with age you cannot say that the results shown in the graphs are because of biological aging. Also it's very strange to assume that there would be some sort of onset and that it isn't an ongoing process.
So basically I am against your concept of a biological "cognitive decline" as something "real" that you have shown with your graphs (0 data or sources), because you haven't. Otherwise I think we are close in our opinion because I do think there is an ongoing deterioration because of normal aging but that the effects of this is likely very small until very old age. So until then lifestyle choices and environmental factors differentiating between generations will surely have a much greater effect on cognitive decline than any biological process. Of course this is also a hypothesis based on theory and the observed difference between populations.
Regarding the piano, as long as you keep playing why would it deteriorate. It's when you stop doing something that the problems are likely to start. With something like the piano that is about movement I guess the skill should stay pretty intact anyway. But instruments are not like computer games because skills from one game doesn't necessarily generalize to other games. Either way I think anyone can get good at SC2 but like pointed out mostly younger players have the possibility to even try to go pro.
The sources are Nature papers and two courses at Harvard- scrb180 and mcb80.
People are not born or "genetically made equal" mindset, and genetics play a major factor concerning this. I am 22 but my reaction time has always been something I viewed as higher than average in my opinion, I havn't noticed much of a slow down between then (16~) now. Whenever these thigns come up it annoys me because most people who bring it up are indeed in their mid-20s but wan't to rationalize their terrible play/understanding to their age. If someone can be a UFC fighter 25+ or any physically demanding activity requiring perseption and reactive skills what is a video game. Furthermore, I might be wrong but I believe this to be the first generation of "older" gamers. (30+) I don't see white-ra complaining, nor boxer, nor nestea.
I think in most cases of progamers there is no decline to begin with. Factors that can be misinterpreted as decline: 1) when a person gets famous there is a lot of luck involved. Noone can benefit from countinuous good luck. 2) The competition gets better and better.
Interesting. I feel it a bit, but I just thought it was due to lack of practice (dont play as much intense fast games as in Highschool). I actually score around the same or a bit faster on apm/reflex games, but I think Iost stamina and consistency. I feel I zone out more (eg daydream, tunnel vision, supply block), but I dont have data to compare that to. This makes mass gaming and even watching reps/vods less efficient in terms of "amount learned per time spent."
Personally my theory is that too much ADHD-multitasking (windows, tabs, multimonitor, music) has eroded my concentration skills. This thread is a good reminder to me though to do more mind-intense activities, feeling sluggish after long dormant periods is such a gross feeling.
Great issue is that most people (including many scientists unfortunately) do not consider enough the immense influence on any such assumptions by the culture they live in. The assumptions about how brain develops in older age are based on a specific lifestyle that is currently required by a given society for basic survival. Evolutionary those social processes have no impact, because they've been around for a very short period of time, so physiologically there's great untapped potential. One common misconception for example is that IQ declines in senior age, but then more recent studies have shown that the IQ may even be increasing, if they factor the input/output problems of seniors - inability to see, read, speak, press keys quickly, handle a pen etc. The brain however is still working well and very fast (when not affected directly by disease). I think elder people, especially those with pensions and much free time are potentially great market for the gaming industry, if in the coming years the input/output devices adapt to new levels that make use of the brain's ability even in cases of hand or eye difficulties.
People bringing up Boxer are very ignorant. He was a two time starleague champ and was the biggest name in bw for a long time. He has not won a single major SC2 tournament. He would actually be supporting evidence that age will decrease performance. Physically, this is almost undeniable, as Boxer has severe pains that inhibit his ability to practice. I cannot prove anything, but I'm extremely confident a 21 year old Boxer would play circles around today's Boxer.
Physical deterioration is not to be taken lightly and probably dwarfs any mental deterioration. Flash is playing against the clock and it's not due to brain decay.
For the rest of us non pros, life priorities are the biggest factor. Age has a huge impact on this, to the point that for most people, brain deterioration is insignificant.
21 and feeling good :D my RTS ability's have improved majorly through practice as well as hand eye coordination, I know one hardship my body has endured is intense gaming sessions since about 12years old "talkin like 30+ hour sessions" with improper posture and wrist comfort so about a year ago I've felt like my body couldn't handle the stress anymore hand eye coordination was becoming sloppy couldn't play cs1.6 anywhere close to how i use to, and SC2 games took a major stress on me to play at full potential, but i realized it wasn't my body slowing down was just my wrists not being loosened up enough, started doing exercises on my wrists/hands to stretch them out, first 2 weeks showed slight improvements but after doing it consistently throughout the day [now i just doit when im not doing anything haha became routine] i feel fantastic even made me realize how much exercise is important even if its just walking! and im 21 to average standards pretty damn unhealthy LOL. but no. i still dont feel anything slowly down on my body i feel it also matters how much you give a shit about the game . i agree with @emythrel im sorry guys but if ur bodys slowing down at 25 you have issues i drink 4 litres of pop a day non-diet, dont really do any exercise at all or physical activity, smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, and drink decently consistent all in your head or. if i may point to the obvious hand eye coordination is something you either have to a great extent or not, you can improve it to a point i'm sure but its something u either have or you dont. some people also have better gene's for having a healthy process of sustaining memory, reasoning etc everyone's different some would be able to sustain a professional gaming career for a long time some will burn out asap, life is shitty just prayin im 1 of the lucky 1's
I never really understood this mindset, for I know that I'm a lot better at games now at the age of 21 then I was when I was younger. In fact, when I watch my little brother play games I get embarrassed at the thought that I used to be a unskilled as him. I think the Korean perception that old equals bad mostly comes from the fact that once you get into your mid twenties you are less willing to spend 15 hours a day grinding out for a video game. By then, you want something more fulfilling and exciting in your life than a computer game. That's my take at least.
Hey guys, i don't understand, come on, why 25 and 30 is old? No way, i think people just find more improtant things to care or to do, like being with family rtc.
So they probably don't feel as competive as they were
your physical motors slow down, not your mind. your mind don't decline until late old age if you keep yourself in decent health. just look at all those old scientist and inventors. Einstein, Stephen hawkings, many many of the most brilliant scientist and inventors, researches are 50+ etc. Stephen Hawkings, Einstein, chess players are smarter at old age then when young.
what makes older age less ideal for gaming is not mind related, but reaction times, physical motors related, and physical stamina.
Boxer has maintained an incredible competitive spirit. A lot of people miscredit him for MMA's success when it seems that he does very little coaching. Boxer is more likely grinding out game after game to improve his own skill in the only way he knows how. Controlling for revised priorities, which appears not to be the case for Boxer, he seems to be steadily falling in skill relative to younger players.
On January 03 2012 17:03 fourColo wrote: Boxer has maintained an incredible competitive spirit. A lot of people miscredit him for MMA's success when it seems that he does very little coaching. Boxer is more likely grinding out game after game to improve his own skill in the only way he knows how. Controlling for revised priorities, which appears not to be the case for Boxer, he seems to be steadily falling in skill relative to younger players.
Again, this is likely due to his shoulder.
not really. he was declining since bw way before any shoulder problems. its quick motor skills, where people in the teens 14 15 16 - 22 got real dexterity advantage, etc.
Thankfully I'm not old enough to be able to give anecdotal experience as to a cognitive decline. That being said, it's pretty rare for me to see someone past mid 20's being faster than me mechanically. Pro players with very low apm like White-Ra stay competitive due to their game understanding and effective apm.
In a few years I'm sure I'll have lost my dexterity/speed advantage though.
I have just turned 27- Have been within the gaming community since 2000. Played semi-professional level CS1.6 between 2002 and 2006. Play casual sc2 at masters level.
I can, without any doubt or bother say that my reaction times are definitely not what they were when i was 17- 20. Now, im too ignorant to know whether this is 100% down to aging, or because i simply dont use my reactions as much any more.
I think 20 years from now RTS games will have multiple top level 40+ year old pro's.
I'm19 btw and the people who say they are 20 and they feel "ancient" are sad as fuck like the male brain doesn't even finish maturing until about age 25 for most people right?
I think it depends, if you picked up competitive gaming as an adult(25+), you are going to be slow and i think no matter what your improvment is going to be slow. Where if you have a kid that has been competitive at gaming since he/she were 12, and is now 25, they've had all that experience and such. It is like learning a language and you are born into a bilingual family, you know 2 languages easy, where a person in Canada/US can grow up only knowing english but learning another language is a pain in the ass and requires years of schooling.
I think esports is too young to judge how age will effect ones performance.
As players get older, their drive for the game (especially in the past) decreases greatly. Other ambitions, women and other factors creep into your life- you train less and less.
White-Ra's apm isnt _that_ low, and even in his youth he never had red hot super fast mechanics/ apm.
Anyone over 25 whining: Look at WhiteRa. That's right, I'm afraid you have to find something else to blame for your lack of success.
I'm 25 myself and I feel perfectly fine even though I do not exercise nor have a good diet. Yeah, I'm not a progamer, but my reason for only being plat is that I simply don't play even close to enough. I can easily do 100 APM when I'm in the zone, and that's with me playing less than 2 games a day on average on ladder.
I think it's interesting that people continue to bring up reaction speed as a factor of consideration in SC2. I don't see how that is a large consideration, given that StarCraft is not a FPS where you're getting shot at from all angles. The only real reaction-time dependent action in the game is responding to spells casted by the opponent.
For the most part, SC2 is a much more strategy-based game than Brood War was. At the top levels of competition, you can no longer make it a game of mechanics. The UI in SC2 is far simpler than BW's. You see extremely consistent players like NaDa with near perfect mechanics lose because of strategy. ForGG has shown that his BW mechanics allow him to play extremely abusively, but even he isn't immune to strategic failure.
By saying that SC2 is a more strategy-based game, I want to call attention to the fact that reaction time is second to recognition of the situation. The person that recognizes unit movement and reacts ahead of time achieves roughly the same effect as the person that can react reflexively to the situation. This is a game where build-orders are still capable of triggering automatic wins. Having high reaction time is advantageous, but not having it is in no way hindering.
I'm 17, high master in SC2 despite very little actual playtime, and pretty high level at most other games I've been involved with as well. I do not know if I'm in my prime right now, or if I'll go up a little more before turning over, but as of yet, I've felt more skilled for every year, but I guess that pattern will be reversed in due time. Whether my current success is due to talent or age... I don't know, probably both. I do not think you can solely blame age as an all too deciding factor when it comes down to this though, just ask Boxer or WhiteRa Although it is true that your reaction time etc gets slower when you get to a certain age and only deteriorates from there, if you put your mind into it, you should be able to overcome that issue. The real barrier is mental, and in that regard, age is irrelevant as far as overcoming it goes.
i think, when you are 18 and you have to pick up new mechanics or something it probably will take you less time then if you were 25. but thats all.
im 27 and im improving well at my play, and im improving not just in sc2. so i think its bullshit.
when playing football or american football or basketball there is a age when your body just cant improve that much anymore, where your abilitiy to step up your game is not working anymore due to practice. but in games the age ceiling is very high in my opinion.
All I know for sure is that the 14 year old me would utterly crush the current me in BW, and probably also in SC2 if given a few weeks to prepare. The dedication, tenacity and, most of all, spare time I had back in the days is something I cannot compete with nowadays.
Athletes in a variety of sports seem to be able to keep going well past the age of 30. I have no doubt that once you start apporaching that age that you probably slow down a little bit. However i don't think it's that significant and i doubt it should affect you much unless you are a top level pro.
In my experience the only people who really lose their reflexes are those who don't use them often.
I used to play so much harder and actually enjoy it! i would rage alot at losing and idolise people alot more. Now I cant be fucked and am happy with a mediocre win/lose haha.
When, and if, the compensation in professional gaming allows a person to have a normal household and family, you'll see the ages creeping up. Until then, people will drop out when they're in their early 20s, because they want those things and can't have them.
I guess it`s not about reaction speed and such things - its more about habits and feeling well in certain environment. Current "near 30" people are first gaming generation. So next generations - more used to computers, gaming, and such, with understanding parents (our generation) will be less and less limited in "gaming". So i guess in upcoming years Gamers age limit will be higher and higher. I dont know how far though, its really hard to predict
I think all this talk about cognitive function and age is more related to if you have to learn something new entirely from stratch.
Kids are amazing at learning and understanding things that are completely new to them even without any pervious knowledge to go by. However, as you get older you gain alot of knowledge about things so if you do something that is just somewhat related to areas in which you already excel, you are going to be more than fine since your brain is trained to be working in that particular pattern.
I think most people will hit their ceiling for other reasons (laziness, lack of discipline, lack of time to practice etc.) way before they could be held back by their age.
I have to concur, if you learned to play some sort of RTS or FPS in your teen years, you will be able to transfer some of those skills to a new game 10 years later and stay close to your original level of skill (assuming you are serious about it and have time to play).
As has been mentioned before in this thread, older (past say 25) humans learn differently than young adults and teens, they have more frameworks that they can hang the new knowledge/skills onto, but have much harder time learning new frameworks.
Thus, you are truly fucked if you are over 30 years old and have never played anything requiring such APM and reaction times. Strategy wise you should be fine as there should be some area of your life that you can transfer skills from.
"I'm getting old, but I'm still feeling as mentally amazing as I ever have! (over 25)"
All these are silly options to chose from. I am not offended or anything, but even REMOTELY implying that "over 25" can be considered "getting old" is a joke.
I'm 29 and I play way faster than I did 10 years ago. I had about 100 apm in BW and have about the same in SC2 with the new APM rules, so that's, what, nearly double? What has changed is the way I approach the game. I am more patient and better at mechanical tasks, like creep spread and larva injection, but I find it extremely hard to be the aggressor. I always gravitate towards my comfort zone and prefer macro games, I'm no longer the kind of player that is randomly going to 6 pool or 5 roach on ladder, I used to mix it up for fun a lot in BW but now for some reason it feels unnatural and a waste of time.
Its not so much you get worse with age, as it is young people gets better their born into the Gaming world better then we were playing outside as kids.
The next generaton will (Hopefully) always be sharper then us sharper isent smarter its just sharper better proccesor but what you have on the hardrive matters alot to.
On January 03 2012 18:16 Stolat wrote: Current "near 30" people are first gaming generation.
It's more like 40-45. The video games that current 40 year olds were playing at age 12 were every bit as demanding as what's out there now.
Depeds really what you include in your list of video games, though I would say the first gaming generation is about 40 now; I can tell you
I don't know anyone "first gaming generation" who is reasonably older than me. While Space Invaders was my first video game played I would not include it into the list of "demanding" or even competitive games.
You could probably count Quake as the first vidoe game that was really played on a competitive scale and I was already 25 then and always one of the older guys.
I dont buy this argument; you can still be super fast and be over 30. Its just dependant upon the person.
Lets face it, BW is a game based around mechanics. Builds have been flushed out for 10 years now, and while people like Flash and Jaedong make tweaks for sure, the core buildorders and creative process was almost compete when they came around. My point being, they are at the top of BW now because they are literally the fastest progamers out there with the best multitasking skill, it has nothing to do with their age.
In the days of Boxer, July, Nada and etc, the game of BW was more focused on creativity, not pure mechanical speed. Thats why a genius like Boxer succeeded (and why hes always the first to unveil ridiculously awesome strats to this day in SC2, every couple of months the SlayerS team comes out with something meta-changing) - but at that time, there simply wasnt a large number of "insanely fast" players.
If you look at the number of people playing SC when Boxer first started in Progaming, compared to how it became past 2005, im sure there was 10x the amount of people playing BW in 2005 (i mean serious players, not casuals) - yet the number of progamers in MSL/OSL's remains the same (obviously) .. So the stakes get higher; the players who are mechanically gifted like Flash and Jaedong are possible because not only has the game evolved past completely new meta-shifts (happens once every few years, not every month like SC2 currently) - but theres a larger player pool to find these speed demons.
SC2 will eventually become that way; but the game rewards critical thinking more than strict mechanical ability, thats why slower pros like Boxer, Nada, Nestea and etc can still compete with the 400+ apm guys. But eventually, someone is going to come along that is unreal in mechanical ability and blow everyone else away. He probably won't even be from BW, just some new person who started playing recently, but has that natural speed (along with desire to improve to his max potential)
Anyways - my point being, It has nothing to do with age, it has all to do with just that the userbase of BW and SC2 is young in general. I bet the number of players in their teens is larger than 80% of the players, while people over ~25 are less than 10%, so its obviously harder to find people who are older and have the same speed, but its out there.
Those are hypothetical stats, but just pretend its true. 80% under 20, 10% from 20-25 and 10% past 25. So for the whole age group, we have a percentage. If there are 8000 teenagers, and 2000 over 20, the percentages of us finding super fast players (lets say 1 out of every 1000) is obviously much more likely in the teenagers group. Hope that is somewhat clear.
I think everyone is born with a "max potential" for SC mechanics; with proper training (korean schedules) anyone can get fast enough to compete at a pro level.. Then there are some people who go above and beyond that, due to their natural abilities. I relate it to musical proficiency; there are some people who are just born amazingly and could play the most complex Chopin piano opus with ease (ie the speed doesnt phase them) - but a random guy could play the same song if they worked their butt off for years practicing it. Its just natural for some people.
Of course, im talking physical dexterity. Mentally I feel is the same too, and I dont think either one shows any signs of slowing down until you get into your 40s. Progamers who are 30 like BoxeR shouldn't be experiencing physical or mental deterioration if they eat healthy and stay in shape/etc, at least enough to effect their SC2 in-game skills (may affect practice time duration which could have a snowball effect, but in the heat of the moment of one game on stage, unlikely)
You realise that adults actually aren't slower than kids? They just favour accuracy over speed, their cognitive skills are just as fast as ever... It's a conscious effort on their part to get things right.
Age doesnt matter guys.. You need to keep your goal right at the middle of your mind and you will achieve anything.. The thing OP describes can be dealt with a good excercise.. And if you rly suffer from cognitive decline so much there is plenty of medication.. But still remeber this guys.. EVERYONE of us is capable to do everything he/she wants, if one dreams hard enough ! Peace
I never had very much speed... I was always amazed by the people pulling off 50 hit combos in fighting games using crazy hand-gymnastics, and could hardly believe the APM displayed in Brood War competition.
I'm more of a Zangief style player in fighting games... keep it simple, play slow and careful, and when you get the chance- hit hard. Pretty similar in SC as well, I guess. Fortunately at 30+ I've never noticed any decrease in speed.
I think something like that would only really apply to the crazy-high APM of pros... like maybe when Flash is 30+, he'll only be at 230 apm instead of 300. Still extremely good... but not able to pull off insane micro at QUITE the level he once could. Basically the same deal as a pro athlete... the speed and reflexes just aren't at their all time peak after a certain age.
I personally have become a better gamer as I have gotten older. I played SC:BW and WC3 when they first came out and was always bloody terrible at them. When I first started playing SC2 and tried to be good I made diamond league in season 1 with APM over 100 (good win/loss record as well). But when I was younger I could play the games for hours, now I get tired of playing rather quickly.
This is just a myth. The levels of slowdown becaue of age are so minute that they will have no effect on a game such as sc2. Learning is probably slightly harder at 25+ but the ammount of learning in the game is also at a very low level and most of the 25+ pros have honed their motor skills a few years earlier.
The real barrier for older people like myself (26) is that the time investment and dedication you have to put in can be seen as very secondary to other things you have going at this age. Most people have 9-5 jobs or school that requires actual work and a much more active social life. All of which take away motivation from the game. A 15 year old kid is much more likely to devote himself to the game than someone at my age. That doesn't mean it can't be done. It's just socially more acceptable at that age.
I personally really do spend a lot of time and effort on the game and I'm better than I've ever been. I consistently improve my play and mechanics and I keep raising my multitasking to new levels. Getting significantly better multitasking from age 25-26 has made me realise that there is actually nothing stopping someone from improving even the things that push your brains reaction time or memory storage / handling capabilities even after you are at a ripe 25 years of age or older.
In Brood War you could make an argument that players such as Flash, Jaedong or Bisu had real physical advantages that made them stay at that extra high level above the others but sc2 doesn't require nearly as much multitasking or reaction time as BW did. Atleast not yet for another 5-7 years (if ever).
The reason people SC players are young is because priorities change and being a progamer is a harsh life. Also alot of pros ruin their body by sitting by the computer as much as they do.
Look at soccer players or guitarists. There's loads of them in their late 20's up to the 40's who are amazing at what they do. Example:
On January 03 2012 10:40 PepperoniPiZZa wrote: I'm pretty sure that this whole topic is a hoax i.e. bullshit. I've never read about any study that would suggest a decline in videogameskill as you grow older.
Look at that guy, he's showing amazing precision and speed at the age of 70. What you guys are talking about suggests that this is impossible. I think it's more of a scapegoat thing, age is always an easy excuse. Bad at videogames because you're 30? Come on, people climb everest at 70.
That's not at all what the topic says. Heh, I'm not sure how many more times I need to snake it into the OP that cognitive decline is different among people, and that some people show no cognitive decline for a long long time. Maybe the 70 year old dude in your video hasn't experienced cognitive decline? That's great for him, but it doesn't mean the topic is "a hoax", whatever you meant by that. If you think the data in the topic drawn from various sources (Nature, etc) is bullshit, that's okay I guess. Nowhere in there do I suggest age as the scapegoat for loss of ability. Am I not arguing the opposite -- that although cognitive decline is real, it probably doesn't impact SC2 success?
I have to point out that Musketer while somewhat hostile was very right about the whole causation thing. Cognitive decline is "different among people" but it is also not some sort of disease that you start to get at a certain age and most of all you can't say that aging CAUSES cognitive decline. The graphs don't show that at all, but from your posts you appear to see it as inevitable (at 30, 40 or even 80...). Not how it works. While it is true that the body will deteriorate with age you cannot say that the results shown in the graphs are because of biological aging. Also it's very strange to assume that there would be some sort of onset and that it isn't an ongoing process.
So basically I am against your concept of a biological "cognitive decline" as something "real" that you have shown with your graphs (0 data or sources), because you haven't. Otherwise I think we are close in our opinion because I do think there is an ongoing deterioration because of normal aging but that the effects of this is likely very small until very old age. So until then lifestyle choices and environmental factors differentiating between generations will surely have a much greater effect on cognitive decline than any biological process. Of course this is also a hypothesis based on theory and the observed difference between populations.
Regarding the piano, as long as you keep playing why would it deteriorate. It's when you stop doing something that the problems are likely to start. With something like the piano that is about movement I guess the skill should stay pretty intact anyway. But instruments are not like computer games because skills from one game doesn't necessarily generalize to other games. Either way I think anyone can get good at SC2 but like pointed out mostly younger players have the possibility to even try to go pro.
The sources are Nature papers and two courses at Harvard- scrb180 and mcb80.
I'm just not sure you get the fundamentals of the research method here. It's not the lack of sources that is the main problem. The observed difference between age groups is likely real but that doesn't mean that it is caused by biological age. There are many many factors that could cause different generations to show different result. I am assuming that the studies mentioned are between populations and not longitudinal, and that the studies themselves point out the above.
I can get much more profit for an hour playing sc2 now (31 yo) than playing 8 hours BW when I was 18. I can understand much better timings, strategies and tactics, and I can read the enemy and foresee his composition or pushes.
Of course 12 years of studies and jobs as a mechanical engineer also teach you to do so in other aspects of life so I think is pretty obvious I'm better qualified now to understand SC2 than I was to understand BW.
My APM are lower than before, (average 40 in most of my replays) but I can win people with 80 or 90 average APM, just because most of the time I'm not spamming in the first 5 mins so my average before the 5 min mark is 10 or less :D
I'm 35 years old. It would be nice to know how good I am among others with same age (veteran leagues and ladders ) because seems unfair to be compared with 20-25 year players. I really don't know if it's my brain, or my priorities in life, but it seems unfair anyway.
I have certainly experienced some sort of "cognitive decline", especially when trying to memorize stuff (i.e. when learning new languages). While I'm sure that age also has an effect on my gaming skills, I have never been (or tried to be) good enough in the competitive piano aspects of SC/SC2 to notice a difference. I'm in my early 30s.
here is my view on it: 1.) The older you get, the more experience you have. The more experience/knowledge you have, the more you worry. The more you worry, the less you can focus on the game itself. 2.) The older you get, the more freedom you have of choosing what you want to do and what you don't. So the older you are, the more you are typically used to being able to do what you feel like doing. The vast majority of older people do in fact dislike learning new things, they lost their curiosity (or as Tasteosis would say: They lost their passion long ago). Young people are still generally more open towards new ideas (as in putting unreasonable amounts of time into a computer game). Also, as an adult, you are used to being able to rely on what you know/what you have learned. I won't go into detail here to not draw this out. 3.) As a child, no one expects you to know what happened for the first 1-6 years of your life. The amount of things you remember is about the exact same as a child and as an adult, but since the things you remember as an adult are divided onto so many more years the gaps appear to be larger. --- So my personal opinion is: You start aging when you lose your interest in learning/exploring new things. Until then you can do whatever you feel like if you really put your heart into it
I disagree and agree. Yes, in general adults (White-Ra is an exemption) "slow down" in terms of micro and macro because of age, but the problem isn't the "cognitive difficencies", but rather and simply the lack of time to practice. As one ages, one has more things to do, more responsabilities to handle. If people over 30 years old with a family and a job and a house had the time to practice 6 hours a day , then there wouldn't be any difference between a 15 and a 30 year old laddering in terms of "speed".
On January 03 2012 21:26 Snowen wrote: I dont buy this argument; you can still be super fast and be over 30. Its just dependant upon the person.
Of course you can. That's why I said you can still be super fast at an older age like a bunch of times in the OP Plenty of people do not experience cognitive decline to the same degree of severity. Some people develop Alzheimer's at ~65 years old -- some remain completely fine with very little decline.
The fact of the matter is, both in humans and other animals, there is a "shaving" or "pruning" -- or "de-differentiation" of synaptic complexity in old organisms, and this is different from synaptic rearrangements or plasticity, such as plasticity that occurs during "critical periods" of neural development. So, maybe on average this process begins happening around the 30s (without knowing exactly why aging strongly correlates with decline on average) -- and that's what has been observed. Just because it begins happening though doesn't have any concrete implications. What if I start experiencing decline, but it doesn't actually manifest in any form of noticeable phenotype till I reach about 70 years old? What if the process of decline is exacerbated by my environment, or what if I have genes predisposing me to developing AD?
Here's what I mean when I mention "synaptic de-differentiation" -- think of it as a retraction of connections in your brain. We don't know exactly why, or how, but it's a rationally-based concept: + Show Spoiler +
Cartoon of what an individual synapse might experience over the course of a lifetime Cartoon depicting the loss of supportive structures/decrease in number of spines/'connecting neuronal limbs' Mouse model of neuro-muscular junctions (places where, for example, motor neurons innervate tissue; yes it's a mouse model but this is a strong indicator of what to expect in human studies, and there are other observations that support the correlation. More TBA...):
On January 03 2012 23:39 Sablar wrote:
I'm just not sure you get the fundamentals of the research method here. It's not the lack of sources that is the main problem. The observed difference between age groups is likely real but that doesn't mean that it is caused by biological age. There are many many factors that could cause different generations to show different result. I am assuming that the studies mentioned are between populations and not longitudinal, and that the studies themselves point out the above.
But that doesn't mean that decline isn't caused by aging. We don't know yet! What is known is that with age, there is cognitive decline. Why does this correlation exist? Let's find out in the coming years. I think it has do with with genetics AND environment. Allow me to put it like this: Humans have ALWAYS had a lifespan of ~120 years. This does not mean we've always had the same life expectancy though -- we've been increasing that closer to our lifespan for a long time, given all the advances in health we've since made. So given that we've always had this inherent "wall", so to speak, at ~120 years old, obviously there IS some age-related factor in decline, and ultimately death. One manifestation of aging is observed in cognitive decline. Now obviously you're right, just like Musketeer earlier, that there isn't complete & direct linkage between the concepts.
But guess what? When that happens, that's gonna be several Nature papers and then some. That's not gonna be a post on Team Liquid. That I'm implored to provide that sort of substance here in order to simply introduce these concepts, right now, is...ludicrous (not directing that at you, but rather at the earlier post)
For me at 31(fml i'm that old now ) it comes down to that fact that I don't have the time ultimately needed to become a "good" player. When I was younger and playing WC2 the majority of my free time I was able to be competitive and top 5 consistently on Cases Ladder(props to people who remember this lol). For me now I tend to focus on replicating builds I see other players use at high levels and try my best to do the same. As a plat player if I can pull off the build I am aiming for at an 80% level of competence I have a good shot at winning or not looking like a clueless person in my loss lol.
For me at the end of the game console fps games are much easier for me to be competitive. I suppose couch gaming is my way to beat on you young punks anymore :p
So no, I personally have not seen a cognitive decline, I have just seen a decline in my free time
I'm 25 years old and think, 10 years ago I was a lot more hardcore I guess, at least regarding terms of stamina... but nowadays I feel more tired after long gaming sessions, but that's just my poor diet and fitness at the moment.
from a decision-making and strategic point of view i am pretty sure to have improved due to more knowledge and experience gathered over the years.
what may be most important, could also be the (at least improved) awareness of your own character and habits and therefore more efficiency when it comes to training. I find it easier to focus on special things.
IMO the cognitive decline should not affect older sc players a lot in general, because as the OP states, it's a very slow process which is hardly recognized over decades.
physical fitness is a lot more important as you grow older, I guess to keep up with the mechanics!
I am 29 now and slower than when I was 18, sure, but I don't have a good way to measure how much slower. I haven't played competitive FPS in forever, and I'm sure the lack of practice also contributes to my slowness, but I don't have much trouble multitasking in SC2 or playing Osu! insane maps.
I'm pretty sure any difference in cognitive decline could only be seen at the very, very highest level of gameplay, and maybe not even then. If Flash continues practicing as much as he does now for the next 10 years, I have a hard time believing he will be any worse of a player due to age. Note that in the case of a player like BoxeR, it's probably not old age holding him back, but the evolution of the game and the talent. Plus he's still crushing in Code S through all that. Cognitive decline is overrated.
On January 04 2012 01:23 Cirqueenflex wrote: here is my view on it: 2.) The older you get, the more freedom you have of choosing what you want to do and what you don't. So the older you are, the more you are typically used to being able to do what you feel like doing. The vast majority of older people do in fact dislike learning new things, they lost their curiosity (or as Tasteosis would say: They lost their passion long ago). Young people are still generally more open towards new ideas (as in putting unreasonable amounts of time into a computer game). Also, as an adult, you are used to being able to rely on what you know/what you have learned. I won't go into detail here to not draw this out.
Come back when you have a 9 to 5 job and a kid or two to take care of and say this with a straight face.
Read an article a while ago which stated, that the ability to automatize handmovements and just learning stuff without really thinking about it starts to decline around the age of 21. I certainly felt a decline in my gaming abilities getting past my mid 20's when playing FPS competively. 31 now and the mechanics and multitasking are my biggest weakness in SC2. Of course it's also other reasons like general fitness, but i think it's definetely a factor for most people.
Also when i was 9 i easily beat the amiga game "Shufflepuck" with enough training. When i played again a while ago, this feat seemed impossible to achieve! :D
Look at that guy, he's showing amazing precision and speed at the age of 70. What you guys are talking about suggests that this is impossible. I think it's more of a scapegoat thing, age is always an easy excuse. Bad at videogames because you're 30? Come on, people climb everest at 70.
70?? Uh, from that video Rubinstein looked more like he was pushing 90. After all, he gave his last public performance when he was 89. But yea, I'm always gonna agree with the sentiment that cognitive decline in older gamers isn't going to be an issue in regards to competitiveness, or edge. As of now the data we have just doesn't support the idea that age is a determining factor, it's just a convenient scapegoat for whatever reason, and pretty ignorant position.
But that doesn't mean that decline isn't caused by aging. We don't know yet! What is known is that with age, there is cognitive decline. Why does this correlation exist? Let's find out in the coming years. I think it has do with with genetics AND environment. Allow me to put it like this: Humans have ALWAYS had a lifespan of ~120 years. This does not mean we've always had the same life expectancy though -- we've been increasing that closer to our lifespan for a long time, given all the advances in health we've since made. So given that we've always had this inherent "wall", so to speak, at ~120 years old, obviously there IS some age-related factor in decline, and ultimately death. One manifestation of aging is observed in cognitive decline. Now obviously you're right, just like Musketeer earlier, that there isn't complete & direct linkage between the concepts.
But guess what? When that happens, that's gonna be several Nature papers and then some. That's not gonna be a post on Team Liquid. That I'm implored to provide that sort of substance here in order to simply introduce these concepts, right now, is...ludicrous (not directing that at you, but rather at the earlier post)
I checked it up now. There are longitudinal studies that show completely different results from the "Mean T-score / Age". See for example "Stability, growth, and decline in adult life span development of declarative memory: cross-sectional and longitudinal data from a population-based study.". Here and in other studies cognitive decline starts much later and works differently.
And if you base your OP on scientific data you should be able to interpret the results from said data because there are some mistakes like ".. begins on average at 20-30" or even 30, which you still state and the graphs don't back that up. If the question is supposed to be based on science then limitations need to be addressed as well. There is a lot of research on the subject already and I think the existing research and discussion about it is relevant for the question if SC2 skill is affected by age. It doesn't need to be definitive because all studies have limitations (regardless of where they were published).
I think it's always good to include sources even if it's not a formal citation. Nature isn't really a source that can be looked up and also I would be interested in reading the articles.
Regarding neuroscience and observable behavior, I think it is always very important to keep in mind that they are basically the same thing. There cannot be a change in behavior/scores etc without there being a change at a neuro level. It's the same thing but measured at different levels, and caustation is also often unclear here. - Not really directed at anyone particular, I just think it is important to repeat in any discussion regarding neuro.
All this said I still like that you took time and made the OP. I think it is an interesting subject.
I'll be 27 in a couple months, and I've definately noticed some cognitive changes in my body lately. For the record, I was in great shape, but have been letting myself go in the last few months. Whether or not this correlates to my brain abilities is not really as much of a concern to me as general aging. But what I have noticed is this: I've played videogames my whole life, and my skill with certain genres of games seem to change over time.
My SC2 skill is down, no question about it. Even over the time SC2 has been out, I've noticed my skill slip from first division rank diamond (when the game first came out), to Gold league now. Whether or not this is indicative of dominance over slow-to-adopt gamers, my interest levelling out, or brain degredation; the fact remains that as more time passes, I get worse and worse at SC2 (all RTS games in general, actually).
My FPS skills are up, constantly. I don't know why, but I absolutely dominated in old-school console FPS games (Goldeneye for example) to near-competitive levels, in a way that I could not be matched by any of the peers I'd play with. I expected my skill to go down as I aged, but this has not been the case. BF3, CoD, and other modern FPS games are all easy for me to play, due in part to a fast reaction time, which frankly, I expected to drop off with age. But it hasn't.
Same with games like Guitar Hero... my reaction time is great. And it's not muscle-memory... these are songs I'm playing on Expert, that I've never heard before in my life, and I'm still getting average scores of 98% on them.
So what makes SC2 different? Well, obviously SC2 is more than reaction times... the S in RTS stands for Strategy. One thing I've noticed over my life: my ability to win games of Chess seems to get worse and worse. I act quicker, but in a much less thought out manner. I suspect my brain is slowing down in its ability to generate more useable strategy in a timely manner from the input it gets, rather than just slowing the reaction of my body to certain cues. I also suspect that I would be a better SC2 player if I did more repetitive drills (so that I don't need to think to react to an action).
In a nutshell: I don't think age affects reaction speed, so much as it affects your ability to do something USEFUL with your reactions. The thought process gets stalled, not the actual action.
On January 03 2012 12:25 PhiliBiRD wrote: 22 so i cant say i have the issue.
realistically tho, i dont see why pros retire in late 20s. that just seems kind of silly. especially n ow since SC2 is alot easier than BW, we know the same amount of APM is not required.
with practice and consistent effort, i dont see any reason why this should be an issue until your mid-late 30s or 40s even. if randy couture fought till his mid 40's i think someone can play SC2 till the same age.
My guess is that they start to realize that playing video games competitively isn't exactly a good, long-lasting career choice if you're not Flash or Jaedong. There comes a time in one's life where one has to make certain choices for the coming twenty years of one's life, and I tdon't think anyone is going to play video games competitively until they're 50. My guess is that most of them retire at that age to persue a more normal and stable career.
On January 04 2012 03:15 Sablar wrote: I checked it up now. There are longitudinal studies that show completely different results from the "Mean T-score / Age". See for example "Stability, growth, and decline in adult life span development of declarative memory: cross-sectional and longitudinal data from a population-based study.". Here and in other studies cognitive decline starts much later and works differently.
I'm not too concerned about the particular at age at which it might onset, be it in the 60s or 30s for the point I was making -- that although cognitive decline occurs with age, it's probably not the key ingredient in our "I suck at games now" predicament. I do appreciate you showing me that this discrepancy, but it doesn't change my point. I agree with the authors that there should be supplemental studies. This paper was published in 2005, so perhaps you could check to see what has followed. The information I received that is depicted in the normalized graphs is from a 2011 lecture, so I'm wondering why the staff didn't address your concerns when they presented the info. Maybe it wasn't significant enough - I'm really not sure. Thanks though
And if you base your OP on scientific data you should be able to interpret the results from said data because there are some mistakes like ".. begins on average at 20-30" or even 30, which you still state and the graphs don't back that up. If the question is supposed to be based on science then limitations need to be addressed as well. There is a lot of research on the subject already and I think the existing research and discussion about it is relevant for the question if SC2 skill is affected by age. It doesn't need to be definitive because all studies have limitations (regardless of where they were published).
I can interpret the results though. That I'm slightly inconsistent in saying when it begins is due to the fact that it's not concretely known. I did some poking, and found "early thirties, late twenties, etc". I'm totally aware of that -- that I've been loose with exactly when it might start. That reflects the ambiguity, though, doesn't it? It's because I'm not totally sure -- no one is, and you actually support this idea of ambiguity (to a much larger degree of course) by saying there are vastly differing results in longitudinal studies. I didn't want to simply say "yeah your synapses start to de-differentiate at precisely 29 years old to precisely Y extent", thereby entailing the statement "the process begins at 29" each time it was to be mentioned. I've been saying "~late 20s/early 30s" in order to roughly relate to the graph(s), which show some discrepancies as you state. I really don't think this is a very important complaint though, this ambiguity between late 20s/early 30s...it's a general time point. Perhaps from the get-go I should've just said 30+/-5? I am basing this off scientific data, though. I agree there should be more studies, of course, due to discrepancies such as that suggested in the paper to which you refer.
I think it's always good to include sources even if it's not a formal citation. Nature isn't really a source that can be looked up and also I would be interested in reading the articles.
I do too, but most of the images in the OP are taken from various lectures, which draw upon multiple sources chosen by the professors, much like a textbook states things that are drawn from many sources. I could cite lectures #s I suppose? Some images are cited with original sources on slides, others not. I suppose I can hunt down the specifics via emailing professors. I will take requests in particular -- for maybe one image you find intriguing is one to which I have the full citation available rather than just the lecture slide, in which case I can just give that to you.
Regarding neuroscience and observable behavior, I think it is always very important to keep in mind that they are basically the same thing. There cannot be a change in behavior/scores etc without there being a change at a neuro level. It's the same thing but measured at different levels, and caustation is also often unclear here. - Not really directed at anyone particular, I just think it is important to repeat in any discussion regarding neuro.
All this said I still like that you took time and made the OP. I think it is an interesting subject.
Of course. Behavior is linked directly to neuro -- I'm glad that you see this, and would like to echo your reminder. I don't know anything at all on a formal level about the subjective/psychological aspects of the story. I only know about the developmental/neuro aspects, whose changes and features directly affect behaviors and phenotypes. If you think of the brain as a big bundle of complex connections, then you can think of behaviors as complex signaling among these networks of connections -- thus changing these networks or connectivity can impact behaviors, and when behaviors change, these changes are reflected by changes at the synpatic/neurological level. That could be worded really poorly, but I agree with you, and if I sound wrong let me know so I can re-think it
On January 04 2012 03:45 bluQ wrote: Did you guys ever notice the age of successful piano players and chess players?
Not sure what you're trying to say here...the whole musician thing is a bit skewed though when compared to professional gaming. I'm 29 and I'm a baby still. Some of my friends are just starting to get national recognition as performers, conductors, composers, but they are still considered to be in their very early careers.
I think Nestea is a great example, I mean Boxer and Nada are veterans with a decade of intensive training but Zergong? Lol he was a 2v2 player and probably spent most of his time washing Flash's underwear and coaching KTF Zergs. Yet he still owns in SC2.
I don't know much of the skill of a retired 2v2 progamer+Coach (Zergbong). But I suppose he's between B+ and A- level.
On January 04 2012 03:45 bluQ wrote: Did you guys ever notice the age of successful piano players and chess players?
Not sure what you're trying to say here...the whole musician thing is a bit skewed though when compared to professional gaming. I'm 29 and I'm a baby still. Some of my friends are just starting to get national recognition as performers, conductors, composers, but they are still considered to be in their very early careers.
It's also true that ultra-marathoners tend to be older than their traditional marathon-runner counterparts. Some things really do seem to improve with age, others not. It's all very interesting to me!
On January 04 2012 03:45 bluQ wrote: Did you guys ever notice the age of successful piano players and chess players?
Not sure what you're trying to say here...the whole musician thing is a bit skewed though when compared to professional gaming. I'm 29 and I'm a baby still. Some of my friends are just starting to get national recognition as performers, conductors, composers, but they are still considered to be in their very early careers.
It's also true that ultra-marathoners tend to be older than their traditional marathon-runner counterparts. Some things really do seem to improve with age, others not. It's all very interesting to me!
According to Baseball Prospectus, most top tier MLB players tend to peak at around 29 years old. The majority of players who aren't in the top tier of MLB clubs peak at different ages and you can't really draw any conclusions. The topic is fascinating. In the sports world, there appears to be a general, continual progression in performance until around 29 - 31, at which point there's a slight drop-off. Does age have anything to do with that? I'm not sure.
On January 04 2012 04:23 RogerShah wrote: The main reason why older gamers get worse is because they have less and less time and energy to invest in the game.
I would agree that motivation to play is a big factor in decreasing skill level as players get older, but younger players are usually faster and more skillful.
Looking at other competitive games is pretty interesting though for the old age argument.
In Capcom fighters, some of the world's most noticeable players are actually above the age of 25: Justin Wong (26), Daigo Umehara (30), Alex Valle (33), Tokido (26)
And these are just a few examples of players who still take top place finishes at events over the age of 25. Although fighters are a different genre, they still require reflexes, execution, and quick thinking.
It's ridiculous if people actually believe that you are instantly slower when you reach 25... it's just that you don't put the hearth you used to into video games (even if you are a pro). To be fast, what you need more than anything is practice, so when you cut your practice in half (or more) then yes you are going to be slower.
I'm 22 and I feel much, much worse than when I was 15. I used to be so damn good at CS1.6 and now I can barely compete. I'm still fine in modern FPS but that's because everyone sucks in those. If I still had my CS1.6 skills for BF3, I would have a KD ratio above 5 easily...
Other way around for RTS though, I'm better now than I've ever been - but when I was young I didn't really try so much. The comparison is hard to make though, but I don't think I was smart enough as a kid to really understand RTS...
On January 04 2012 04:41 WhiteDog wrote: It's ridiculous if people actually believe that you are instantly slower when you reach 25... it's just that you don't put the hearth you used to into video games (even if you are a pro). To be fast, what you need more than anything is practice, so when you cut your practice in half (or more) then yes you are going to be slower.
Well, I don't know about video games, but I've gone back to college recently and I've noticed a huge difference in how quickly I learn things. In the past, I would pick things up almost instantly and I never studied a day in my life. This semester, I've had to study quite a bit because I'm not picking things up automatically. It's real sad
Then again, I have no idea how much of that is due to age, and how much is due to alcohol consumption
im 24.me and my gamerbuddies always joke around how much we suck beacuse we are getting old :>
i personally feel i lack alot of conecntration while playing which was different back when i was around 16-18. i blame this on the lack of excitement you get out of doing things when getting older and my history of smoking weed and drink way too much in the past (way too much!!)
also after a 9-10 hour workday (everyday) i just dont have the same energy compared to a few hours of school. so i cant really say my brain is rotting because of my age. rather how i live and the shit ive done.
but i like the point of living healthy in the OP. thanks for giving me a even bigger reason to look out for myself so i still can play games at the age of 40 :D
Personal anectdote: I'm 31, going on 32 in August, drink socially, never did drugs, married, with baby daughter
I am better than I have ever been and it's because my brain is more agile than it has ever been. I know more, strategies make sense quicker, and I can apply skills that I have in one game to another simply because I can view both in a certain light that exposes similarities. I can think more critically about the game than I ever used to, and have often thought back on how bad I was at video games compared to how good I am now. I had Intellivision, NES, Super NES, etc. and played Starcraft casually in high school before I moved on to other games casually, like Street Fighter, CounterStrike, and Everquest (with a plethora of other games as my "alts.") I don't feel a slowdown, and I think it's because I have always kept athletic and in the gym without overtraining or overusing my hands or arms. In fact, it is my personal belief that right now, the only thing separating me from a grandmasters spot in AM server is the lack of time to practice. I went 8-1 this season after finding a day to practice, and then went on a 1-8 run after jumping on ladder two days later. The things I saw on the ladder, after watching the last replay, were things that I had never experienced before so my reactions were badly done and late at times. However, in all of those games my APM or multitasking was above that of my opponent.
Fun bet incoming: I could jump on SSF4:AE this moment (if I had the game) and beat probably 99% of the players on TL.net. A bold claim, yes, but a true one.
Too slow?? It's called not having the luxury of quitting your job/school like a retard to log 15 hours of playing a day in pursuit of some professional career that will never happen because you've got bills to pay and mouths to feed. Ridiculous. When you don't play as much, you aren't as good. Do you think a well entrenched pro plays anywhere nearly as much as a hungry up and comer?
My hunch is that perhaps at the pro-level, age can make a difference. That seems to be accepted when it comes to chess.
For amateurs, I'd say that the noticeable difference caused by age has much more to do with having jobs/family/kids. Power-gaming just doesn't fit in the schedule anymore.
This recent study can shed a lot of light on "I'm too old for this" excuses. Elderly people can (if they stay healthy and train) be just as fast and sometimes faster than a 25 year old. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111227142535.htm
I don't buy the whole "getting too old" arguments, not in video games at least. I believe there is burn out, and things like life catching up to you, or just not staying healthy. Also submitting to the age old cliche that you're getting too old resulting in more lazy behavior. There is also the idea that the more experience you have sometimes you will seem slower because you make sure you're doing things accurately.
On January 03 2012 08:15 ClutchSC wrote: White-Ra. Your argument is invalid.
Not really. I think if you put a 15 year old vs 30 year old with equal amount of experience, the 15 year old will win. Guys like Whitera, Moon, and Boxer compensate for their age *BY HAVING* 10+ years of experience in both RTS and professional competition.
Think of it this way. MKP can play a game on a scale of 1-10 in terms of awesomeness. When laddering online, hes a 10 because he has talent+youth. But because he lacks experience with live events, he will sometimes flunk out and play a 3 or 4 instead of his maximum 10
Boxer, on the other hand, always plays 5-6 on both the ladder and at live events. He can't reach the heights of MKP's play because he's only got talent; he doesn't have youth. But when it comes to live events, his 10+ years of experience makes him more consistent than someone like MKP.
I think the same even applies to younger BW vets too, such as Tyler, Incontrol, and Haypro. They were certainly among the best in their time, but now that the western talent pool has expanded so much they've got to deal with guys like Huk, Naniwa, Thorzain, etc. The crusty BW vets can win if the talented youngins have a bad day but otherwise they're regulated back to low-mid pro level, because their maximum potential is not what it used to be.
On January 04 2012 03:15 Sablar wrote: I checked it up now. There are longitudinal studies that show completely different results from the "Mean T-score / Age". See for example "Stability, growth, and decline in adult life span development of declarative memory: cross-sectional and longitudinal data from a population-based study.". Here and in other studies cognitive decline starts much later and works differently.
I'm not too concerned about the particular at age at which it might onset, be it in the 60s or 30s for the point I was making -- that although cognitive decline occurs with age, it's probably not the key ingredient in our "I suck at games now" predicament. I do appreciate you showing me that this discrepancy, but it doesn't change my point. I agree with the authors that there should be supplemental studies. This paper was published in 2005, so perhaps you could check to see what has followed. The information I received that is depicted in the normalized graphs is from a 2011 lecture, so I'm wondering why the staff didn't address your concerns when they presented the info. Maybe it wasn't significant enough - I'm really not sure. Thanks though
Ye, but even more so if in fact it is only small or no decline until 60. I was looking at another article that I think goes pretty in depth about the issues of cross-sectional designs and longitudinal design: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2683339/
I disagree with a lot of that and cohort effects can be quite huge for a lot of things that aren't effected by learning (like difference in lifestyle factors smoking). Reply from some of the authors of longitudinal studies: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197458009000244 . In general I'm thinking that a longitudinal design is inherently better because development for individuals is what the research is all about. Salthouse is thinking that all the differentiating variables between cohorts should be researched so that they can be accounted for in cross-sectional designs. I think it's strange to think that you can operationalize a whole 5-year (or more) context of development. It would be endless variables but ofc it would be useful to find a few that have large effects apart from things like just education. Basically you are stepping away from the "source" of information regarding human development which simply is how individuals change over time and you aren't really looking at that with cross-section even if it can be useful as well.
Because the results are so drastically different between cross-section and longitudinal I think it is kind of important still for if SC2 skill is effected by age. Basically higher age than 20s should equal better possibilities of becoming pro according to some numbers. No research on if SC2 skill has anything to do with cognitive functions but intuitively they are very close regarding the skillset required.
I haven't found anyting newer than this but would be interested if there is. Anything from 2000 and on is new as I see it. Maybe uni access is needed for the links.
And if you base your OP on scientific data you should be able to interpret the results from said data because there are some mistakes like ".. begins on average at 20-30" or even 30, which you still state and the graphs don't back that up. If the question is supposed to be based on science then limitations need to be addressed as well. There is a lot of research on the subject already and I think the existing research and discussion about it is relevant for the question if SC2 skill is affected by age. It doesn't need to be definitive because all studies have limitations (regardless of where they were published).
I can interpret the results though. That I'm slightly inconsistent in saying when it begins is due to the fact that it's not concretely known. I did some poking, and found "early thirties, late twenties, etc". I'm totally aware of that -- that I've been loose with exactly when it might start. That reflects the ambiguity, though, doesn't it? It's because I'm not totally sure -- no one is, and you actually support this idea of ambiguity (to a much larger degree of course) by saying there are vastly differing results in longitudinal studies. I didn't want to simply say "yeah your synapses start to de-differentiate at precisely 29 years old to precisely Y extent", thereby entailing the statement "the process begins at 29" each time it was to be mentioned. I've been saying "~late 20s/early 30s" in order to roughly relate to the graph(s), which show some discrepancies as you state. I really don't think this is a very important complaint though, this ambiguity between late 20s/early 30s...it's a general time point. Perhaps from the get-go I should've just said 30+/-5? I am basing this off scientific data, though. I agree there should be more studies, of course, due to discrepancies such as that suggested in the paper to which you refer.
I suppose you could say that there is evidence that points towards an earlier decline in cognitive function. I was a bit harsh but from those graphs you can't even say that anything begins, just that younger people today are better at it than older people today (or even people in the samples, if they match the general population). But yes ambiguity was the word. We need some sort of massive well planned longitudinal study preferably across different cultures with good follow-up numbers. And a measurement that isn't prone to learning effects, maybe neurological. Would be especially interesting for human potential to look at cultures where there isn't the same get married get job to deal with. Well maybe not going to happen anytime soon but I'm sure there will be more to come on this.
I don't see the low numbers are being certain and when it comes to presenting I personally wouldn't say either, but if I had to choose I would go for the most positive one all other things equal. I would need to look into the research more as well tbh but I prefer longitudinal designs when it comes to validity of results so probably past 50 until anything noticeable starts happening.
I think it's always good to include sources even if it's not a formal citation. Nature isn't really a source that can be looked up and also I would be interested in reading the articles.
I do too, but most of the images in the OP are taken from various lectures, which draw upon multiple sources chosen by the professors, much like a textbook states things that are drawn from many sources. I could cite lectures #s I suppose? Some images are cited with original sources on slides, others not. I suppose I can hunt down the specifics via emailing professors. I will take requests in particular -- for maybe one image you find intriguing is one to which I have the full citation available rather than just the lecture slide, in which case I can just give that to you.[/quote]
I don't know, maybe it was Salthouse or his friend No but I think professors have their own opinions and don't always agree. Strange not to mention the conflicting results though. I think I have found a lot of stuff now anyway but thanks.
Regarding neuroscience and observable behavior, I think it is always very important to keep in mind that they are basically the same thing. There cannot be a change in behavior/scores etc without there being a change at a neuro level. It's the same thing but measured at different levels, and caustation is also often unclear here. - Not really directed at anyone particular, I just think it is important to repeat in any discussion regarding neuro.
All this said I still like that you took time and made the OP. I think it is an interesting subject.
Of course. Behavior is linked directly to neuro -- I'm glad that you see this, and would like to echo your reminder. I don't know anything at all on a formal level about the subjective/psychological aspects of the story. I only know about the developmental/neuro aspects, whose changes and features directly affect behaviors and phenotypes. If you think of the brain as a big bundle of complex connections, then you can think of behaviors as complex signaling among these networks of connections -- thus changing these networks or connectivity can impact behaviors, and when behaviors change, these changes are reflected by changes at the synpatic/neurological level. That could be worded really poorly, but I agree with you, and if I sound wrong let me know so I can re-think it [/QUOTE]
I think that sounds great. Reflecting each other is the important part that is easy to miss especially for those who haven't read about it. Of course it all becomes sort of chicken and egg with behavior <-> biology but they are definitely interconnected along with the environment and context. I view them as being one and the same really, but measured as different levels. For behavior I think it's more of a feedback loop with behavior -> outcome -> learning (-> behavior) where learning is at a biological level. But that is of course a very behavioristic approach despite me not using the terms.
The idea of phenotype makes it clear but often the first idea you get when reading that "large ventricles associated with schizophrenia"(I *think* it is) is that large ventricles that were there all along caused schizophrenia but of course schizophrenia with everything it entails in lifestyle and behavior could have caused an enlargement as well (also from what I recall it is a poor symptom because it's larger on group level but has severe problems with sensitivity and specificity). That said there is some good evidence that there is a causal genetic factor at play for things like autism and schizophrenia is also the mental illness with the highest heritability. And then genetic factors don't really fit into the first model in the paragraph above either but that is another problem.
Don't really understand what you mean about "subjective/psychological aspects".
I think I trailed off a bit now but.. let me know if I missed something important.
EDIT: Forgot an interesting aspect about the decline. How big the differences really are. It's entirely possible that the decline shown is extremely small but looks big due to the context. Like if people got 1% less points at 50 than 20 on average. It would surprise me if the effects were anywhere near as big as they look even if they aren't that small. Even more to look into...
Cognitive decline doesn't exist. It's a simple fallacy that is proven over and over by people who want to have a certain answer...
More generally, cognitive decline is attributed to a learned, and unconscious, preference of accuracy over speed.
Yes, the psychological studies that are completely empirical that you've read or heard about are wrong. Your arms don't suddenly start moving slower after 25, in fact, as long as you're not at the absolute peak of human conditioning the physical decline doesn't exist for quite a while... Also, any neuroscientist wannabe who says that brain function "speed" is reduced over time is a dolt or a genius, because technology to actually measure anything more than basic glucose metabolism doesn't exist in any meaningful form.
There have been studies on this. There was one done with Xellos a BW pro and an amateur player that involved prolonged playing followed by brain scan. Both players were injected with a fluid that showed the most active parts of their brain during the scan. The results showed that Xellos, due to constant practice made decisions based upon instinct, where the amateur player made decision based on vision (study conducted by Korean doctors). Also, there is White-ra & Nestea who are older players and can compete among the best. If you are an older player I wouldn't let this stop your progaming dreams lol GL HF
im 31. I know a totally different set of knowledge to when i was 18
I am sure if i put as much time into games now as i did when i was a kid id still be very strong at games. when you teach yourself somethign like sc2 or an instrument you are training muscles and building pathways ... they last for a long long time.
I fyou dont believe me look at people like eddie van halen ... the guy is a WRECK. Get him to play one of his sets and hes still amazingly good (considering his shambolic zombie state) because hes a machine. Take another guitarist i love, David Gilmore. Some of his pink floyd stuff is very technical and he plays it pefectly still (well last tiem i saw him) but his newer stuff isnt as good imo. Other guitarists just get better and better like paul gilbert.
Its ALL about doing things without thinking. Always aiming to reach the higher level of thought. That takes nothing but practise, practise and practise.
Anyway i digress ... the point is that as you get older you learn how to learn (or at least i have). So whilst i dont necessarily get as good as fast I do train myself far more effectivley.
The big problem though is that i have lots of other stuff to do now. Its not like i can play a game for several hours a night every night anymore. Everytime i have done that with other people i have ended up fairly high skilled pretty fast. I have got good at lots and lots of games - to the point where im starting to get bored of them tbh as ive played them all so many times before. I'm not having to learn new tricks to beat them.
Right now id prefer to play more and more guitar because in 10 years it will still be relevant to more people.
So yeha i get better slower because i do more *seriously* than i used to and they all take a lot of work whilst doing them ... and then downtime to process it all. Maybe i needed less downtime before ... maybe i was more obsessive - i know i wasn't being interrupted every 10 mins by the missus.
When you're not playing against lightning fast pro player reflexes, the hundredth/thousandths of a second you are losing of reaction time has nothing to do with how well you can play this game.
Stop making excuses for why you're bad and just accept that you're bad. I dont mean that in a "lolumadcuzubadbro" kind of way. I mean that to say don't make excuses for your current limitations. it just stops you from trying to push past them (which you easily can do if you actually want to)
Pretty much every starcraft player is bad and will always be bad, up to and including masters and many GM players.
On January 04 2012 09:40 ShatterZer0 wrote: Cognitive decline doesn't exist. It's a simple fallacy that is proven over and over by people who want to have a certain answer...
More generally, cognitive decline is attributed to a learned, and unconscious, preference of accuracy over speed.
Yes, the psychological studies that are completely empirical that you've read or heard about are wrong. Your arms don't suddenly start moving slower after 25, in fact, as long as you're not at the absolute peak of human conditioning the physical decline doesn't exist for quite a while... Also, any neuroscientist wannabe who says that brain function "speed" is reduced over time is a dolt or a genius, because technology to actually measure anything more than basic glucose metabolism doesn't exist in any meaningful form.
Read the posts, look at the studies linked and comment if you know more. Your only argument that it is false is a blanket statement that it is, along with stating a problem with a measurement that isn't central to the theory.
I am 16 and let me tell you, I can only do 5-10 ladder games in a row and I will sleep like a baby. I exercise and eat good so I guess it just depends on your genetics or if you practice enough.
This thread has turned into something kind of awesome!
Loved your post sablar!
Also to futher comment on the OP.
I am far better at video games now then I was when I was younger. For example I am MUCH better at old school donkey kong country now despite me not playing it for 10 years.
I'd like to see sources for your info on cognitive decline in your late twenties. Because from what I know that is simply false. For example, pro athletes usually peak physically in their early to mid 30's, as well as most people hit there intellectual peak at the same time. As far as all the questions relating to being baked and playing. Well first you have to throw out all the false info that was presented to you ( example: weed kills brain cells, which we now know is a lie, in fact it promotes cellular growth. Essentially they hooked monkeys up to masks depriving them of oxygen for 7 minutes straight as they pumped nothing but high grade ((At the time of course)) colombian weed through the mask. Then said oh la dee da, weed kills brain cells completely negating the fact that they were suffocating for over 5 minutes and that is what was killing the brain cells.). And shoved down all our throats for years. Same shit with the egyptians, they keep teaching people in schools completely incorrect information on everything egyptian. Starting with the timeline. Yet they never amend there studies due to new information because it would cost to much/ Negate everything they stated as fact/ would make them wrong. And of course you can't be wrong right?
The only actual argument I can see in this thread being valid, is time. The only reason why a 17 year old, could be better than me other than any variable(natural talent). Is the fact that I work from 7am-4pm mon to friday and then some. Whereas they probably live at home, or are in school and have nothing but time to play.
I don't think this is something even can be noticed until you are like 50 - 60 years old, unless you are playing top-notch or unless you have a disease which causes distress or decline in your motor functions.
I'm 24 and the reason I stopped improving is I'm both doing my master's degree and working as an engineer, thus not playing as much. The result of this is less practice, no stable play; so it just comes down to practice.
Also it is known that with proper stimulation the aging and the decline reaction times of brain can be kept quite in check. And I would guess playing a stimulant game for brain as starcraft (multi-tasking, fast decision making, strategies etc.) is quite a such practice. I really don't believe this is an issue.
Not to be a dick, but I'm seeing a lot of 15 and 35 year olds in this thread who can barely put together an English sentence. I don't think losing your spot in the top 1% of all achievers because of old age will be a problem for most of you guys
To add to the argument, I think a lot of you aren't seeing the forest through the trees. Lots of links to biological studies and brain X-rays- not a lot of people suggesting the root of the issue may be sociological instead of biological. Perhaps as we age, our desire to be in the 1% of any field diminishes. Life gets way better as you grow up: alcohol, then sex, then money, then kids, etc. There's a lot of great stuff that a 35 year old can do with his/her that a 16 year old can't have yet. 16 year old has less to distract from the goal of SC, chess, music, etc.
Age doesn't really affect your improvement until your 40+. It's just that when your young, you don't have much to worry/think about hence you can put more focus on thinking of builds, analysing replays, forum trolling for advice etc.... in your spare time.
As a full time worker, during my break at work, I'll look up for any new builds that seem interesting/viable on TL. When I have time after dinner n shit and I start playing, I'll play a few games, hope that I win a few with my 'amazing' skills.
On January 04 2012 09:30 sLiMpoweR wrote: im bout to turn 26 and the only thing iv noticed a sharp decline in is my drive to play
I think this is the only thing that's relevant. If you let yourself stay out of practice like many adults, then of course you aren't going to be as sharp. There's just a lot of other things normal adults have to worry about.
Nestea/Boxer/Nada are all near 30s if I'm not mistaken.
Interestingly enough, the level of cognitive decline in regards to a particular area may be heavily dependent on how active and stimulated you keep your brain during the period in which you are playing SC and after you stop playing it for awhile. Check out this abstract from a paper on education, aging and and cognitive decline:
Analyzed the effects of education on cognitive decline during normal aging in 806 Ss (aged 16–85 yrs) from 5 different Mexican regions. Ss were grouped into 4 education categories (illiterate, 1–4, 5–9, and 10 or more years of education) and 4 age ranges: 16–30, 31–50, 51–65, and 66–85 years. A brief neuropsychological test battery (NEUROPSI), standardized and normalized in Spanish, was administered. The NEUROPSI test battery includes assessment of orientation, attention, memory, language, visuoperceptual abilities, motor skills, and executive functions. In general, test scores were strongly associated with level of education, and differences among age groups were smaller than differences among education groups. However, there was an interaction between age and education; among illiterate individuals scores of participants 31–50 years old were higher than scores of participants 16–30 years old for over 50% of the tests. Different patterns of interaction among educational groups were distinguished. It was concluded that the course of life-span changes in cognition are affected by education, that there is not a single relationship between age-related cognitive decline and education, and that different patterns may be found depending on the specific cognitive domain. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
If you would like to read this full paper or would like me to look up other interesting papers on cognitive decline in regard to X property, just PM me. I have access to an immense number of psychological and medical databases full of this stuff.
I'm 22. The idea that you can't be good at video games past age 25 is just silly. There are plenty of amazing gamers who are well beyond 25, and like what has been discussed, the reaction times may not be as quick, but decision making doesnt age, and great decisions in starcraft can absoutely destroy quick reactions. In most sports like football, basketball, etc, a lot of players are hitting their prime around their late 20s, and start to decline in early to mid 30s. I dont see why starcraft would be an exception to this. And the idea that a gamer is prime at 16 I guess could make sense, but most 16 year olds are in high school and aren't going to have tons of time to just play starcraft all day, especially if their parents had something to say lol. Pros in other sports have to make extremely fast reactions and decisions just as starcraft players do, and they decline much "later" than a starcraft pro.
I don't think age has much a of direct effect on the gaming ability, it just has a large indirect negative effect. Getting older means you have less time for gaming, can't commit mentally to it as easily and just have a hard time being as dedicated as youngsters. There are also some other negative physical effects probably like having a higher change of wrist problems or RSI. Having back problems might develop faster too. Also you probably can't learn as quickly as if you were younger but if you already play games since a kid it shouldn't be a problem as you're mostly adapting your routines instead of relearning new ones.
Yes the more dramatic effects that aging would have would include lack of practice, lack of motivation, and lack of time. Research suggests that any cognitive decline between between 18 and 30ish is more or less negligible assuming that one does not accelerate that cognitive decline, whether it be through physical or other injury, or arguably alcoholism, drug abuse and the like. But that is a topic for another thread.
Vladimir Horowitz and Arthur Rubinstein played piano with over 1000 "apm" well in to their 80s. Just because your grandma is slow at SC2 doesn't mean that people can't move their fingers quickly at an old age. If someone like Flash keeps playing RTS games till he's 80 i guarantee he'll still dominate any and all amateur players.
This topic seems to pop up once every few months and it's equally silly each time.
Would anyone challenge a 25 year old musician's ability to perform his instrument based on his age? Or even a 55 year old for that matter? The only reason this topic keeps getting made is as an excuse for people who have other things going on in their life. Having a kid or two is probably hundreds of times more likely to make you worse at computer games, than gaining 10-20 years is.
Even if people are getting theoretically worse at gaming when they age it wouldn't be noticeable by anyone in this thread. We are simply too bad to begin with.
I'm a bit of an outlier for consideration, as I've certainly slowed as I've aged, but that's more a product of other issues rather than the typical experience. At a young age, I was quite proficient at console gaming as well as traditional strategic gaming (chess, poker, and the like). At 27 though (a bit of a dinosaur in gaming terms, it feels), my ability to keystroke as I once could is certainly declining...but not for the reasons you may think.
In my early teens I developed schizophrenia which has slowly degraded my cognitive function and ability to translate thoughts into actions. It is probable that a percentage of the decline can be attribute to associated complications of the condition, though diet and exercise have remained relatively stable over the years (diet largely due to the marginal paranoia that makes it difficult to eat food I haven't prepared for myself, hah).
I'm not entirely certain how well all this dovetails with the topic, but it's something I've been thinking about 'coming out' with for quite some time. Perhaps at some point, I'll try to express exactly how it affects the ability to game properly, though, for the record, with little play time I can still maintain a diamond ranking, and feel I could reach masters with a little dedication.
I completely misread "mouse" as "moose," and was stunned that moose (meese?) are considered "old" at 2 years. looks like my perceptual ability has already started declining, time to get demoted
I like how it says "getting old" at 25... Your brain keeps growing and learning long past 30. The average person does not start a health decline until late 30s, early 40s and some even 50s. My grandpa didn't even start a health decline until last year in his mid 70s. To say 25 is even getting old make zero sense whatsoever. You will technically get better as you get older at SC2 as your brain develops and gets stronger. The only reason we look at older ages as bad gamers is because of their time put into the games decreasing not their skill level or brain activity. People at age 25-30 are often in college, starting a family, and working full time jobs and not playing starcraft 13 hours a day. If that was the case they would be just as good or better.
unsure, I remember being much more precise with my mouse when i played BW, but then that was at a much lower resolution, and with a ball mouse. I think the bigger problem is bad habits.
I think the main difference for us older gamers is we have more responsibilities and thus do not have enough time to maintain a high level of skill in video games.
On January 04 2012 12:02 KillZacular wrote: I like how it says "getting old" at 25... Your brain keeps growing and learning long past 30.
Does it? Please specify what you mean. If the brain is growing long past 30, why is it that brain mass decreases? How does the brain grow, yet decrease in mass?
Are you suggesting there is adult neurogenesis, widespread, at many brain regions, such that new neurons are generated and that these neurons make up for losses in glial cell populations, which is observed in aging organisms? There is some degree of neural plasticity of course, especially during critical developmental periods -- and in particular at cortical regions -- but to suggest that there is significant adult neurogenesis in a general sense is a very bold claim. Truth be told, I can only name two regions where we've recently found evidence for ongoing adult neurogenesis -- the subventricular zone of the olfactory bulb, and the sub-granular zone of the dentate gyrus, which might be a good explanation for how we're able to generate new memories and associate them with happiness. You're right that we are capable of changing the connections in our neuronal networks to some degree, and it's obvious that you can learn past 30 years old, but for simplicity's sake I'd say you're wrong that the brain "grows" long after 30
edit: actually there's a third example of adult neurogenesis in macaque neocortex, but that's very questionable imo
I think I remember seeing a study just a few days ago that said that there is very little brain decline as someone gets older. I think the decline we see in some progamers is more of a "wear and tear" thing than an age thing
granted, this isnt very definitive on the age group that we are looking at here, but the impression that i'm getting is that the difference in the young adult to adult range is very negligable as it is not even brought up in the article.
I hit my 23rd birthday about a month ago, so I belong to the 'not-so-old' group in the OP. I've been feeling different at times through my almost 10 years of RTS playing. I picked up BW at 2001ish, and at some days dreamed of being a progamer (I was never even close skillwise, obviously). When SC2 came out and I first tried it, I thought I still liked BW more than SC2, but I chose to switch over to SC2 due to it having 'easier' user interface (i.e unlimited numberings, easier hotkeys etc), because at the time I was already feeling that my sheer handspeed was declining; that I could not compete with the younger players with faster hands and better reflexes.
Contrary to what most people have been saying, I definitely feel a slowing down on my 'mouse-manuevering' skills. However, I honestly don't think that it is brain deterioration that is causing it; as stated above I believe it is more of sheer reflex (i.e being able to react to drops spotted at mini-map in time), muscle memory in hands, things as physical as that. While this is a clear disadvantage in the long run, on the other hands, this allows me a deeper understanding of the game, because I am pretty much forced to rely on my decision-making and mindgames to compensate with the lacking speed of execution; mechanics etc. Back in those days I felt more "young", I would have been able to overcome most opponents just by sheer superior macro and multitasking; which is a luxury I do not possess anymore.
I do think that older players are at disadvantage, but only because of difference in sheer physical abilities (plus maybe the ability to focus on games for an extended period), not brain capabilities. The area I feel the most extreme difference as I get old is the mini-map reflexes; I simply seem to never be able to see enemy incoming in time, whereas it was hardly the case years ago.
On January 04 2012 12:33 Lisitsa wrote: I hit my 23rd birthday about a month ago, so I belong to the 'not-so-old' group in the OP. I've been feeling different at times through my almost 10 years of RTS playing. I picked up BW at 2001ish, and at some days dreamed of being a progamer (I was never even close skillwise, obviously). When SC2 came out and I first tried it, I thought I still liked BW more than SC2, but I chose to switch over to SC2 due to it having 'easier' user interface (i.e unlimited numberings, easier hotkeys etc), because at the time I was already feeling that my sheer handspeed was declining; that I could not compete with the younger players with faster hands and better reflexes.
Contrary to what most people have been saying, I definitely feel a slowing down on my 'mouse-manuevering' skills. However, I honestly don't think that it is brain deterioration that is causing it; as stated above I believe it is more of sheer reflex (i.e being able to react to drops spotted at mini-map in time), muscle memory in hands, things as physical as that. While this is a clear disadvantage in the long run, on the other hands, this allows me a deeper understanding of the game, because I am pretty much forced to rely on my decision-making and mindgames to compensate with the lacking speed of execution; mechanics etc. Back in those days I felt more "young", I would have been able to overcome most opponents just by sheer superior macro and multitasking; which is a luxury I do not possess anymore.
I do think that older players are at disadvantage, but only because of difference in sheer physical abilities (plus maybe the ability to focus on games for an extended period), not brain capabilities. The area I feel the most extreme difference as I get old is the mini-map reflexes; I simply seem to never be able to see enemy incoming in time, whereas it was hardly the case years ago.
Your hands don't slow down at 23, end of story. Go watch a professional pianist. That's just not it. There are a million reasons why you get worse as you get older, mostly to do with less play time, but slower hands is not one of them.
On January 04 2012 12:33 Lisitsa wrote: I hit my 23rd birthday about a month ago, so I belong to the 'not-so-old' group in the OP. I've been feeling different at times through my almost 10 years of RTS playing. I picked up BW at 2001ish, and at some days dreamed of being a progamer (I was never even close skillwise, obviously). When SC2 came out and I first tried it, I thought I still liked BW more than SC2, but I chose to switch over to SC2 due to it having 'easier' user interface (i.e unlimited numberings, easier hotkeys etc), because at the time I was already feeling that my sheer handspeed was declining; that I could not compete with the younger players with faster hands and better reflexes.
Contrary to what most people have been saying, I definitely feel a slowing down on my 'mouse-manuevering' skills. However, I honestly don't think that it is brain deterioration that is causing it; as stated above I believe it is more of sheer reflex (i.e being able to react to drops spotted at mini-map in time), muscle memory in hands, things as physical as that. While this is a clear disadvantage in the long run, on the other hands, this allows me a deeper understanding of the game, because I am pretty much forced to rely on my decision-making and mindgames to compensate with the lacking speed of execution; mechanics etc. Back in those days I felt more "young", I would have been able to overcome most opponents just by sheer superior macro and multitasking; which is a luxury I do not possess anymore.
I do think that older players are at disadvantage, but only because of difference in sheer physical abilities (plus maybe the ability to focus on games for an extended period), not brain capabilities. The area I feel the most extreme difference as I get old is the mini-map reflexes; I simply seem to never be able to see enemy incoming in time, whereas it was hardly the case years ago.
Your hands don't slow down at 23, end of story. Go watch a professional pianist. That's just not it. There are a million reasons why you get worse as you get older, mostly to do with less play time, but slower hands is not one of them.
Well, I play piano, and I know what you're talking about. I don't think computer games and piano playing is exactly in the same category, though. I would say the difference between those two cases is the need for 'reflexes' - as for piano playing you need extreme preparation but there is no 'opponents' so it does not require fast reaction time. I guess I went the wrong way mentioning handspeed - where I am feeling the declining is mostly focused on reflex time (as mentioned, minimaps in particular).
On January 04 2012 12:30 FrankWalls wrote: I think I remember seeing a study just a few days ago that said that there is very little brain decline as someone gets older. I think the decline we see in some progamers is more of a "wear and tear" thing than an age thing
granted, this isnt very definitive on the age group that we are looking at here, but the impression that i'm getting is that the difference in the young adult to adult range is very negligable as it is not even brought up in the article.
The thesis of this article is that the older you get, the more you prefer accuracy over speed. This would explain Boxer and White-Ra's amazing decision making.
I played Warcraft 3 for several years starting at age 14, and after a few years of playing I was a damn good undead player. One of the things I noticed on a personal level was that my skill depended more on my emotion than being mentally sharp (although mental clarity was very important). There were days I could not lose, and conversely, days where I could not win, it was a roller coaster ride from wanting to quit playing the game altogether to hilarious ownage and wanting to never stop clicking "search game".
I began going to tournaments at the age of 15, local tournaments mostly, but I typically placed well in the tournaments (top three or top five). However as time went on, my average finishing place in tournaments began to decline (top 16, top 8, etc), specifically around a year after the release of the Frozen Throne, at which point I stopped going to tournaments and playing entirely from 2004 to 2005.
Million Man LAN 5 in 2006 had a Frozen Throne tournament and I decided what the heck, and spent three months to practice. I played better than I had ever played before; my apm was up dramatically, my decision making was better, and most importantly, I was no longer afraid to lose. My hands didnt tremble during fights, and that had a major impact on the increase of my skill. I didnt win the tournament (Third), but my stress level was nearly nonexistent in comparison to previous years of playing the game, and it felt so relaxing to finally love the game that I had formerly played because I loved playing it.
After MML5 I picked the game up again and quickly realized that I was not going to be able to be better than what I did at MML5, but I stuck with it and continued to be more and more frustrated at the game. It seemed as though I was too narrow minded in regards to the mechanics and strategies of the game and I hit a skill plateau that I could not get past, and quit WC3 for good in 2006. .I feel that my work and education were also getting more and more in the way
About four years later, I get an invite to the SC2 beta. I quickly realized that the game was MUCH MUCH different than the RTS I was accustomed to, but the base mechanics (micro, macro, multitasking, etc) were still rather similar, and was able to pick up on the game rather quickly. I played nonstop until the end of the beta and a few months through release, finishing the beta in high 1v1 diamond. As the SC2 retail released I began to catch myself making silly mistakes and or just simply not thinking fast/clearly enough. It almost seemed like I was bored with the game, much like how my experience with WC3 was.
TLDR: I guess what I am trying to get at is age has had a very negligible factor in my overall skill, but my frustration with a game plays a MASSIVE role in my skill progression
EDIT: I kinda forgot to answer the question.. lol >.<
My mouse speed has slowed down, but I feel that its because I am getting better at judging pointer travel distance and am able to make more precise clicks, I have used a logitech MX518 since 2004, andI replaced it with another MX518 last year.. Plenty of time to learn to see the difference in dpi settings. My keyboard speed has slowed down more than anything though, and im currently looking for a new keyboard or something that would give me a better comfort level while playing with both hands on the keyboard.. I used to be able to get away with playing left hand only on the keyboard in WC3.. it seems like I cant do that in SC2 efficiently
On January 04 2012 03:45 bluQ wrote: Did you guys ever notice the age of successful piano players and chess players?
Not sure what you're trying to say here...the whole musician thing is a bit skewed though when compared to professional gaming. I'm 29 and I'm a baby still. Some of my friends are just starting to get national recognition as performers, conductors, composers, but they are still considered to be in their very early careers.
It's also true that ultra-marathoners tend to be older than their traditional marathon-runner counterparts. Some things really do seem to improve with age, others not. It's all very interesting to me!
You might find it interesting that in the Opera world, that depending on your voice, there's a wide range of when your 'prime' is. For the Tenor/Soprano, it tends to be a little earlier, but the Alto/Bass, their voices sometimes don't fully develop until they are in their 40's. Of course genetics play a variable role in thiss
On January 04 2012 12:33 Lisitsa wrote: I hit my 23rd birthday about a month ago, so I belong to the 'not-so-old' group in the OP. I've been feeling different at times through my almost 10 years of RTS playing. I picked up BW at 2001ish, and at some days dreamed of being a progamer (I was never even close skillwise, obviously). When SC2 came out and I first tried it, I thought I still liked BW more than SC2, but I chose to switch over to SC2 due to it having 'easier' user interface (i.e unlimited numberings, easier hotkeys etc), because at the time I was already feeling that my sheer handspeed was declining; that I could not compete with the younger players with faster hands and better reflexes.
Contrary to what most people have been saying, I definitely feel a slowing down on my 'mouse-manuevering' skills. However, I honestly don't think that it is brain deterioration that is causing it; as stated above I believe it is more of sheer reflex (i.e being able to react to drops spotted at mini-map in time), muscle memory in hands, things as physical as that. While this is a clear disadvantage in the long run, on the other hands, this allows me a deeper understanding of the game, because I am pretty much forced to rely on my decision-making and mindgames to compensate with the lacking speed of execution; mechanics etc. Back in those days I felt more "young", I would have been able to overcome most opponents just by sheer superior macro and multitasking; which is a luxury I do not possess anymore.
I do think that older players are at disadvantage, but only because of difference in sheer physical abilities (plus maybe the ability to focus on games for an extended period), not brain capabilities. The area I feel the most extreme difference as I get old is the mini-map reflexes; I simply seem to never be able to see enemy incoming in time, whereas it was hardly the case years ago.
Your hands don't slow down at 23, end of story. Go watch a professional pianist. That's just not it. There are a million reasons why you get worse as you get older, mostly to do with less play time, but slower hands is not one of them.
Well, I play piano, and I know what you're talking about. I don't think computer games and piano playing is exactly in the same category, though. I would say the difference between those two cases is the need for 'reflexes' - as for piano playing you need extreme preparation but there is no 'opponents' so it does not require fast reaction time. I guess I went the wrong way mentioning handspeed - where I am feeling the declining is mostly focused on reflex time (as mentioned, minimaps in particular).
I'll agree that comparing cognitive functions with regards to being a musician and playing SC is somewhat different, but making the jump towards psycho-motoric skills impairing ones ability to play, whether it's music or starcraft, sorry not going there. You're trying to clump two separate functions as a singular one. Let's put it this way, you need two 'actions' in order to move an extremidy, the cognitive action of registering/saying 'wtf/move' and the physical action of moving it. barring any accidents or impairments (see diseases, medical conditions, surgeries, etc), there is no reason why psycho-motoric, e.g. physical skills should ever impair ones reaction time (see the Artur Rubinstein example given).
And in regards to cognitive abilities, these discrepancies are minute and likely won't matter for a good long time in a healthy individual. So what you're describing for yourself is the cognitive function, not the physical one, or maybe you feel it's both, but I guarantee you the psycho-motoric action isn't the one hindering you.
I bet you that if a gamer were to stay healthy, they could play professionally for a long time. There are physical strains, but they shouldn't drop off at 25 years old. iirc the brain develops until you are 25 years old?
People have expressed concerns for their favorite progamers who are getting up there in age. Players like Nada, Boxer, and other longtime pros come to mind in particular. Is it true that perhaps they've lost some skill due to a "slowdown" of the brain?
Didn't Boxer just get back into Code A? I mean there are older people playing professional sports such as Teemu Selanne, he is 41 and he still carries his team from time to time. (The Ducks aren't too good this year :/)
I think you should highlight your TL:DR more, just because you are 25 does not mean you will lose your starcraft skill.
Edit: Idk if this source is trustworthy, but afaik the frontal cortex (judgement and decision making) matures until 25. + Show Spoiler +
On January 04 2012 12:33 Lisitsa wrote: I hit my 23rd birthday about a month ago, so I belong to the 'not-so-old' group in the OP. I've been feeling different at times through my almost 10 years of RTS playing. I picked up BW at 2001ish, and at some days dreamed of being a progamer (I was never even close skillwise, obviously). When SC2 came out and I first tried it, I thought I still liked BW more than SC2, but I chose to switch over to SC2 due to it having 'easier' user interface (i.e unlimited numberings, easier hotkeys etc), because at the time I was already feeling that my sheer handspeed was declining; that I could not compete with the younger players with faster hands and better reflexes.
Contrary to what most people have been saying, I definitely feel a slowing down on my 'mouse-manuevering' skills. However, I honestly don't think that it is brain deterioration that is causing it; as stated above I believe it is more of sheer reflex (i.e being able to react to drops spotted at mini-map in time), muscle memory in hands, things as physical as that. While this is a clear disadvantage in the long run, on the other hands, this allows me a deeper understanding of the game, because I am pretty much forced to rely on my decision-making and mindgames to compensate with the lacking speed of execution; mechanics etc. Back in those days I felt more "young", I would have been able to overcome most opponents just by sheer superior macro and multitasking; which is a luxury I do not possess anymore.
I do think that older players are at disadvantage, but only because of difference in sheer physical abilities (plus maybe the ability to focus on games for an extended period), not brain capabilities. The area I feel the most extreme difference as I get old is the mini-map reflexes; I simply seem to never be able to see enemy incoming in time, whereas it was hardly the case years ago.
When Valentina Lisitsa is still tearing it up 20 years from now, remember this post!
Only on teamliquid can you have a thread posted with a definite Right/Wrong answer and then continue into 12 pages of discourse about every other possibility.
Not too slow. I still destroy my much younger friends in SC2. Usually age just gives you less time to play because you have more responsibilities. Well, for me in my late 30s, I just don't watch TV and play SC2 instead. Even with wife and kids, you can still find some time to play if you try... even if it's never enough to satisfy your cravings, it can still be fun to play ladder. It's never too late to play SC2 if you are good and love a competitive RTS.
Any older NA players looking to find practice partners? I'd love to find a few people to practice with who would be understanding of the ole "my son just tried to strangle my toddler, brb" or "wife agro." Let me know if anyone is interested.
30+, married with two children here. I play a few nights a week after 9:00 EST.
I'm 44, and I find my major problem is reacting to new styles or strategies, in a timely manner. I doubt that it is solely related to mental deterioration, more likely just lack of experience. My APM is around 50ish and I still have to look at the keyboard during certain actions, like setting control groups, etc.
I have seen a definite improvement in my play and results since starting SC2 a few months ago. Where the limit is at my age, I'm not sure. Great post OP!
Personally, I think one of the main reasons adults tend to feel "slower" while continuing to play games as they age is due to the fact that most adults start to lose their adolescence/early adulthood metabolism and continue with unhealthy habits to a point where it starts becoming detrimental to their overall health. I believe that if a person takes care of their body through eating right, exercising regularly, and staying away from bad habits, they can significantly delay the extent that age will have on their body. I have a friend who is 31 years old that used to play this game. His reaction time was just as good as mine (I'm 23, high masters Z player) and I believe that's a testament to his remarkably healthy lifestyle.
I'm not too slow, I'm just too dumb. My APM is great, my accuracy is good, but my reaction time sucks and my multitasking is bad. If I ever have to think about the game, I instantly lose because I just can't process things quickly enough. Outside of the game I can analyze it quite well, but in game I just turn into a moron because my brain can't handle thinking and playing at the same time.
There are two issues to be considered in this thread: why PRO players decline after some age (make it 25 or so), and, do ANY player suffer a loss in abilities while getting older.
As for part one of the question, I would attribute this phenomenon to unnecessary thoughts and doubts. Being succesful at progaming requires not bothering about anything else apart from progaming. I would argue that there are only tiny differences between physical abilities of players - comparing to "standard" sports. It is like top guitar players can play at top speed of 14 to 16 notes per second (or perhaps 20+), and what you hear is just music (I like the "musical" part of this thread and can go on with examples forever). What makes a difference is planning, reacting and decisionmaking. The point is, you need all of your brain for that in game. But as you getting older, you are gaining so-called life-experience that actually makes you use your brain for non-game things while playing (not only that steals your practice time). In my opinion, the strength of youth derives from the fact, that all of the young progamer brain is filled mostly if not only with information about the game, and there is nothing to interfere with it (there is some video evidence, they do not bother about being able to prepare a meal or even turn on computer. See Nal_ra Old Boy Series or Hyungjoon Becomes A Progamer Series - YouTube for various reference examples). As soon as they learn about real life, they are lost
For the second part: I am 39, I play broodwar since 2004. I am still improving. I am getting faster (playing guitar helps). I lack that "plastic" intelligence as pointed out earlier, but I am more efficient in learning. When will I deteriorate? [>> insert brain cognitive ability discussion here<<]There is a good example in a sport similiar to SC - chess. There were a lot of players way beyond their 50's or even 60's (not mentioning Reshevsky), still performing well in tournaments. Not only in "standard" chess but also in blitz chess. Consider, that the blitz chess require using "standard schemes", that can be learned and used by adult with much more efficiency. So the faster the game the better.
So, altough I really enjoyed the scientific approach presented here, I rather go game, and tell you in 10 or 20 years.
I'm 40, and I regularly attend Los Angeles Philharmonic concerts. One thing I've noticed is that a good number of the top-end concert pianists they host are men much older than I am. If a guy in his late 50s can do what these guys do, I should be good for a while before the decline sets in.
I'm not a great SC2 player, by the way, but the bias in the SC2 community toward younger players is cultural rather than physiological.
I think it doesn't really matter. It's all about learning and spending a tremendous amount of time practicing and getting better. Some people do it faster and others have limits, but I don't see age being an hinder to it.
Humans reach maximum physical and intelectual potential around the age of 26 (for some it may be later, for some sooner). But regardless of age, you can always find areas you can improve in.
With healthy lifestyle and smart approach to learning and improving, you can be above 30 years old but still as sharp as 19 yo gamers, and MUCH sharper than 19 yo gamers that eat fast food and sit on their ass entire day.
On February 06 2012 21:01 Lysenko wrote: I'm 40, and I regularly attend Los Angeles Philharmonic concerts. One thing I've noticed is that a good number of the top-end concert pianists they host are men much older than I am. If a guy in his late 50s can do what these guys do, I should be good for a while before the decline sets in.
Good point, Berezovsky is over 40 years old and his APM would be more than several hundreds
I am 25 years old and sc2 was my first rts.Been a gamer kinda all my life.I started in bronze and got in diamond 2 months after realease without playing beta.I feel i still can improve in the game and i do.My apm was like 20 when i got the game ( with old apm) and that was sloooowwww.Now i can hit around 100 with the new apm system and it keeps getting better.Are there kids 16 years old that can smash my head through the floor in sc2?Plenty.But there are many more i can destroy and i am still improving in the game despite work,studying and having a social life.Maybe age has more to do with how much time you can put in a game and not so much with physical abilites.18 years old when i finished school and had 6-8 months till university and i had idle time i was playing wow 24/7.I imagine if i put that time in sc i could be more than good and definitely better than i am now but again it doesnt have nothing with physical or mental abilities.I think all men and women until the age of 40 like in many sports considering that they stay in shape etc can do most of things equally as well as the younger members of society.
And those comments about pianists or musical instrument players in general are on spot!
On February 06 2012 21:01 Lysenko wrote: I'm 40, and I regularly attend Los Angeles Philharmonic concerts. One thing I've noticed is that a good number of the top-end concert pianists they host are men much older than I am. If a guy in his late 50s can do what these guys do, I should be good for a while before the decline sets in.
I'm not a great SC2 player, by the way, but the bias in the SC2 community toward younger players is cultural rather than physiological.
Totally agreed. But despite that we have to think why there are more young (14-18) good players than older ones like whitera.
so how many people older people (25+) are starting to play the game compared to younger ones? i think this would be at least 10:1 prolly a lot worse. So on 10 new and young progamers there will be 1 older progamer. So ofc course we have to watch out for the younger and not the older ones. But this has nothing to do with the lack ability to play in later stages of your life.
im 29 years old and playing starcraft 2 for about 1,5 years now. i didnt play any rts for over ten years before. after about 6k games im high master on eu now. my average apm is between 200 and 250. i think it has nothing to do with your age as cloud said. its all about practice and your willingness to get better.
People higher up in ages aren't as many in professional gaming because of several reasons.
1. It's physically taxing and pretty unhealthy. (RSI, carpal tunnel, shoulder/lower back issues)
2. It's mentally taxing. Requires 8-10 hours a day of heavy practise while appealing regular jobs involve social interacting and being dynamic, something you don't get as a progamer.
3. Living in a team house isn't really something i think most people age 25+ are interested in. It's a teenage/early 20's kind of thing that i think gets old really fast.
On February 06 2012 21:01 Lysenko wrote: I'm not a great SC2 player, by the way, but the bias in the SC2 community toward younger players is cultural rather than physiological.
Haha btw I had a guy chatting with me in game who said that he hadn't ever heard of someone pushing 40 making Plat before. I told him there were a bunch of people my age playing SC2 and that some of them were better and some were worse.
As long as you continue playing you wont see a decline at all. The biggest reason why many "think" they just get worse by age is that when you hit 25 and over you start seeing how useless it is to spend so much time gaming Work, girlfriend, family and travel is so much more important than to roflstomp someone in a game.
When i was 15-16 i was insane in fps games, i would do some insane stuff like 360 turnarounds in quake and headshot people mid-air. My precision were just ridiculous. I am 29 now, i am probably 0.5% of what i was back then but thats due to i choose to not play that often. When i was a kid i could sit 9-10 hours straight gaming. Now its more like 1 hour a day.
I don't think it's cognitive decline unless you are in your golden years.
It's motivation, pure and simple. When you're younger it's easier to get gung-ho about video games, when you get older you begin to desire a different life.
If there is a cognitive decline in the 30s or so, then maybe that is caused by the changes in lifestyle, and not the other way around. Basically, the more experience you accumulate, the less new stuff you are taking in because you've already seen it all. Same thing happens when you develop more routines in your life. So once your motivation and learning slow down, your brain adapts by slowing down too.
On February 06 2012 22:29 karpo wrote: People higher up in ages aren't as many in professional gaming because of several reasons.
Let's be honest -- the reason there aren't many 35 year olds in professional gaming is that professional gaming didn't exist before they were in their mid-20s, and they were already on a path to something else.
I don't think this question will really be answered until the current round of gamers start to hit 35 or so... and I don't think the Korean players are a great source of data. Korean attitude toward age and its physical effects might well be more self-defeating than Western attitudes, or players dropping out may ultimately be because of, say, family pressure to do something else. I really don't know, and I'm not sure anyone else will for a while.
Anyone else notice how more or less everything seems to be repeating on these forums? Threads about macro mechanics, this thread about losing APM with age, a thread about blob vs blob, a thread about defenders advantage etc.
I'm only 25 years old and I've only seen an increased APM and an improved ability to play and multitask in play play as I've gotten older. I've been getting higher and higher ranked in the RTS games I've played and my APM has gone from 150 average when I was around 18 to around 230 average now at the age of 25.
Basically what I think is that getting older up until your like 40 matters so very little compared to the effort you put in when it comes to gaming.
Maybe the highest top tier player who puts in an absolute maximum amount of practice at the highest level might feel a difference when he hits his mid 30's but for everyone else it plays such a tiny role compared to the efforts you put in.
But I do think, however, that the disadvantage of being old comes into greater effect if you're trying to learn a completely new kind of game that you have no prior experience with, since young people are very skilled at picking up new stuff whereas older people rely more on previous experiences.
On February 06 2012 22:39 karpo wrote: Anyone else notice how more or less everything seems to be repeating on these forums? Threads about macro mechanics, this thread about losing APM with age, a thread about blob vs blob, a thread about defenders advantage etc.
Well it's not really my fault this popped up again, sorry about that. Someone randomly necro'd it :D I guess it is a little bit repetitive in here at this point, tho I still enjoy checking the posts- especially the posts from people who are coming from the older perspective, since I don't get the chance to interact with that many much-older-than-me people on a regular basis
If you mean to say this thread is another version of many threads that have already been made in the past, I'd say this one offers a bit of a different take on the issue. Here's the last one I could find from 7-8 years ago in all its glory: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=18435
So with this I figured I wanted to build an explanation for why there is this idea out there that as we get older, we get slower (which has some truth to it, but as you can see it's much more complex and variable), but also I wanted to try to say that although there IS scientific reasoning behind aging and its effects on neural performance, there is most likely little to zero impact on SC2 performance, for a big variety of good reasons, many of which can be found here in this thread.
But yeah, tl;dr there are only so many topics related to SC2 that can be discussed, so I guess with that in mind it's good to at least offer a different perspective or some new info when bringing up a repeated topic
On January 12 2012 15:50 Mongolbonjwa wrote: This thread is full of broscience
According to Google, Broscience is when bros use anecdotal evidence to discuss body building. This thread uses scientific evidence to look at neural activity and how it affects, or does not affect, playing SC2 at any level.
On February 06 2012 22:39 karpo wrote: Anyone else notice how more or less everything seems to be repeating on these forums? Threads about macro mechanics, this thread about losing APM with age, a thread about blob vs blob, a thread about defenders advantage etc.
Well it's not really my fault this popped up again, sorry about that. Someone randomly necro'd it :D
I mean i've seen this exact discussion 4-5 months ago.
Asking the questions in the poll to a casual audience is not really helpful at all - this is because the majority of people are going to feel that they are fine. They would be absolutely correct, since age should be no barrier to attaining a very gettable goal such as Masters or even GM.
The question should be aimed at players attempting to compete in the highest levels for it to have meaning.
huh? i never understood this. Your reaction time and muscle development in males hits their peak around late 20s. The only reason older males feel slower is because they probably have a lot less time to practice as they have real life priorities, a job, a wife, a family, school etc. They can't afford to sit there and sometimes pull all nighters practicing. Speed is something you can gain and that your muscles in your forearms and handles retain if you keep at it. If not you'll lose speed, simple as that
I think it's a combination of motivation/passion possibly declining and human's trying to blame something they can't control instead of trying to get better when they suck at something.
I'm 28 now and while I don't obsess as much about games I can certainly play them just as well as I used to. In some cases even better as I am more disciplined in theory and patience now.
what i notice more, as a 20 year old, is that players that are 14-15 improve a lot quicker than i do. A year ago, there were several players like that that I was beating, and then with about the same practice regiment, they improved a lot faster than me and my other friends closer to my age.
I was around at the beginning of esports (BW birth and the rise of counter-strike).
I played CS competitively (sponsored/ traveled etc) from around 2002 to 2005 when i was aged 18-20. From there i went on to play wc3 in the top100 on EU ladder, but never took it seriously.
I can say 100% that i am slower in some way than i was 5 years ago. When i hop onto a CS server now for an hour or 2 I can literally see how i have declined in reaction time/ thought process. Granted, a lot of it is to do with the fact im desperately out of practice compared to the 6+ hours a day/night i put into CS in my prime, but i feel like there is something else too.
It is a really, really helpless feeling and the main reason i dont touch CS now.
SC2 on the other hand... i dont feel like my age hinders me at all (apart from not being able to prac much). Reaction times just arent as important and there is more than a split second to make a decision most of the time.
Err, well, there's always been plenty of great aged pianists in history, but I do think there's something about youth that makes you improve much quicker than if you started later in your life.
On February 06 2012 22:39 karpo wrote: Anyone else notice how more or less everything seems to be repeating on these forums? Threads about macro mechanics, this thread about losing APM with age, a thread about blob vs blob, a thread about defenders advantage etc.
Ran the TL search feature on the terms:
Macro Mechanics - Lots APM with Age - nothing Defender's Advantage - 1 thread
Did I miss the multitudes of threads on these things? I'm sure everyone has said something like what the OP and other posters here has been said before by someone - but on this forum? and as a topic of a thread? If so, please find it and forward people to it instead of posting your personal feelings as though they were substantiated fact without substantiating them.
* basic reaction time tests show best times at age 20: J Gerontol (1958) 13 (4): 418-421. doi: 10.1093/geronj/13.4.418 * older active men were faster than young sedentary men: J Gerontol (1978) 33 (1): 26-30. doi: 10.1093/geronj/33.1.26 * reaction time slows starting at age 20 by 0.5 - 1.6 ms and slow downs are worse in women: J Gerontol (1994) 49 (4): P179-P189. doi: 10.1093/geronj/49.4.P179 * a 18-36 group outperformed a 61-91 group in a reaction time test: J Gerontol (1955) 10 (4): 429-432. doi: 10.1093/geronj/10.4.429 * reaction time slows by roughly 2 ms a decade: J Gerontol (1982) 37 (3): 342-348. doi: 10.1093/geronj/37.3.342
and my favorite one, "It would follow that when older and younger people are performing on tasks...on which they are well practiced, age differences may be non-existent.": J Gerontol (1970) 25 (3): 268-274. doi: 10.1093/geronj/25.3.268
In other words, if starcraft were simply about moving your hand to a light stimulus, then age might matter, but not much. But practiced complex tasks that require thinking about the choice, age is pretty irrelevant. And the notion that by 30 it would impact your play is insane.
Well... I'm almost 35 years old (w/ wife, son, job, etc.), also I'm 800s master. I've been feeling how my mind is slower than when I was in my 20's. I can't play more than 3 long macro games before feeling tired (then I start to cheese : P).
But I feel my main obstacle to get into GM or high level game play is not my age, it's time. Having a family, a job, other responsibilities and social activities prevent me from having my mind focused on my gameplay.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/07WEg.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xV693.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nwiIA.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZpLa9.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1M3y4.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aS1u8.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zDXuC.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MImYF.jpg)
Plenty of people do not experience cognitive decline to the same degree of severity. Some people develop Alzheimer's at ~65 years old -- some remain completely fine with very little decline.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gyndl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rOjHD.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lihSl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MsFzq.png)
