Remember my wise words on stupid people and gaming?

[smokii]

in a word, bollocks.

intelligence can be rated in many different ways and trying to relate a fruit fly food sustainability experiment to gaming performance in humans is a stretch, at best.

good luck with your p.h.d - i hope this isn't part of your thesis.

[Deleted]

I refer to this again (as I said in the OP, that was just an example, and not the basis for anything I say): https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0303153222.htm

People are sometimes so sad.

You seem to be a very intelligent guy, but hot dang if you act like this in real life as well you might have among the lowest emotional intelligence I've ever come across.

You might want to work on that.

[Deleted]

No youre just like in any other thread you make. You're like a machine that's just changing topics but keeps writing them all the same way.
Because once more, you spew nonsense you can't substantiate and all you can do is be defensive and snarky, acting like anyone questioning you is just an ignorant fool that can't grasp your complete lack of reason.

I have not yet seen an example of that happening. Everything I say is either a truism or has reasonable argumentation behind it. There are things we cannot definitely prove but can give logical arguments for, one of them being topics like this that haven't been studied enough. People like you happen to have a Stone Age mentality and cannot look beyond rigid forms of argumentation that require strict evidence where such evidence is absent from reality. People like me, on the other hand, have the mental courage (and capacity) to go beyond such a rigorous form of thought and say, "I might not have hard evidence because it doesn't actually exist, but I still make logical arguments for it in order to create a discussion, provoke the arising new thoughts and ideas about it, and perhaps create way for research by increasing interest."

You are sad, and that's it.

- - - Updated - - -

If Kant, Aristotle, et al were on this forum, they'd be treated as my equals or worse. That really says something.

I think they'd overdose on Prozac because of all the "citation needed" for all bold things they said, lol!

- - - Updated - - -

You seem to be a very intelligent guy, but hot dang if you act like this in real life as well you might have among the lowest emotional intelligence I've ever come across.

You might want to work on that.

I know how I come across here, and my EQ is very high I think. But, it's just a forum, no hard feelings. Is anyone really taking it hard if I say things here? In fact, I am constantly making myself a victim by acting the way I do, and a simple click on "Log Out" clears all the bad feelings (if any).

[Lynarii]

For the record, chess players actually take time thinking about their moves.

Lol...

And you think eSports gamers don't? A competitive LoL team goes into engagements with a plan, and attempts to execute on that plan. Yes, they have to react to unexpected developments that force a change in their plans, but you're not going to get to competitive levels by just reacting and never thinking.


Ultimately, being able to win 1 game out of 10 because the smart gamer had a bad day is not an 'advantage'. The smart gamer has a huge advantage, it just doesn't translate into a win 100% of the time because it's not the only factor that applies to most games. Being somewhat less consistent in my level of play only really matters if I have to be in the upper bounds of my skill level to win in the first place, and that simply isn't the case most of the time when I'm competing against people who are clearly my intellectual inferiors. I don't have to top out my skill, I simply have to not be playing the worst I'm capable of. And if I'm frequently playing at the worst I'm capable of... maybe I'm actually just not very good to begin with.

[Deleted]

And you think eSports gamers don't? A competitive LoL team goes into engagements with a plan, and attempts to execute on that plan. Yes, they have to react to unexpected developments that force a change in their plans, but you're not going to get to competitive levels by just reacting and never thinking.


Ultimately, being able to win 1 game out of 10 because the smart gamer had a bad day is not an 'advantage'. The smart gamer has a huge advantage, it just doesn't translate into a win 100% of the time because it's not the only factor that applies to most games. Being somewhat less consistent in my level of play only really matters if I have to be in the upper bounds of my skill level to win in the first place, and that simply isn't the case most of the time when I'm competing against people who are clearly my intellectual inferiors. I don't have to top out my skill, I simply have to not be playing the worst I'm capable of. And if I'm frequently playing at the worst I'm capable of... maybe I'm actually just not very good to begin with.

Just because eSports gamers might be very intelligent and at the same time perform consistently doesn't mean this translate into a trend for the average highly intelligent gamer.

Highly intelligent gamers are better, on average, than those of lower intellect, but they produce less consistent results over the same amount of time played in a direct contest with someone of lower intellect.

[Deleted]

I have not yet seen an example of that happening. Everything I say is either a truism or has reasonable argumentation behind it. There are things we cannot definitely prove but can give logical arguments for, one of them being topics like this that haven't been studied enough. People like you happen to have a Stone Age mentality and cannot look beyond rigid forms of argumentation that require strict evidence where such evidence is absent from reality. People like me, on the other hand, have the mental courage (and capacity) to go beyond such a rigorous form of thought and say, "I might not have hard evidence because it doesn't actually exist, but I still make logical arguments for it in order to create a discussion, provoke the arising new thoughts and ideas about it, and perhaps create way for research by increasing interest."

You are sad, and that's it.

- - - Updated - - -

If Kant, Aristotle, et al were on this forum, they'd be treated as my equals or worse. That really says something.

I think they'd overdose on Prozac because of all the "citation needed" for all bold things they said, lol!

- - - Updated - - -


I know how I come across here, and my EQ is very high I think. But, it's just a forum, no hard feelings. Is anyone really taking it hard if I say things here? In fact, I am constantly making myself a victim by acting the way I do, and a simple click on "Log Out" clears all the bad feelings (if any).

Its impossible to discuss anything with a personality such as yours. No matter what, you're convinced you're always right and everyone else is wrong.
You're making leaps of logic and reasoning that are absurd. You're applying reasearch that, in its own study, states it cannot be reliably applied to primates. You're blatantly and clearly ignoring huge parts of this in order to shoehorn your own massively flawed reasoning into it.

What you're doing isn't logical. You're not reasonable. It's not scientific.
It's already been pointed out several times and you've chosen to ignore it or write it off, like with me, by basically calling me a slowwitted idiot.
I'm not stating these things to insult you. I don't want to do something like that. But you very clearly, have some issues in comprehension, understanding basic logic and application of things in reality. Not to mention how emotional humans function.
In short: You're incapable of having an argument because you lack basic reasoning, understanding and logic of the things you talk about. Instead you want to make it into some vague, pseudoscientific nonsense just so you can avoid admitting that you're wrong and that you've got nothing of substance as it's already been shot down.

You cannot,at all, apply this study of fruit flies onto HUMANS PLAYING COMPUTER GAMES. It doesn't work. It doesn't apply. There is nothing to discuss. No matter what kind of nonsense you try to spin to apply it so you can sound smart.

[Deleted]

I refer to this again (as I said in the OP, that was just an example, and not the basis for anything I say): https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0303153222.htm

People are sometimes so sad.

You linked an article that shows that geniuses had trouble being creative(i.e. writing, composing music, etc.) while there were unrelated things going on. A philosopher didn't get distracted when writing a book on philosophy while thinking about philosophy. In the same sense it's unlikely that someone playing a certain game will be unable to focus because he is thinking about the very thing he is doing.

There's also the bigger issue of creativity not being that important while actually playing. Tactics and experience mean a lot less creative thinking being needed in general while playing. Even if we assume that people may have difficulty focusing while being creative you would still prefer people who can be creative simply because once they experienced something that goes into experience so that solution can be recalled without having to go through all the steps to get to it. The biggest advantage intelligent people have is the ability to come up with solutions and think for themselves in new situations. No one is able to micromanage a group of people successfully especially in fast changing situations i.e. gaming so thinking for yourself is imperative.

[Deleted]

Its impossible to discuss anything with a personality such as yours. No matter what, you're convinced you're always right and everyone else is wrong.
You're making leaps of logic and reasoning that are absurd. You're applying reasearch that, in its own study, states it cannot be reliably applied to primates. You're blatantly and clearly ignoring huge parts of this in order to shoehorn your own massively flawed reasoning into it.

What you're doing isn't logical. You're not reasonable. It's not scientific.
It's already been pointed out several times and you've chosen to ignore it or write it off, like with me, by basically calling me a slowwitted idiot.
I'm not stating these things to insult you. I don't want to do something like that. But you very clearly, have some issues in comprehension, understanding basic logic and application of things in reality. Not to mention how emotional humans function.
In short: You're incapable of having an argument because you lack basic reasoning, understanding and logic of the things you talk about. Instead you want to make it into some vague, pseudoscientific nonsense just so you can avoid admitting that you're wrong and that you've got nothing of substance as it's already been shot down.

The study was just an example of intelligence standing in the way of limited task performance, as outlined in the OP. I've linked another one that was pretty much on point and far more relevant - as I also outlined.

The reason you don't like me is because of my stances (I refer everyone to the comment he made about my stance on WoW and Europe), not my actual arguments and evidences. Your attack on my intellect is pretty much hard feelings boiling up your hatred, but that's okay.

- - - Updated - - -

You linked an article that shows that geniuses had trouble being creative(i.e. writing, composing music, etc.) while there were unrelated things going on. A philosopher didn't get distracted when writing a book on philosophy while thinking about philosophy. In the same sense it's unlikely that someone playing a certain game will be unable to focus because he is thinking about the very thing he is doing.

There's also the bigger issue of creativity not being that important while actually playing. Tactics and experience mean a lot less creative thinking being needed in general while playing. Even if we assume that people may have difficulty focusing while being creative you would still prefer people who can be creative simply because once they experienced something that goes into experience so that solution can be recalled without having to go through all the steps to get to it. The biggest advantage intelligent people have is the ability to come up with solutions and think for themselves in new situations. No one is able to micromanage a group of people successfully especially in fast changing situations i.e. gaming so thinking for yourself is imperative.

The more intelligent person is more prone to divergent thinking (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175011/), and therefore even if he has a solid tactic and gameplay, he can be more prone to distractions, both internal and external ones.

[moremana]

Seriously ...

You engraved this study into gaming? Smart, very smart.

[LilSaihah]

Remember my wise words...

No, can't say I do.

[Deleted]

Why are people so angry? I think you should calm down.

[jimboa24]

The only evidence I see present in this thread is more evidence that Mirkzat enjoys stroking his own massive ego, publicly, and bragging about it.

[Lynarii]

Just because eSports gamers might be very intelligent and at the same time perform consistently doesn't mean this translate into a trend for the average highly intelligent gamer.

Highly intelligent gamers are better, on average, than those of lower intellect, but they produce less consistent results over the same amount of time played in a direct contest with someone of lower intellect.

What I'm saying is that to be classified as an advantage, you'd need to be able to say that the more consistent but lower performance level translates to a greater degree of success than the less consistent higher performers. That's what it means to have an advantage. The difference in consistency would have to overpower the difference in performance. But there isn't much reason to believe that is commonly the case in most gaming, the scales are too different. The difference between the lower and upper ends of competency and performance are often vast, whereas differences in consistency only usually begin to be a significant factor when the relative skill between two people is quite close.

[Deleted]

What I'm saying is that to be classified as an advantage, you'd need to be able to say that the more consistent but lower performance level translates to a greater degree of success than the less consistent higher performers. That's what it means to have an advantage. The difference in consistency would have to overpower the difference in performance. But there isn't much reason to believe that is commonly the case in most gaming, the scales are too different. The difference between the lower and upper ends of competency and performance are often vast, whereas differences in consistency only usually begin to be a significant factor when the relative skill between two people is quite close.

That is the exact point, so we don't disagree there.

Yes, of course scaling matters. I'm not saying an amateur player will consistently outperform a pro if they matched up. I'm saying if both are really good at being effective in reaching the goals in a game, and they match up against one another multiple times, the less intelligent one will probably come up on top more than the highly intelligent one.

So, yes, scaling is important to mention here, but it is rather obvious that we're talking about low and high intelligence people in their respective levels... or so I thought.

[Deleted]

The more intelligent person is more prone to divergent thinking (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175011/), and therefore even if he has a solid tactic and gameplay, he can be more prone to distractions, both internal and external ones.

I don't have time to read through all of that right now so i'll just take it for granted. Being more prone to something does not mean that one cannot get over it simply through training. You do not trade away the ability to make good decisions or to react fast based on new circumstances for someone who won't get easily distracted. That would be like trading a hard to drive sports car for a tractor in a speed race.

[Lynarii]

That is the exact point, so we don't disagree there.

Yes, of course scaling matters. I'm not saying an amateur player will consistently outperform a pro if they matched up. I'm saying if both are really good at being effective in reaching the goals in a game, and they match up against one another multiple times, the less intelligent one will probably come up on top more than the highly intelligent one.

So, yes, scaling is important to mention here, but it is rather obvious that we're talking about low and high intelligence people in their respective levels... or so I thought.

Again though, you're granting an advantage to the lower intelligence player by explicitly ignoring the advantage of the higher one. The advantage of the higher intelligence player is that, other factors being fairly equal, they're unlikely to /be/ at a similar performance level in a challenge where intellectual capability plays a significant role. That's the advantage that intelligence grants in such a scenario. If the lower intelligence player /is/ at the same level of performance, then the most likely conclusion to make is that there is a second factor that is influencing the performance level (lets say they practiced a lot more for the sake of argument). In which case, you'd say that the second player's advantage is that they practiced a lot more than the smarter one, not that being dumber is an advantage.

[mvaliz]

I find that the problem with some intelligent people (those few who also happen to be problem people) tend to have TOO much focus,particularly in preserving their ego. Thus it is why some "inteligent" people can't learn anything new as they're smart enough to sell even themselves out to a lie.

[Deleted]

I love this guy

[Justpassing]

horseshit

What a dumbass.

[Azadina]

When are you gonna be posting your "wise words"? Don't leave us hanging.

He has way earlier. It was pretty much exactly the following: "I win all the time, but because stupid noobs are beating me, it means I'm better and more intelligent than they, even tho I win all the time, while they beat me. And being beaten means I win because me more intelligent than stupid noobs"

Good luck making any sense out of it. The original was actually longer, and repeated the same "points" even more times.