Does a player have his limit?

[QueenOfdestiny]

It's just annoying when people who do apm spamming think that they are the shit.

My APM is so OP I can retask my explorer waypoints faster than anyone, get on my lvl.

I guess your APM is better than just some sup players

[Dsy]

Now i got the idea. If some1 gives the British explorer Interjection sound. Right click and it says: "Absolutely" .
Everyone would spam.

[HUMMAN]

I agree almost in every sports genetics draws the line. For example black people have advantage because of their anatomy. Yet i believe adaptation is just crucial. One can become a national athlete with enough training, but in being world champion small details in genetics matters. Until that point it is negliceble. Your nature also helps your learning curve. In brain games, it should require intelligence which is mostly(?)genetics, but in my experiences; it the practise and focusing matters in strategy games. I believe none of the pro players reached the level where genetics matters significantly in aoe3; like any human being i think they lack practising and ability to focus in some points. Yet they are so good

[Papist]

...it should require intelligence which is mostly(?)genetics...

This is wrong. There is no evidence that, except in some extreme examples, intelligence is hereditary. This is however a lot of evidence that suggests that engaging in certain activities, especially when you're young, builds intelligence.

Most "smart" people are smart not because of their genes, but because they were engaged in their education (i.e. put in effort in where it mattered) and read outside of school growing up. People only assume intelligence is due to exceptional genetics because very few kids, at least where I come from, do either of those things. It is much more socially acceptable to be a meathead who only cares about sports and girls, and graduates high school by the skin of his ass.

[HUMMAN]

Thats why i put a question mark in my statement. Nature nurture debate never ends, actually i am on your side that enviroment is more important. However you cant just throw away genetics, for example no matter how it tested black people have lower iq significantly. I dont know depending on what you claim there is no evidence, maybe you wanted to say it is not obvious "how" intelligence is carried. Actually i would be happy if there is a way to increase the iq after puberty, if you know some research please share. Only thing i know is some games ( Duel N' Black) which increases short-term iq. In evoulutionary prospect genetics carry important traits. I want to point out while intelligence matters in long term, traits and characters are more important. There are many people who are smarter than Einstein, Newton or other great persons but their exclusive skills made them that great. Thats the point i wanted to make in previous post.

[Papist]

However you cant just throw away genetics, for example no matter how it tested black people have lower iq significantly.

Compare the quality of the schools that white and black students attend and you will understand the discrepancy in scores. As the product of white suburban schools who spent the last year working in a minority inner-city school, I can tell you that it's not even close - white schools as way better as a result of having way more resources. Following the nurture theory, a bad education will obviously lead to an intellectual deficit relative to those with a better education.

I dont know depending on what you claim there is no evidence, maybe you wanted to say it is not obvious "how" intelligence is carried.

No, I meant exactly what I said. There is no scientific evidence supporting the nature theory of intelligence. The anecdotal evidence that exists (e.g. smart child of smart parents) can be accounted for as well - kids will be better educated if they view education in a positive light and if it is supplemented at home. Case in point - both of my parents have doctorates, and so I entered school operating at a much higher level than the child of uneducated parents would.

Actually i would be happy if there is a way to increase the iq after puberty, if you know some research please share. Only thing i know is some games ( Duel N' Black) which increases short-term iq. In evoulutionary prospect genetics carry important traits. I want to point out while intelligence matters in long term, traits and characters are more important.

1. IQ =/= intelligence. As someone with a background in human psychology, I can tell you that there are many forms of intelligence that cannot be measured by a test. The IQ test also suffers from the Flynn effect (scores in a population increase over time) and people do better if they take it multiple times, casting doubt on its ability to accurately chart intelligence.

2. You proved my point by naming something that increases IQ after saying it wasn't possible to increase IQ... It's obviously much easier to increase intelligence when you're young (kids' brains are much more plastic than aduts', which is why they can do things like learn new languages and problem solve in unique ways far more easily), but that doesn't mean adults can't do the same

3. Name the gene that increases intelligence

[HUMMAN]

Compare the quality of the schools that white and black students attend and you will understand the discrepancy in scores. As the product of white suburban schools who spent the last year working in a minority inner-city school, I can tell you that it's not even close - white schools as way better as a result of having way more resources. Following the nurture theory, a bad education will obviously lead to an intellectual deficit relative to those with a better education.

Yeah that is point, which can be true; but not neccesarily true. You can explain everything by nurture but you should give credits to the best option in unclear cases. One thing i know also is that black people who go univercity has the iq test value 85; which is higher than avarage 70 by 15 points like in other people in the world. So educated black people still has significant lower scores. Of course they have worse education, but 70 value is just so significant to just say it is about enviroment. Other than that black people have also other different biological traits, like longer tendons, more flexible hip bones. So if there are some physical lines, by the test scores it is safest the assume there are differences in mental abilities.

No, I meant exactly what I said. There is no scientific evidence supporting the nature theory of intelligence. The anecdotal evidence that exists (e.g. smart child of smart parents) can be accounted for as well - kids will be better educated if they view education in a positive light and if it is supplemented at home. Case in point - both of my parents have doctorates, and so I entered school operating at a much higher level than the child of uneducated parents would.

Ok, i am not expert. But i like to study evolution. Some form of intelligence is genetic, i can show you counter arguments if you think we are born empty.(i assume you dont so contiuning that we are not born empty) So to talk in number most kids learn the walk, learn language, it is done by enviroment but possible by genetic abilities. There is no way to learn flying, there is no way of calculating faster than computer. There is no way of scoring 200 iq test score if your iq was 100. Since every person is born in uniqe genome, you cant say their intelligence capacity is same when they are born. So after this logical conclusion, you should also accept some people are just born smarter or stupid. Search William Siddis, as i remember he learned many languages in age 1 joined harvard to teach math in age 10; i dont see no nurture argument in cases like this. So if i show extreme, as a law in genetics it should be variated in spectrum so intelligence is inherited in all cases. Also my highschool was special school for kids that have iq above 130, i can assure you some people i know they just learn and apply faster in certain subjects.

1. You are right, intelligence is a uncertain word. Because we should communicate open i use objective points like iq score.

2. No i showed that after puberty you can only increase iq in short term and it is unsignificant.

3. I dont know how it works, but it doesnt show i dont know if it works. It is probably so complex than you imagine, since there are active genes and property of genes humanity dont know; it is not like eye colour gene or hair gene.

[Imperial Noob]

.

[Papist]

Yeah that is point, which can be true; but not neccesarily true. You can explain everything by nurture but you should give credits to the best option in unclear cases. One thing i know also is that black people who go univercity has the iq test value 85; which is higher than avarage 70 by 15 points like in other people in the world. So educated black people still has significant lower scores. Of course they have worse education, but 70 value is just so significant to just say it is about enviroment.

This is a case where statistics are not useful. You cannot simply find the means or medians of those two data sets and hold that up as proof that white students are intellectually superior to black students, because they are not operating on the same academic playing field. Statistically speaking, most black students attend under-performing/under-resourced schools, while most white students attend well-performing/well-funded schools. So of course when you average everything out, the white students score better than black students.

If you wanted to prove definitively that whites were smarter than blacks, you would have to take two students from very similar backgrounds (rich, good schools, voracious reader, family that values education and has the resources to assist; or the polar opposite), one white and one black, and show the white student performing substantially better on an IQ test.

Last point on what you wrote here: attending university does not mean you have the same intellectual background as your white peers.

Other than that black people have also other different biological traits, like longer tendons, more flexible hip bones. So if there are some physical lines, by the test scores it is safest the assume there are differences in mental abilities.

No, it's safest to assume that differences in test scores are due to differences in quality of education, which is empirical rather than theoretical (as yours is).

Ok, i am not expert. But i like to study evolution. Some form of intelligence is genetic, i can show you counter arguments if you think we are born empty.(i assume you dont so contiuning that we are not born empty) So to talk in number most kids learn the walk, learn language, it is done by enviroment but possible by genetic abilities. There is no way to learn flying, there is no way of calculating faster than computer. There is no way of scoring 200 iq test score if your iq was 100. Since every person is born in uniqe genome, you cant say their intelligence capacity is same when they are born. So after this logical conclusion, you should also accept some people are just born smarter or stupid. Search William Siddis, as i remember he learned many languages in age 1 joined harvard to teach math in age 10; i dont see no nurture argument in cases like this. So if i show extreme, as a law in genetics it should be variated in spectrum so intelligence is inherited in all cases. Also my highschool was special school for kids that have iq above 130, i can assure you some people i know they just learn and apply faster in certain subjects.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "empty". No, people aren't born with special abilities.

Also, intelligence capacity =/= intelligence; strength in one area of study(i.e. savantism) =/= intelligence

1. You are right, intelligence is a uncertain word. Because we should communicate open i use objective points like iq score.

2. No i showed that after puberty you can only increase iq in short term and it is unsignificant.

3. I dont know how it works, but it doesnt show i dont know if it works. It is probably so complex than you imagine, since there are active genes and property of genes humanity dont know; it is not like eye colour gene or hair gene.

1. But IQ scores aren't objective or all-encompassing, making them pretty useless when talking about intelligence.

2. The fact that it can change at all casts some doubt on your theory of IQ scores being "objective points".

3. If you can't provide hard evidence, it's just conjecture. Show me ANY gene that contributes to intelligence.

[Rikikipu]

I think a player has his limit, and you reach the limit of your talent at some point. I've played days and days this game and i still "suck" (relatively to the time involved in it) just because my brain or my hands aren't done for this game. I just don't think correctly for this game, and it will never change although i train hard. That's the truth, i won't be better than major but that's just a videogame so nevermind.

[deleted_user0]

Large part of human character is inherited from the parents. Character is like a multiplier to nurture, because even newborns will look at different things with varying interest, what then will either turn into curiosity, or not. The role of people around is to enhance this curiosity, and honestly not much else, outside of nutrition. If someone is a brick, they shall remain a brick, however learned one. Intelligence is a matter of curiosity turned into a constant training of creativity early on.

IQ tests do tell a lot, just not everything. There are strong differences between people with IQ of around 120 and with IQ of 130-140 and more, to the point where very smart people often find themselves bound together by being the only sane people in the crowd even if they do not like each other and to the point where many immediately recognize who "has it" and who does not.

After being born as a pretty girl, which is due to cognitive biases the only universal occurance worth the name of "aristocracy", intelligence is the close second how one could be born "well" even in a hypothetical equal-opportunity-utopia-lab setting.

Age of Empires III is far from ever hitting the ceiling of intelligence. To understand scientific reasoning one supposedly needs 115-120 IQ on average, and that suffices in our case. People who choose RTS games are usually over average intelligence anyway.

Iq tests only measure a very narrowly defined spectrum of human intelligence. Why is a person more intelligent than another when he can tell apart the subtle difference in meaning of a hundred difficult words, but it's not relevant that the other person has the skill to shoot a flying bird at a 100 paces. Or that this person knows the uses and dangers of a 100 different plants when seeing or smelling them.

The problem with iq tests is that it still falsely assumes a rift between mental and physical capacities. Intelligence is not a mental trait. Physical may not be the right word for it but its always a concert of mental and physical, there is no dualism.

Besides, what IQ tests usually test anyway is knowledge, and again only a very narrow spectrum of knowledge. And it happens that this knowledge is often taught in ways that may not actually be a good way to learn for some, and more often than not, mamy students. I'm quite sure that in many cases, when healthy individuals are concerned who werent born with any relevent defects, most big difference in knowledge and the more elusive meaning of intelligence is due to different upbringing, different quality but also types of education (some people are visually inclined, rather than audio, or need to use their hands etc) and other social influences rather than anything genetic. That doesnt mean that everyone will be equally smart/knowledgeable etc, there are genetical differences, but they may not be the biggest factor.

[Garja]

IQ also tests spacial intelligence (questions with figures, etc.) which is very relevant for gaming (and sports). And I'm pretty sure that depends a lot on genetics. Anyway nature vs nurture is a long time debated topic in learming processes I think.
Check the "Art of learning" by Josh waitzkin if interested in the impliation of that topic in games/sport.

[Dsy]

If you are good at some games its never about the IQ. Its only the enjoyment and will.

[Garja]

It is about IQ a lot.

[BrookG]

I have no background on IQ, but it is possible to improve your results in these tests. I believe in dedication, practice and the ability to be calm in stressful situations. The latter up to a degree ofc.

[momuuu]

I dont see how you can explain that some 2-3 year old kids are smarter than some 6 year old kids without invoking nature. Honestly, look around at a primary school and the differences strongly imply a nature part in it. And then I dont even know how the way our brain functions is not at least partially determined by genes.

[Dsy]

Its not IQ at all. I have lot of examples.

One of my friend played fifa a lot. He loved to play with it. He was a top fifa player back in the day.
One of my other friend played nfs drifts a lot, cause he loved it and he was kinda unbeatable also.
Or you can see any rpgs. There are tutorial movies which helps you how can make strong charachters and people who loves that game just thinks its funny cause they know much better ways to build a charachter.

If you examine these things you will see clearly games has nothing to do with IQ. Its all about how can you enjoy the game and what way.

And if you play competitive game for building up your ego thats just wont work. That always leads to anger and bad performance.
If you accept if you win or lose you are not more clever/less clever at all, you are already doing better and can improve yourself.

[Imperial Noob]

.

[princeofkabul]

i have limitless powahhh

[HUMMAN]

I dont see how you can explain that some 2-3 year old kids are smarter than some 6 year old kids without invoking nature. Honestly, look around at a primary school and the differences strongly imply a nature part in it. And then I dont even know how the way our brain functions is not at least partially determined by genes.

My example William Siddis, he learns multi languages in age 1. Also he learned alphabet when 6 months old.

[Imperial Noob]

.

[Imperial Noob]

.

[Garja]

Its not IQ at all. I have lot of examples.

One of my friend played fifa a lot. He loved to play with it. He was a top fifa player back in the day.
One of my other friend played nfs drifts a lot, cause he loved it and he was kinda unbeatable also.
Or you can see any rpgs. There are tutorial movies which helps you how can make strong charachters and people who loves that game just thinks its funny cause they know much better ways to build a charachter.

If you examine these things you will see clearly games has nothing to do with IQ. Its all about how can you enjoy the game and what way.

And if you play competitive game for building up your ego thats just wont work. That always leads to anger and bad performance.
If you accept if you win or lose you are not more clever/less clever at all, you are already doing better and can improve yourself.

I think Fifa is actually competitive/complex at the moment so I really doubt he was a top player (or maybe he was but was also pretty intelligent?).
Rpgs and nfs drifts, to my knowledge, are trash and don't require that much intelligence.
I was refering mostly to Chess, where it is also mostly about reasoning and not physical action. But in general higher IQ correlates with easyness to learn things, games included. Then ofc mastering is about expertise, practice, etc. But there is definitely a nature component and IQ can measure it in games as they usually involve logic/spacial intelligence and math intelligence.

Also your conclusions on the process of learning are limited and don't seem very educated.

[deleted_user0]

but an iq test only measures these traits in a certain setting, and only the acquisition of new information in narrowly defined way, using certain methods which may not be suitable for everyone. It for example doesn't measure how people react when under greats amount of stress (beyond ofcourse the stress such a test already brings), it measures spatial intelligence, but only for example converting it from 2d to 3d or other way around (sometimes for kids they use blocks, so its actual 3d all round). IQ tests undoubtedly measure intelligence, but only in a certain form, and there are many forms of intelligence that aren't measured. Now, I'm quite sure that the people who design these tests are aware of that, and ofcourse it's a test designed for a purpose, so it would be unfair to criticize it for not covering things which are beyond it's purpose. However, many other people do not realise this, and parents, schools and students view this sort of tests as some sort of holy grail, while it's truly not in many cases.

[Imperial Noob]

.