Cognitive motor performance in Starcraft 2 begins declining at age 24(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Cognitive motor performance in Starcraft 2 begins declining at age 24
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/age-related-brain-decline-starts-at-24-1.2611257
22 comments
At the casual level, it's likely that you will never reach a plateau where this study has a measurable effect on your game. A casual gamer will never practice enough such that the rate of cognitive decline couldn't be counter-acted by practice.
You can reach the top quartile of Starcraft 2 players through practice, overall strategy, and learning the current meta-game and tactics. Your twitch muscles only become differentiators at a much higher level than 99% of people will achieve.
You can reach the top quartile of Starcraft 2 players through practice, overall strategy, and learning the current meta-game and tactics. Your twitch muscles only become differentiators at a much higher level than 99% of people will achieve.
top quartile is useless, it's not even master league
master league is top 4% and it still doesn't matter there as much
My ability to play Starcraft well may have peaked at 24, but the leaps and bounds in my intelligence/acuity/personal development began at 24.
Edit: above comment based on OP's original headline
Edit: above comment based on OP's original headline
I've observed the same experience. Makes sense, considering:
> That critical parts of the brain involved in decision-making are not fully developed until years later at age 25 or so. [1]
[1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1411647...
> That critical parts of the brain involved in decision-making are not fully developed until years later at age 25 or so. [1]
[1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1411647...
I guess until you get smarter reflexes are there to help you survive by design from nature. Also maybe there is less brain matter for electric signals to penetrate hence the boost in reflex throughput :).
This. Prior to 24 I was quite a moron. Since then I have been heading steadily down the path towards being master of my own mind, and I'm happy to say I've spent less than an hour playing computer games in the last 5 years.
> I'm happy to say I've spent less than an hour playing computer games in the last 5 years.
Exactly why is that something to be proud of?
Exactly why is that something to be proud of?
Because I didn't want to be playing games, games are addictive, and I'm pleased I was able to control the temptation and focus on the things more aligned with my goals.
> games are addictive
No they are not, there are people that lack self control. If you have to eliminate an activity to not have it dominate you, you haven't controlled it, it controls you.
Even if that isn't true, why say you are proud to not play games. Are you proud you ordered that meal over some other one last night? Are you proud you chose to make this post two hours ago?
No they are not, there are people that lack self control. If you have to eliminate an activity to not have it dominate you, you haven't controlled it, it controls you.
Even if that isn't true, why say you are proud to not play games. Are you proud you ordered that meal over some other one last night? Are you proud you chose to make this post two hours ago?
Well, a large body of psychological literature says gaming is addictive and it's not just people lacking self control. Games are designed to be compelling. If you succumb to the compulsion and there are negative consequences for you - like not achieving your goals, that's definitively addiction and games are definitively addictive.
> If you have to eliminate an activity to not have it dominate you, you haven't controlled it, it controls you.
I strongly disagree. I don't want to play games, but feel a compulsion to. Not playing them, I control the situation.
I am proud to not play games for the following reason. Gaming is compulsive while I'm doing it, but afterwards I regret it because I think it's a waste of my time. I could be spending my time helping people. So I take control of that situation by stopping playing the games. And I'm proud that, despite the compulsion to play and the games being designed to stoke that compulsion, I have still managed to not play them.
note: I don't think you playing games is a waste of your time - you may do whatever you please. I'm not casting judgement on anyone but myself. And I don't think games are inherently bad - they are impressive in all sorts of ways. I just don't want to play them.
> If you have to eliminate an activity to not have it dominate you, you haven't controlled it, it controls you.
I strongly disagree. I don't want to play games, but feel a compulsion to. Not playing them, I control the situation.
I am proud to not play games for the following reason. Gaming is compulsive while I'm doing it, but afterwards I regret it because I think it's a waste of my time. I could be spending my time helping people. So I take control of that situation by stopping playing the games. And I'm proud that, despite the compulsion to play and the games being designed to stoke that compulsion, I have still managed to not play them.
note: I don't think you playing games is a waste of your time - you may do whatever you please. I'm not casting judgement on anyone but myself. And I don't think games are inherently bad - they are impressive in all sorts of ways. I just don't want to play them.
Presumably because he spent that time engaged in more profitable activities?
Obviously, with no absolutes, the definition of 'more profitable' is entirely subjective - but there is a general threshold in Western society that you could use to discern the popular definition of 'more profitable'.
Obviously, with no absolutes, the definition of 'more profitable' is entirely subjective - but there is a general threshold in Western society that you could use to discern the popular definition of 'more profitable'.
A life devoted to making money is not something to be proud of.
While I totally believe this to be true, I can't imagine myself to become much smarter once I've reached 24. I feel like I already know way more than many people older than me, well aware that I'm probably terribly wrong.
I mean, what ground-breaking stuff did you learn since? I would really like to read some anecdotes.
I mean, what ground-breaking stuff did you learn since? I would really like to read some anecdotes.
Only everything important. Sorry to be flip but it is so hard to sum up. I knew absolutely nothing at age 24. I had no idea how to deal with people, how to manage relationships, my energy, or long term goals. How to balance and prioritize. I am nearing 40 and feel I am finally taking the first baby steps towards having even the slightest clue about what's going on. I'm pretty sure I will die before I get most of it straight. If you've mastered all the skills you need by 24 you've either set your goals on the wrong thing or you are a prophet. But that's just one man's humble opinion.
Either that or I never thought of the possibility that one could actually master these kinds of things to some extent.
I enthusiastically recommend "How to win friends and influence people" and "war of art"
I think this feeling is often eliminated by hindsight and change of circumstance. I've had the same sensation at a few points in my life until I broadened my fields of study, took on new roles, went broke etc.
In my own experience it's in the category of "You don't know what you don't know". If you are highly focussed on a narrow field of study or experience, yes, you definitely feel like you have "peaked" with respect to mastery. However, once you get exposed to "You now know what you don't know", a lot of things suddenly change.
In my own experience it's in the category of "You don't know what you don't know". If you are highly focussed on a narrow field of study or experience, yes, you definitely feel like you have "peaked" with respect to mastery. However, once you get exposed to "You now know what you don't know", a lot of things suddenly change.
I'm hoping this article left out a lot of criteria from this description of the methodology:
"The study analyzed the way 3,305 people, aged 16 to 44, played the game against a single random opponent of similar skill, in order to measure the gamers' cognitive motor performance."
The "similar skill" is an incredibly subjective measure. Especially if they relied on the user's scores recorded on battle.net. As someone else noted, they really need to control for the fact that younger people have a lot more free time to play and practice.
A good follow-up study would be to follow a set of gamers for a couple of years as they cross this hypothetical threshold to see if the results still persist and the overall performance decreases.
Of course, they'd need to control for a number of environmental factors and hardware differences, as gaming rigs change quite quickly.
"The study analyzed the way 3,305 people, aged 16 to 44, played the game against a single random opponent of similar skill, in order to measure the gamers' cognitive motor performance."
The "similar skill" is an incredibly subjective measure. Especially if they relied on the user's scores recorded on battle.net. As someone else noted, they really need to control for the fact that younger people have a lot more free time to play and practice.
A good follow-up study would be to follow a set of gamers for a couple of years as they cross this hypothetical threshold to see if the results still persist and the overall performance decreases.
Of course, they'd need to control for a number of environmental factors and hardware differences, as gaming rigs change quite quickly.
It seems that a of these comments are taking offense, and equating cognitive motor performance = intelligence.
The article describes it as: "Cognitive motor performance is how quickly your brain reacts to things happening around you"
Meaning it is measuring your reaction time, you already know what to do in the situation, you don't have to think about it, you react.
Which is why they elderly are so dangerous behind the wheel, they didn't forget how to drive, they know that they can't run the red light, but the amount of time it takes to process that the red light is there and then to press on the break increases.
I find it fascinating that that this decline starts to show so early.
The article describes it as: "Cognitive motor performance is how quickly your brain reacts to things happening around you"
Meaning it is measuring your reaction time, you already know what to do in the situation, you don't have to think about it, you react.
Which is why they elderly are so dangerous behind the wheel, they didn't forget how to drive, they know that they can't run the red light, but the amount of time it takes to process that the red light is there and then to press on the break increases.
I find it fascinating that that this decline starts to show so early.
I don't think people are taking "offense", but rather smell the faint aroma of yet another non-repeatable study of very dubious quality. There are many very direct, easily quantified and repeated ways of measuring things like response time, StarCraft not being one of them.
I'd be interested to see statistics comparing fatal road traffic accidents for people under 25 and "elderly" people.
Did they control for having a real-life job?
I can easily imagine this effect being due to people having less time to practice, and due to less time spent practicing, and playing more casually due to 8 hours every day spent working.
I can easily imagine this effect being due to people having less time to practice, and due to less time spent practicing, and playing more casually due to 8 hours every day spent working.
Well, I think what they are saying is, assuming your opponent has equal game knowledge and practise and in general has a similar overall strategic decision making that a younger person can probably outdo you with the very short term decision making and faster control.
The only important sentence from the article besides the title:
"It appeared the older players compensated for their slower speed by making better use of features such as shortcuts and by using simpler strategies."
"It appeared the older players compensated for their slower speed by making better use of features such as shortcuts and by using simpler strategies."
I wonder if there's an extent to which older players have, due to experience, simply more tools at their disposal and it's a form of constant evaluation of the apt ones to use at any given time which contributes to reduction in physical performance.
Note that the article agrees with many of the comments here about the fact that "cognitive motor performance" isn't everything there is to intelligence...
"I think we're adapting without knowing it," he added. "A lot of us are still able to maintain our skills."
In fact, that held true for older Starcraft players also, when only their score was taken into account.
"We had a lot of people performing at a level higher than their speed would otherwise suggest."
"I think we're adapting without knowing it," he added. "A lot of us are still able to maintain our skills."
In fact, that held true for older Starcraft players also, when only their score was taken into account.
"We had a lot of people performing at a level higher than their speed would otherwise suggest."
I think there is a huge possibility of a methodologial hole here. If older players play better with less pure technical brilliance, this could also be because they have realized that reflexes are less important - and hence spend less time training their reflexes and more on higher-level strategy. Skills are perishable, so this in itself doesn't demonstrate that motor skills deteriorate with age.
I'm reminded of the cliché of the 17-year old guitar player who equates high tempo with good music. A similar study could reach the exact same conclusion in this ield.
I'm reminded of the cliché of the 17-year old guitar player who equates high tempo with good music. A similar study could reach the exact same conclusion in this ield.
"Starcraft is like high-speed chess."
Ok, but what's really like high-speed chess is... speed chess, played with a chess clock. Five minute chess, three minute chess and even one minute chess, those are all like high-speed chess.
Ok, but what's really like high-speed chess is... speed chess, played with a chess clock. Five minute chess, three minute chess and even one minute chess, those are all like high-speed chess.
Even chess with a chess clock is like a walk in the park compared to SC2.
In an average game,the first 5 minutes has already decided the match.
In an average game,the first 5 minutes has already decided the match.
That is not true at all, the first five minutes will decide most of the early/mid game strategy. But if the build orders are executed flawlessly the match is far from decided at this point.
the problem with that is: Starcraft is really like playing chess on several boards for time and if you run out of time for a move your opponent can make two in a row
this is because you need to be at several locations at once
this is because you need to be at several locations at once
Interesting article, but it's clear they've never played Risk:
"Starcraft 2 is a popular strategy game, similar in concept to Risk, where players compete to build armies and conquer a science fictional world."
It's tough to imagine two games more dissimilar in gameplay than Starcraft II and Risk. Also I'm pretty sure Risk isn't played in a "science fictional world"...
"Starcraft 2 is a popular strategy game, similar in concept to Risk, where players compete to build armies and conquer a science fictional world."
It's tough to imagine two games more dissimilar in gameplay than Starcraft II and Risk. Also I'm pretty sure Risk isn't played in a "science fictional world"...
I'm sure Darwin, aged 50 when he finished Origin of Species, would agree.
Perhaps it takes a slow mind for man to think more deeply about problems, in order to arrive at an elegant solution.
Hopefuly a few decades after retiring from professional gaming, these Starcraft 2 players will produce magnum opera of their own.
Perhaps it takes a slow mind for man to think more deeply about problems, in order to arrive at an elegant solution.
Hopefuly a few decades after retiring from professional gaming, these Starcraft 2 players will produce magnum opera of their own.
Plural of 'magnum opus' is 'magna opera' - the adjective has to take the same case (accusative plural) as the noun.
Performance in terms of raw speed, maybe, but my cognitive abilities as they are today really only started when I was in my mid-to-late 20's. Speed is no substitute for skill and perspective, which I have learned the hard way many times.
Plus, countless other studies have shown that our "soft skills" (crystallized intelligence) like communication, general knowledge, vocabulary, leadership, inter-personal relations, etc. improve BEGINNING at age 25 and continues growing well into our 60's. I have found this particular intelligence to be of far more value in business than the "speed" of my youth ever was.
Plus, countless other studies have shown that our "soft skills" (crystallized intelligence) like communication, general knowledge, vocabulary, leadership, inter-personal relations, etc. improve BEGINNING at age 25 and continues growing well into our 60's. I have found this particular intelligence to be of far more value in business than the "speed" of my youth ever was.
I refuse to accept that playing Startcraft is comprehensive measure of my brain's performance.
Yes. Professional headline writers regularly exaggerate these things. It's a subgenre of linkbait.
The HN guidelines call for changing a title when it's misleading or linkbait. I rewrote this one accordingly. Suggestions for further improvement are welcome.
User comments that suggest more accurate, less baity titles are often helpful in cases like this. We're working on a bit of software to make it easier for people to suggest title (and url) changes. It should be ready soon and we'll do a Tell HN post about it.
The HN guidelines call for changing a title when it's misleading or linkbait. I rewrote this one accordingly. Suggestions for further improvement are welcome.
User comments that suggest more accurate, less baity titles are often helpful in cases like this. We're working on a bit of software to make it easier for people to suggest title (and url) changes. It should be ready soon and we'll do a Tell HN post about it.
I don't see anything incorrect about this headline. "Age-related brain decline starts at 24" is a pretty safe title that accurately represents the contents of the article. The subtitle "Popular game Starcraft 2 used as a measure of brain speed" provides additional clarification, as subtitles are intended to do.
In my view, the headline is linkbait, plus it's misleading to use the word "brain" for one kind of cognitive reaction. There are probably some brain functions that are most active in babies, but that wouldn't make it correct to say "brain decline begins in infancy".
I was a bit outraged by the article and didn't really think about suggesting a better title. Will do next time.
have you played starcraft at high level?
this is actually very demanding on brain functions. i find the "high speed chess" description not too far from the truth. it's not because it's a "game" that it's simple, easy, or "just require no-life practicing".
Don't make that mistake.
Top players are actually geniuses at making the best choice the fastest and tracking multiple tasks at the same time. All this happens in milliseconds, constantly, there is no break until the game is over.
I believe that the basic brain function is actually choice-making, which makes.. this benchmark pretty accurate. Wisdom, etc.. all this comes with experience and isn't related to the brain's ability to function at it's peak level.
this is actually very demanding on brain functions. i find the "high speed chess" description not too far from the truth. it's not because it's a "game" that it's simple, easy, or "just require no-life practicing".
Don't make that mistake.
Top players are actually geniuses at making the best choice the fastest and tracking multiple tasks at the same time. All this happens in milliseconds, constantly, there is no break until the game is over.
I believe that the basic brain function is actually choice-making, which makes.. this benchmark pretty accurate. Wisdom, etc.. all this comes with experience and isn't related to the brain's ability to function at it's peak level.
Note the difference between "speed" and "performance."
I read this yesterday and rejected it for coverage by us... the small sample size, the single strategy for measurement, the questionable value of that measurement, and the questionable extrapolation of that value all contributed to what I would call some pretty bad science.
[deleted](1)
Ability to react extremely quickly to a complete unknown situation goes down, I would imagine because there are more situations/memories that an older person's brain needs to query.
Real time strategy games like starcraft are stupid because of the wasted cycles. The game can grow too complex for even a high capacity sub 24 year old easily. I'd rather program my harvester, grunt, [choose your metaphor] than micromanage them or let real people control them.
Huh.
Right when wisdom and perspective start emerging...
Right when wisdom and perspective start emerging...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Alternative Hypothesis: Perhaps older people just don't give as much of a shit.
That's a fairly strange way to define "physical demands." It's kind of like saying "for playing guitar, the physical demands are minimal, as it's played with your fingers and perhaps a small pick." Both activities are not just about reflexes and "strategy," because finger strength and muscle memory play a big role in both. Of course, muscle memory occurs (as far as I know) mostly in the brain, but I would still consider that a physical demand distinct from reflexes and strategy.