10 ms·
'StarCraft' Gameplay Boosts Mental Flexibility, Says Study
- EllaMentry 13y ago"The participant pool was composed entirely of 72 female students at the University of Texas at Austin, because researchers were unable to find male participants who played computer games for less than two hours a day." The sample size seems far too small and narrow to draw any conclusions from.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- chid 13y agoSample size has nothing (not strictly true) to do with whether a result is statistically significant. I imagine they chose this sample size because it could potentially yield a statistically significant sample. A larger sample size means that a smaller average increase is required to show that it is a statistically significant deviation than a smaller sample.
- lutusp 13y ago> Sample size has nothing (not strictly true) to do with whether a result is statistically significant. I hate to rain on your parade, but sample size has everything to do with whether a result is statistically significant. http://sph.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/BS/BS704_Power/BS704_Power2.html http://sph.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/BS/BS704_Power/BS704_Powe...
- wisty 13y agoNo, almost any sample size can be sufficient, as long as the effect is big enough. Though in psychology, larger samples are often needed, because there's generally smaller effects. If you want to test whether penicillin can cure a staph infection, you can get statistically significant results with a handful of tests.
- lutusp 13y ago>> Sample size has nothing (not strictly true) to do with whether a result is statistically significant. >> I hate to rain on your parade, but sample size has everything to do with whether a result is statistically significant. > No, almost any sample size can be sufficient, as long as the effect is big enough. Your sentence says "no", but it agrees -- sample size has everything to do with determining statistical significance. The ratio of sample size to population is critical to deciding whether a result is significant: http://classroom.synonym.com/select-statistically-significant-sample-size-2410.html http://classroom.synonym.com/select-statistically-significan... > Though in psychology, larger samples are often needed, because there's generally smaller effects. Yes, but many of those kinds of result are insignificant and instantly forgotten regardless of the circumstances, because psychologists generally aren't testing a falsifiable theory, only measuring an "interesting" effect, like whether leaning to the left makes the Eiffel Tower look shorter (the 2012 Ig Nobel Prize winner): Title: "Leaning to the Left Makes the Eiffel Tower Seem Smaller -- Posture-Modulated Estimation" Link: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/23/0956797611420731.abstract?rss=1 http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/23/095679761142... Ig Nobel Prize announcement: http://www.improbable.com/ig/2012/ http://www.improbable.com/ig/2012/
- wisty 13y agoNormal distribution of a sample scales with sigma, and inverse to sqrt(n-1), so effect size is more important than sample size. That's all the guy who originally posted was talking about. I don't think anyone on hn won't know this. Everyone is just quibbling over the wording. Your new point is very good, and I'd expect someone has used the correlation != causation argument too.
- EllaMentry 13y agoTrue, however, I also noted the sample was not just small but narrow. 72, female, university students - I would be surprised if over 6-8 weeks their cognitive capacity didn't improve in a measurable way - university can be a very demanding environment. The study makes no mention of controlling for degree programs or a variety of other factors which would affect cognitive development, combined with the incredibly small sample size, It is my opinion that any conclusions from this research need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
- rsheridan6 13y agoThey did have a control group playing the Sims, a much easier game.
- chestercheetaz 13y agoRead the paper. They determine necessary sample size based on statistical power.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- morenoh149 13y agoI can't help but think that's not a good sample.
- UweSchmidt 13y agoConsider the opportunity costs involved. The huge amount of time and energy usually 'spent' on games like this could have been used for something else, possibly boosting mental flexibility and other things equally or more than Starcraft. I would expect the purported positive effects of gaming should be way more pronounced, given the many hours many people play each day. It seems that someone who spends the same time honing a real skill (e.g. programming) would come out way ahead! Tangentially, speaking of the "costs" of gaming: A game like Starcraft combines - a competitive 1 vs 1 mode, forcing a maximum effort each game - is using a wide range of motoric and cognitive skills, requiring not only quick reactions and multitasking, but also several levels of higher level thinking (analyzing the ongoing game, analyzing build orders and metagame between matches, reading up on things on forums). To me this seems to lead to a complete exhaustion of the player, instead of giving a challange combined with relaxation and distraction. I would rather recommend casual games ("let take my mind off work for a few minutes"), 3D shooters (positive stress, excitement, but resting cognitive brain functions) or "thinking games", be it chess, or a civilization style building game (giving a mental challenge that one might have missed in today's work). And avoid a super competitive environment that gives you a negative feedback if you're giving 100% all the time. Would you agree?
- kayoone 13y agoIf all you have in mind is personal development, than that might be true but most gamers just want to have fun playing. If it has any positive side-effects thats a nice bonus, so atleast you dont waste away all your time just for fun. Just for personal developments sake, your right, gaming is probably not the perfect activity, but its also not the worst.
- iopq 13y agoOr you know, the programmer ends up working for a large corporation and makes $100,000 a year being a code monkey and the gamer wins millions after he switches to playing professional poker. There are no "correct choices" in life.
- pknight 13y agoIn the study the casual game alternative (Sims) didn't provide the same effects. I play team games often because it as easily accessible way for me to have fun competing, just like any other sport in fact. It's a flow experience and has the nice side benefit of completely putting my mind off of other things. I can't get these things from other fun but casual games, that provide very few benefits (not even taking into account the possible boost in cognitive fitness). I think playing starcraft as part of an active, diverse mental life enriches is particularly complimentary as it a sport-like game that is challenging in many aspects (you need to multitask, think strategically, react quickly and control with great dexterity) and team games also open the social aspects. If it is not done in moderation then yes, you have to wonder if your best mental efforts during the day would better be directed at something more productive. Not for the sake of productivity, or for some moral reasons. Only because it might start to hurt financially/socially/healthwise etc. In the end, there are no skills particularly relevant in the grand scheme of things, we live, we have experiences, we die, universe goes on.
- frozenport 13y ago" were unable to find male participants who played computer games for less than two hours a day." BUT THE DOCUMENT S1 DAYS "Participants who reported 2 hours or less of video games per week qualified for inclusion in this study" Week != Day This is some bad reporting, Riva Gold.
- kayoone 13y agoNothing new really. There have been alot of studies that show that games train reflexes and other mental abilities [1] If engaging in a very strategic game for a couple of hours each week wouldnt lead to any positive mental improvements, i would be suprised. Human ability is based upon experience, training and talent in almost any field. [1] http://www.wate.com/story/3684503/study-video-games-help-quicken-reflexes http://www.wate.com/story/3684503/study-video-games-help-qui...
- astrobe_ 13y agoWhat is a far from obvious, to me, is that this specific training in a specific context improves response outside of this context and for other tasks. Really how knowing that you have to build immortals when you see roaches - or vikings when you see colossi, could possibly useful in everyday life?
- chc 13y agoI think it's not those specific pieces of information that are useful, but the mental training to develop those associations and to access and put into practice that sort of tactical information on demand. It's like how lifting weights makes you better at lifting other things too.
- luanfernandes 13y agoIt's not the information that useful but how you use them. I have no study to back me up but imo if you keep playing strategy games that tell you which thing is best than another and how one thing can be beaten, it can apply to anything in life when it comes to decisions, that's the lesson learned.
- arh68 13y agoI think you've got the right idea. The 'facts' of what-counters-what don't matter too much; it's the feedback mechanism that matters. When you see Player 2 do X, you use that info to play the best Y. Good scouting decreases this feedback timing, and the player that iterates better will, given enough time, come out on top. In SC2, there's a spectrum of usefulness to information. Finding a proxy pylon is hard, but screams intention. Scouting early double gas is easy, perhaps, but is more clouded. In chess, all the positions of the pieces are obvious (no concept of scouting), but all the information is clouded beneath layers of moves-after-moves. A very powerful attack can be hidden in plain sight. In this more general context of iterative gathering & analyzing of information in pursuit of a victory condition, I can see how it applies. The fact that the general mechanism (however it works, exactly) can be exercised through a specific game is still intriguing.
- kenster07 13y agoThe conclusion would not surprise me. Competitive games with a high "skill cap" require as much mental activity as anything else. The cause and effect may not be clear, but gaming can, at the very least, increase confidence in one's decision-making capabilities, which will improve performance on other mental tasks.
- dmead 13y agobad study. they don't account for the mental toll induced by lack of sleep. source: myself.
- eykanal 13y agoThe best analogy I've heard is that a good game of Starcraft is very similar to fencing; you have to predict what your opponent will do, and react accordingly, with speed and agility. Another good comparison is chess; see where the pieces are going and be sure to be ready when the battle comes.
- Sagat 13y agoStarcraft is arguably a more difficult game due to the real-time element and the fact that the pieces aren't constrained by squares on a board (meaning there is more positional variation). As Bobby Fischer complained, chess between accomplished players can seem stale when the first twenty moves are often played from memory, following opening theory and leaving no place for experimentation.
- rsheridan6 13y agoThe beginning of Starcraft can be stale too. You're probably going to follow one of the standard builds at first.
- dmead 13y agoyou say that, until you get proxy everything'd
- EthanHeilman 13y agoI haven't been successfully proxied in a very long time and I'm an awful sc2 player (you see many more proxies in bronze than silver). A standard build order will crush a proxy 99/100 assuming the players are vaguely close in skill.
- ajuc 13y agoI played proxy oracle vs terran in silver and gold and had 80% win rate with them. I stopped doing it cause it's not fun the 30th time, but it works very reliably.
- pcunite 13y agoI've always suspected that the reason I'm such a good driver is from my Need for Speed III binges.
- rfnslyr 13y agoTop 100 world ranked grand master here. The amount of time I have poured into this game is absolutely unreal, I could have probably raised a family of 5 in the time I spent playing StarCraft. I found myself better at a lot of games after being so intense in SCII. Co-ordination, decision making, a better understanding of strategy, all improved. I got better at Chess, was able to pick things up quicker. Great experience but I'm too burnt out to keep going in SC2. It got so hard you had to treat it like a job. The thing about SCII competitive is, once you seriously get competitive, every single game you play is such an absolute mental drain. I used to have to do pushups / run a few KM before a few games. I had to mentally prepare myself for every single game. Once you play at top competitive tier in SC2, every other game is honestly a joke (videogames, not boardgames). What other games REQUIRE you to have 300APM? None, that's how many.
- niuzeta 13y ago> What other games REQUIRE you to have 300APM sort of tangential point here, but this usage of 'require' is exactly why I dropped starcraft 2 and possibly will never come back. When a game stops being a game and starts being a... work, it loses all the fun. Back in the days of WoL I toyed with the idea of playing with less APM and winning with more strategy, like pincer-attacks or enclosure; it worked up till Diamonds but when I found myself training for some micro, I knew it was time to give it up. I'm still looking forward for the LoV, but probably will only play the single campaign and quit. EDIT: I still fancy a competitive games against my friends, but that's a completely different story.
- durin42 13y agoI play probably 4 or 5 ladder games a week - I slowly have improved (although moving last month made my ability drop noticeably), and I'm investing about as much time per week as watching a movie each week. Then again, I'm in Gold and happy to stay there. The ladder system seems to do a good job of putting me up against reasonable opponents.
- baddox 13y ago> When a game stops being a game and starts being a... work, it loses all the fun. Unless your only aspiration was to play professionally, this isn't a reason to stop you, and even the professionals don't need 300 apm (and many don't have it). I was pretty comfortable playing Terran in Diamond league in North America (I stopped playing about 6 months ago) with 90-100 apm, and I never specifically worked on increasing my apm.
- j2kun 13y agoWhy the scarequotes around Starcraft? Is it...not really Starcraft?
- kmfrk 13y agoStarCraft is the title of a work, and as such should probably be either italicized or put in quotes cf. the WSJ style manual. Italicization is obviously not possible in plain text, so their style manual would prescribe that the title of the work is set in quotes.
- kor023 13y agoHN inhouse sc2 tourney is in order based on these comments
- ilyanep 13y agoApparently there are top GM folks who hang around here. I think we'd all get thrashed.
- zeidrich 13y agoIt's interesting that similar studies have been done with brain-training games and they have no noticeable effect on a persons mind. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/brain-games-are-bogus.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/brain... I think one of the things that makes SC2 special is not simply the gameplay, but the stress that it puts you under at the same time. Not only do you have to make the correct decision, you have to make the correct decision NOW and if you don't, you will suffer consequences. This combined with the need for precise control forces you to either develop or suffer repeated failure. As it's also - in it's highest difficulty - a competitive game, there's also social pressure to not fail. Look only to these comments to see that; one commenter states his rank, others try to discredit his position. This pecking order is something important to them. A game like the Sims as a control, is very different. You tell a story, you might have game elements, but there's much less stress, you have much fewer decisions you need to make in a short period, and if you make an error it changes the story rather than typical cause disastrous failure. You can not develop and still enjoy yourself. The fun is in the narrative, not "win" or "lose". There is no competition.
- shire 13y agoI think I'm going to try and play this game now, I've been playing call of duty for the past 4 years I'm addicted to Black ops and I feel like this game also increases decision making and better understanding of strategy.
- xal 13y agoI'm CEO of a medium sized company now. I played semi pro broodwar and masters level SC2. Nothing in this surprises me. More then anything else Starcraft is a game where you learn how to use limited information better than your opponent. Think about it, it's really silly that people treat chess as this game with all these advantages for your brain and games like Starcraft are ignored. When in life do you have perfect information about a situation? Building a company is incredibly similar to a 1:1 in starcraft. You start blank slate, you make lots of decisions based on the information you have. You invest into experiments and reconnaissance and you eventually try to build up a small advantage that you leverage into a win. Early game, mid game, and end game are totally different phases that all map well to the lifecycle of a startup. This kind of training is incredible.
- coldarchon 13y agoTop 10 in Broodwar in Europe and a grand master in chess on FICS here. I don't think Starcraft can ever have the same impact on your brain and cognitive skills like chess. Unless you play Blitz chess, you have to learn to think at least 9 moves ahead, in Starcraft even your macro never exceeds 2 moves. The advantages to learn to concentrate are amazing in chess and non existent in Starcraft. On the other hand Starcraft gives you some understanding of process chains.
- mahyarm 13y agoI feel Dota 2 and probably other MOBA games have a similar effect too. The game is incredibly fast paced. It's like the hunting party edition of RTS games.