Pretty interesting, I do wonder if it's a bit of pseudopsychology though, I mean it makes sense but I don't really know a lot about psychology.

Heard about all of this a long time ago, (just not to do with games), I believe there's been a lot of research into it with papers published etc.

It's all about child development, if you praise a child for hard work, the child will link "hard work" with praise and will work hard. If you praise a child for talent, the child will link "me" with praise and won't work hard.

I don't think you can really "change" it like this guy claimed, like he said he has to work hard at working hard, that's just a choice and not a natural mindset.

how about if you praise the child for achieving a goal, hard work or not, what will that accomplish?

No idea.

beckham

Psychology isn't all that complicated. It's more or less a collection of studies. When they do find these "two types" it's more or less just a label on some statistics.

What I learned was that you have extrinsic motivations - that can be recieving a prize, or some food, or parents petting you after you do something. You are motivated by the external effect.

On the other hand you have the so-called instrinsically motivated, which is then supposed to be the opposite. They do things for their own sake, and to challenge themselves. They set their own goals etc.

It's easy to draw an analogy to the moral systems people live by. One might speculate that some people do the "right thing" because they have their own sense of right and wrong, and wishes to "live up to themselves"; while others might solely be guided by the fear of god and the promise of heaven or whatever.
|
Or, more down-to-earth, some people can be more independent when they feel secure in that they don't as much rely on the extrinsic feedback of their peers. In other words, some people have a more individual conscience, and some more "collective"..

To me it seems like endless questions are buried in these superficial facts though. For me personally, as far as i can remember, have been intrinsically motivated. And i'm pretty sure this is something in me that is complex, and part of my personality. It's easy to hide complexity by labling. People will say, upbringing etc. But what if some people aren't as affected by environment as other people, or some people are more affected? These kinds of questions remain impossible with the current mindset of psychology.
|
Just to give you a hint of what kind of "models" they have; what was it that i learned... "some people have "high need for cognition"" while others don't! This concept could also be plastered on this issue with "descriptive power" or whatever. heh, heh!

hmm, nice site actually

hmm, I don't think it's as clearcut as he makes it seem.


Looking back at my schooldays, I had a strong tendency to only do the more difficult homework and not the easier but sometimes more time consuming stuff. Which I think would be the "mastery" direction.

But that didn't stop me from showing off my "skill" at easier question in class when everyone was listening. Which I think would be the performance direction.

well it's only clearcut if you're a feeble minded moron who only depends on the praise of others and has no real interest of his own.

???

did you read the article are you just trying your skills at putting random words together again?

?

He puts it a little well black and white I agree. You should read the comments as well, they bring up quite a few good points.

dreamers and gamers

thought it was a jamerio diss when i read the title!

Why thank you good sir, I'll aim for a Jonesy next time.

You cannot so easily separate performers from mastery, the two are intertwined because to show off you have to have some level of skill that people will be impressed by.

word

I don't see anyone saying this is black and white. Nothing is.

except the binary numeral system

1

floatfloatfloat

is created using this binary system (which in the begining is "the electric current pass, do not pass")

omg that's how that works?

there's gotta be something in there... pushing.. something mechanical...

your fingers

what are you?some kind of genius?

what is this 'not' you speak of?

I'm constantly in arguments with people in my program about this shit. EVERYONE in my program plays WoW, but the problem is that they all believe it's the most skilled game. Even with something like SC, they still think their game is superior. I've brought up points like the one in the article, but I really think it's just their narcissism.

People confuse game environment familiarity with skill, like in WoW ("Oh, I know where I need to go now").

Or that they're in serious denial about how much time they're wasting.

Most likely both.

They think that "Oh well you have to KNOW what attacks to use".

Well, duh. That's not the same though.

The thing is, give me your tennis racket, I'll still play the same as I always do. Give me your WoW character, suddenly I can do more damage.

Now you're doing the exact same thing.

Surely there's some skill involved in WoW (speaking solely of PVP) but its not the same skill you would find in Quake or any other game, I mean on the higher levels everybody is using the same equipment anyway. I'm not saying its rocket surgery, but anyone who bashes it makes it out to be a lot more simple than it actually is.

That said, WoW as an "E-sport" has to die, GOOD GOD that shit is boring to watch.

Think I fell a bit off topic there.

bashing "esports WoW" is always on topic.

Isnt it actually true?

"I'm not saying its rocket surgery, but anyone who bashes it makes it out to be a lot more simple than it actually is.

bullshit. It's really that simple. If you think that macro creation and execution = skill, then sure.. it's skill.

But then again I don't consider dodge jumping in UT to be anywhere near comparison of strafe jumping "skill". The argument "you have to know WHEN to use it" means next to nothing to me, since that still applies with the strafejumping, except you have to know HOW to do it, not just when.
Get what I'm saying?

BTW, I've played very little PVP on WoW, since, as an FPS player, it's a bit gay as the fuck.

BTW, I've played very little PVP on WoW, since, as an FPS player, it's a bit gay as the fuck.

Thanks, your argument is looking very robust now.

I wasn't comparing it to anything. But if you really want me to, I'm sure as hell not putting it up as a "high-skill" game with the likes of Quake and what not. In fact, I'm not even gonna try to argue with you further, because you already made up your mind.

i guess the thing is (for me atleast), on the highest level of wow pvp, where players are all same level and have equal itemsets. at this level where it comes down to skill,

the variance of things that can happen is very narrow. you won't see a player pulling out a really unexpected move, or trying to outsmart the other team.

the classes all have to do what is expected of them, the biggest skill (i am now going to exagerate, dont hate me for that) is to hit the macro button at the exactly right split second.

and even assuming the variance of things that might happen ingame is wide:
you'll only see it if you put a camera over the player's keyboards.

ingame could look like 3v3, 6 people just standing across from each other throwing fireballs.

in quake theres just so much more to see, the variance of things that might happen is very wide, because thats what the game relies on. the stuff you see on screen is actually the stuff that happens.

a wow 3on3 can work without playmodels and only console. the stuff that happens on screen isnt nearly as important as the things that are in the console

I'm not really sure what you are arguing against, or if you are trying to strengthen my points, or if you even even replied to the right post. Maybe I'm a little tired.

I didn't say WoW was fun to watch (which you seem to agree on..?).

However some of your remarks tells me you haven't played the game, either.

God, I'm starting to look like some fucktard who defends WoW, I better stop replying.

All I was getting at was, yes, its simple and its not QuakeOMGwearethemostskilledgamersintheworld-skillful, but I just find it funny how everyone thinks they can just walk in and be the best at it, because it obviously takes no skill whatsoever right?

Skill = technique & execution
Knowledge = timing etc

Good stuff. In the comments below there was a link to another article on the subject, very interesting: http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/

I love how people who believe in "plasticity" will be more "plastic" than their peers. x)

And those who believe in free will excersise it more. (psychology has proved it! i.e. science!)