Natural Talent

[Stylez]

I'm not trying to discredit or insult the old greats. They played at the level necessary to win in their time and (as you said) would probably adapt.
Really, i'm only making a point on those who aren't the best, and sort of feel they'll never be the best. If, in 2003 or 2006, they said they can't reach that highest level because of a ceiling on their natural talent, they'd be wrong. So what has made the argument reasonable today?
It seems people will put forth the effort needed to play at the level they're comfortable with. If you're M2K, and you want to be the best, you'll work harder and SMARTER at becoming the best.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

Are you seriously trying to say that because you have never read on a forum that a man doesnt suffer from these things that means he does not have depression?

The ignorance like honestly.

I said "off course I can't be the judge of that". BUT if m2k doesn't have any of the symptoms i mentioned, he is not clinically depressed. Low confidence? probably. But they're 2 completely different things.
again, i obviously cant be the judge of this, and im not trying to be unsympathetic to m2ks situation. i just hate when people mix up clinical depression with low confidence, although both are painful and serious, they're still two different things (although low confidence and delusions about ones own self-worth is part of depression)

 

[stelzig]

I'm not trying to discredit or insult the old greats. They played at the level necessary to win in their time and (as you said) would probably adapt.
Really, i'm only making a point on those who aren't the best, and sort of feel they'll never be the best. If, in 2003 or 2006, they said they can't reach that highest level because of a ceiling on their natural talent, they'd be wrong. So what has made the argument reasonable today?

Because they fundamentally are still worse than their competition, evidenced by the fact that they'd lose after the greats adapted and weren't actually better.

I'm not saying that you can't improve on that more fundamental level either though, but being better purely through familiarity with a more advanced metagame is only a tempoary advantage (and can somewhat be related to "gimmicks"/matchup knowledge with worse character if we want to compare to tier listing again). I still agree that using it as an excuse and think that you for sure can never beat the top is still a horrible mentality.

 

[Bones0]

Couldn't have put it better myself than Stelzig just did. Just because someone from the future would be a pro in the past doesn't prove natural talent is irrelevant. I could beat a 9-year-old version of Shaq in 1v1 hoops, but that doesn't mean I have more natural talent than him.

 

[Stylez]

I could beat a 9-year-old version of Shaq in 1v1 hoops, but that doesn't mean I have more natural talent than him.

Random straw-man argument or my point has been missed entirely.

Anyway, Stelzig, your last statement I agree with 100%. Even if some were born better at this game than others, that sort of mentality could hold back many people who would otherwise improve.

Meh, I think i'm so interested in this thread because i've witnessed it happen many times: People who had played the game for 4-5 years like they just picked it up, never improving until someone came along and helped them with one small problem holding them back (or even just motivated them to play smarter, faster, whatever).

 

[Bones0]

That wasn't a straw man, and it certainly wasn't an argument.

Now I know how House feels when people fail to appreciate his metaphors.

 

[Stylez]

So, it was meant to be an unrelated statement? But it directly followed you refuting my post. It was even on the topic being discussed and presented as a contradiction. Then why say it?

But then you said it was a metaphor, which means it was related - metaphors are generally used to draw parallels. So it was an unrelated metaphor? Does that even make any sense? Oh god i'm confused.

 

[Divinokage]

I said "off course I can't be the judge of that". BUT if m2k doesn't have any of the symptoms i mentioned, he is not clinically depressed. Low confidence? probably. But they're 2 completely different things.
again, i obviously cant be the judge of this, and im not trying to be unsympathetic to m2ks situation. i just hate when people mix up clinical depression with low confidence, although both are painful and serious, they're still two different things (although low confidence and delusions about ones own self-worth is part of depression)

In my experience low confidence is simply the thought process of your mind while going into a situation, kinda like thinking to yourself of a future that has not yet happened and then you stress yourself out because of it. It took a lot of years to fix that for me and it's still not an adequate level I would like it to be but in the end I just tell myself: "If I really have to think about something then I just do it instead and simply accept the result of my action.. there's no control over what might happen because often things don't go as you expect."

 

[Bones0]

Stelzig refuted your points. I just felt like adding a metaphor to show how ridiculous it is to even compare someone from today's metagame to someone 5 years ago. It makes it impossible to draw any conclusions about how relevant natural talent is.

 

[Kal]

It's really ridiculous for you to compare yourself to House, Bones. House is awesome. You're... Bones.

 

[The Star King]

House is awesome. You're... Bones.

two entirely different shows *shot*

 

[Kal]

There is only so many times I can link to this before I begin to feel like a broken record.

 

[The Star King]

I didn't even know that was the joke

can you blame me

 

[Kal]

I maybe should have hyperlinked to the Wikipedia article for the show, just to be clear. Still, I mean, come on, comparing yourself to House?

 

[Bones0]

u jelly?

yah u jelly

 

[Stylez]

The metaphor was used as a counterexample; it was to show false logic. Therefore it was an argument. The logic you were were showing as ridiculous with the metaphor was not my point, therefore it was a straw-man argument.

 

[Kal]

Stylez, I wouldn't worry about it. Bones doesn't really understand what constitutes an argument, and he's especially ignorant to what constitutes an informal logical fallacy. You're better off not addressing him.

 

[Bones0]

so jelly

 

[ZaXXoR]

Yeah, quit everything but smash. Get a few good training partners, and go to town for about 6 years.

Or a Hyperbolic time chamber.

Lol this is what I'm trying to do ATM xD

 

[-ACE-]

People that preach logical fallacies are f*****s. Kal you epitomize this gayness. You are like Spencer Pratt hitting on Ashton kutcher gay. And contrary to your beliefs, you're not always right, you're actually just an attention deprived kid that has an interiority complex. Good day. Bones is awesome irl btw, so **** off.

 

[Stylez]

I wasn't trying to be gay and say "i'm right at all costs"; it's obviously possible i'm wrong. I pointed it out so we could be on the same page and continue the discussion...
From what i've read, Bones' posts are very well-thought through and informative. This is why I responded to him in the first place. Not to make anyone angry.
But since we're on the topic, i'll leave this here: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Logic

 

[Kal]

“If I am dead I dont smoke, therefore if I smoke I live.”

Vacuous Proof
1)　
2) Therefore 2 + 2 = 5. QED.

Nice. <3

 

[Bones0]

I wasn't trying to be gay and say "i'm right at all costs"; it's obviously possible i'm wrong. I pointed it out so we could be on the same page and continue the discussion...
From what i've read, Bones' posts are very well-thought through and informative. This is why I responded to him in the first place. Not to make anyone angry.
But since we're on the topic, i'll leave this here: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Logic

That's only about 50% of the time. I personally prefer the other half of my post history which is comprised of witty one-liners and bad puns.

@ACE
'Sup.

 

[The Star King]

I think we all prefer that half

A compliment to your witty side, not an insult to your informative side

 

[Bones0]

People prefer that half of me or that half of themselves?

Spoiler

**** just got real.

 

[KrIsP!]

oh ****
Kal is in our bases with his interiority complex.

but typo aside, I don't think he feels inferior to most people on this forum.

 

[Kal]

all your interior are belong to us

 

[The Star King]

People prefer that half of me or that half of themselves?

Spoiler

**** just got real.

Ha, good point. I'd say both, for me anyways.

 

[Kal]

It seemed clear to me after you emphasized that it was a compliment to his alleged "witty side," not an insult to his "informative side."

Guess it's all that reading comprehension stuff my teachers kept talking about.

 

[The Star King]

I think you missed Bones's point. Or maybe I missed his point. I didn't think he was pointing out vague sentence structure.

 

[Kal]

Me missing the point would be sort of ironic after that quip about reading comprehension.

 

[The Star King]

Actually after reading it again I think your interpretation makes more sense

Bones what the **** were you talking about

 

[Kal]

Yeah Bones, come on!

 

[Bones0]

Ha, good point. I'd say both, for me anyways.

Kal, you missed the point. ^This was the response I was going for. I legitimately wasn't sure which Star King was talking about, so I figured I'd apply it to both possibilities to blow peoples' minds about how their attitudes of others' personalities can be reflected in their own (demonstrated by Star King preferring his witty side as well).

 

[Kal]

I meant more that there was no ambiguity in his post, so I was surprised you asked the question at all.

I think we all prefer that half

A compliment to your witty side, not an insult to your informative side

That second person possessive and all.

 

[Bones0]

I could be interpreted either way. If he was speaking universally, he would have also said "your."

 

[Kal]

In that context, "your witty side" would be unbearably awkward. "Someone's witty side" or "the witty side" would make more sense than using an indefinite pronoun. And I don't think he would compliment the witty side of an indefinite pronoun, as opposed to the indefinite pronoun's informative side.

How long you figure before we get yelled at for discussing this?

 

[Bones0]

I think allowing us to continue arguing over something so trivial is more of a punishment than anything they could do themselves.

 

[Kal]

u jelly?

yah u jelly

 

[Zone]

I've always believed that what people percieve as "Natural Talent" is just past experiences.

I was training this guy in Starcraft 2, And his micro got REALLY sick REALLY fast. He's never played an RTS before, but he does have alot of past experience with mouse accuracy, and multitasking from other parts of his life growing up.

I think what people see as 'natural" talent isn't something birth given. It was earned through advancing your brain.

I use an example of like when I played Mortal Kombat 2011. W/o smash in my background I'd be terrible at this game still probably. But because Smash taught me how to look at things and test things and make things safe ect ect. My brain was able to function/learn at a very quick pace oppose to a person who's never played a fighter and jumped over from a FPS game to Mortal Kombat.

I didn't have natural talent(greater than the FPS player). My history in some shape or form gave me extra tools to learn/catch on quicker.

I think even something as far off as being able to do advanced math equations in your head at high speeds can even contribue to what you "percieve as natural talent" in a small way.