Are there male versions? I'm throwing money at the screen rn answer senpai
You truly lead a sad existence believing thatRailey2 wrote:
thelewa wrote:
I'm not saying that the ones that are good at clicking circles or playing other games are especially smart or anythingcase in point?thelewa wrote:
Talent doesn't exist in this game.
you can't seriously believe that talent is not a major factor when it comes to osu, when there's such a disparity in skill between players that put a similar amount of effort and thought into the game.
Are you seriously suggesting that everyone is as talented as cookiezi?
i mean.. i do agree that intelligence (or rather: the ability to pin down strengths and weaknesses of your play and develop long-term strategies to improve) are very important, but they're certainly not all there is to it.
Cookiezi isn't the best because he's just THAT MUCH better at self-analysing. That's total bullshit.
As for most things in life when the end result is the sum of many random factors, you're gonna see all end results fall in a normal distribution.
When your potential of being good at osu (aka talent) depends on your intelligence, spatial thinking, pattern recognition, reaction time, the physical makeup of your hands and arms, fine motor skills, rhythm sense, ability to cope with stress etc. then you'll get a bell curve. Everything else is just wishful thinking.
This one of the most important theorems of statistical research. You can't just wish it away.
You say that talent is one thing, and not another thing, when all the words you're using are synonyms. The most obvious answer to the difference in achievement is the existence of natural talent. Cynicism is going out of your way to look at things in a negative light, it's not forgoing the obvious conclusion and claiming that instead it's the result of a million other variables. It seems apparent that your conclusion is based on the fact that you don't want to believe that people's ability is limited by their talent rather than any logic.Brian OA wrote:
Talent refers to an aptitude, not capacity or potential. It is often cited as an amalgam of internal and external factors (whatever these may be) that end up favoring one's effort to result ratio relative to others.
Asserting that talent does not exist is not a matter of wishful thinking, either. At least, not any more than asserting its existence is a matter of cynicism.
My doubt of it comes from it being the go-to explanation for relative disparities in skill when the issue could easily be lack of data.
That you were doing everything wrong and were incapable of recognizing that you could be doing something wrong. You harbored a mislead belief of somehow doing everything perfect and when you didn't see improvement you arrived at the logical conclusion of somehow your perfect not being perfect enough. That you weren't capable of as much improvement due to things that you couldn't do anything about.B1rd wrote:
I had lots of enthusiasm when I first started this game, but it's hard not to be pessimistic in the face of continuous lack of improvement. I can remember a time when I tried to compete with various people in pp gains, and I could barely do so despite playing over 6 hours a day fueled by caffeine (compared to their one hour or so). What you people who refuse to believe in natural ability have to say in such large disparities in achievement despite similar effort other than 'you're just lazy'?
Sure; I'd rather not get into a back and forth on the definition of terms.B1rd wrote:
You say that talent is one thing, and not another thing, when all the words you're using are synonyms.
The most obvious answer to the difference in achievement is the existence of natural talent.
Cynicism is going out of your way to look at things in a negative light, it's not forgoing the obvious conclusion and claiming that instead it's the result of a million other variables.
It seems apparent that your conclusion is based on the fact that you don't want to believe that people's ability is limited by their talent rather than any logic.
"You see how big my PP is? You see how small yours is? That's not because of talent or anything, it's entirely 100%, because I tried harder than you. That's right, if only you would stop making excuses and train properly, you would instantly be as good as Cookiezi, who's skill are entirely due to his super unique and special training routine."thelewa wrote:
That you were doing everything wrong and were incapable of recognizing that you could be doing something wrong. You harbored a mislead belief of somehow doing everything perfect and when you didn't see improvement you arrived at the logical conclusion of somehow your perfect not being perfect enough. That you weren't capable of as much improvement due to things that you couldn't do anything about.
I've been at that point many times and every time I've got past it by realizing that I was doing something very wrong, that I had been pretending, that I wasn't even trying but had myself fooled into thinking that I was. After all, by outward appearances it looked like I was practicing really hard, clicking circles intensely for six hours a day! In actuality I had already given up, I already believed that no matter what I did it wouldn't amount to anything. I only played as much as I did to prove to myself that I had been right all along!
Please do not butcher my posts into paragraphs like that.Brian OA wrote:
Sure; I'd rather not get into a back and forth on the definition of terms.
How is it the most obvious answer when you have to assume something exists?
Right; just like how naivete is going out of your way to look at things in a positive light. That was a response to Railey's claim on how arguing otherwise makes you naive. Moreover, I'm claiming that the disparity could be explained had we enough data. I'm talking about unknown variables not available by merely scanning people's profiles. I said nothing of their number.
I mean, yeah, I don't want to believe that talent will define my limits. I'm sure that's as clear as how you feel the other way, but the important thing to take from thhis is that I'm not basing my conclusion on how I feel.
it's all because of you you knowthelewa wrote:
this thread reminded me of ye olde OT when somewhat intelligent exchange of opinions used to take place more often
Amusing. That is exactly what I used to say.B1rd wrote:
"You see how big my PP is? You see how small yours is? That's not because of talent or anything, it's entirely 100%, because I tried harder than you. That's right, if only you would stop making excuses and train properly, you would instantly be as good as Cookiezi, who's skill are entirely due to his super unique and special training routine."
Yep, I've heard this argument before, always from some high ranked player (in this case, previous #2 in the world) who will of course go on about how easy it is to improve and claim that any difficulty improve is simply due to some mentality or training problem. What, pray, is this super effective training routine that allows any player to get to 3 digits within a year? If only I knew.
No. There is nothing super complicated about training, it is simply constantly challenging yourself to do better by playing slightly harder stuff. Of course, mentality, training methods do play a role, but definitely not the only role. I know myself, and I talk about my experiences in which I know I was trying my best. I trained hard, I got better, and I outdid myself with a lot of plays. The problem was, the maps that I tried so hard to get good scores on were casually set my other people without a whole lot of work. The fact is, I could improve, but my rate of improvement was slow and entirely eclipsed by people who had more natural talent than me.
Not that your post has no truth to it, I know when you play and get cynical about the lack of results, and there is no improvement to be had then. But I'm aware of that, and I know it's not the only reason for my lack of skill. I'm sure that I could get better if I went of some super duper training schedule, but not as good as a lot of other people.
You do thatthelewa wrote:
Sigh. Let me just become better than Cookiezi then. Even though you'll just say that I'm more talented than he was in that case.
You don't know enough about me to take a guess like that.thelewa wrote:
You truly lead a sad existence believing that
Semantic nitpickery.Brian OA wrote:
Talent refers to an aptitude, not capacity or potential. It is often cited as an amalgam of internal and external factors (whatever these may be) that end up favoring one's effort to result ratio relative to others.
Asserting that talent does not exist is not a matter of wishful thinking, either. At least, not any more than asserting its existence is a matter of cynicism.
My doubt of it comes from it being the go-to explanation for relative disparities in skill when the issue could easily be lack of data.
and if someone doesn't reach your level, you'll say that he just didn't try hard enough? See the dilemma? Maybe try to come up with smarter arguments, lewa.thelewa wrote:
Sigh. Let me just become better than Cookiezi then. Even though you'll just say that I'm more talented than he was in that case.
i know i've given you a lot of shit in the past, and i still think that many of your views on economic ideals are delusional (and i'm sure you think the same of mine), but i've got to give you credit here because you're on point. Cheers mateB1rd wrote:
This cultural marxist 'blank slate theory' is something that is deeply rooted in our society today, but it's easy to debunk when you look at things with just a little bit of objectivity.
Nah, I'd acknowledge the effort they've put in, but the problem is that you can channel that effort inefficiently by focusing on the wrong things and having an entitled attitude when it comes to learning. Someone who puts in less effort but manages to focus on just the right things can improve faster than someone who puts in more effort. The willingness to try new things to find out what works and the patience for it are things that can be learned. For some they may come more naturally but by no means are they locked away from people. I used to think similarly when it came to the rate of improvement, but after having experienced drastic inreases in my rate of improvement due to various epiphanies, I realized that man is a very organic thing capable of improvement on so many fronts. You can even learn to learn better.Railey2 wrote:
and if someone doesn't reach your level, you'll say that he just didn't try hard enough? See the dilemma? Maybe try to come up with smarter arguments, lewa.thelewa wrote:
Sigh. Let me just become better than Cookiezi then. Even though you'll just say that I'm more talented than he was in that case.
That's not the case at all! If replies made me angry then I wouldn't bother trying to provoke repliesBlitzfrog wrote:
Internet Arguments:
Wasting 10 minutes of your life to make yourself more angry when they reply
But you know people have pride and all that you knowthelewa wrote:
That's not the case at all! If replies made me angry then I wouldn't bother trying to provoke replies
Every bad thing there some good thing to balance out . Just like ying and yang. If you bad at certain thing that doesnt mean that you are bad at everything . There defenately something special for in everyone. Even by talent or just personality alone.thelewa wrote:
well, shit
I always thought that everyone who couldn't get good at something was just a pathetic loser. Somehow not being able to excel at something you want to just doesn't sit well with me, I can't even comprehend the concept of such limitations in a human. Are humans really that bad at everything? And if they are, how do you not despair over the unfairness of it all? Like, what's the point of competing at all if you have no chance of being the best? Why even live?
Life is not fair, but what's even more unfair is blaming the people who weren't well equipped from the beginning for their lack of success. Like telling someone with an iq of 70 to just try harder in school so he could get all the A-grades. That's not only unfair it's actually very cruel.thelewa wrote:
well, shit
I always thought that everyone who couldn't get good at something was just a pathetic loser. Somehow not being able to excel at something you want to just doesn't sit well with me, I can't even comprehend the concept of such limitations in a human. Are humans really that bad at everything? And if they are, how do you not despair over the unfairness of it all? Like, what's the point of competing at all if you have no chance of being the best? Why even live?