thelewa wrote:

Not in osu!. How is someone going to teach you how to properly move the pen or the mouse in a way optimal to the way your hand is? How is someone going to teach you to make new nerve connections allowing for faster movement of fingers? How is someone going to teach you to process the visual information received? These are all things that you cannot receive help with. They're things you have to figure out for yourself.

ye olde OT

thelewa wrote:

Not in osu!. How is someone going to teach you how to properly move the pen or the mouse in a way optimal to the way your hand is? How is someone going to teach you to make new nerve connections allowing for faster movement of fingers? How is someone going to teach you to process the visual information received? These are all things that you cannot receive help with. They're things you have to figure out for yourself.

It takes repitition to acquire those motor skills, because that's what they are at the end of the day. I don't think it requires logic. So no, the "play more" advice is not too vague in my opinion. For example, you could know anything about the piano, right? But if you never sit down and nurture your motor skills, you'd be a horrible player. An idiot could sit down and do the same thing every day, but that doesn't mean they'll actually learn the technical side of clicking circles (if there even is one. I am not an expert on this and I haven't even played the game in a while.)

Foxtrot wrote:

It takes repitition to acquire those motor skills, because that's what they are at the end of the day. I don't think it requires logic. So no, the "play more" advice is not too vague in my opinion. For example, you could know anything about the piano, right? But if you never sit down and nurture your motor skills, you'd be a horrible player. An idiot could sit down and do the same thing every day, but that doesn't mean they'll actually learn the technical side of clicking circles (if there even is one. I am not an expert on this and I haven't even played the game in a while.)

Because piano teachers are useless people

Do piano teachers literally grab your hands and make you play the piano? No, they teach you about the technicality of the instrument so you can read the notes and know which key to press. But if you gain all that knowledge and don't practice it, it's pretty much useless

Didn't you claim to be logical, Blitz? I'm surprised to see such a reaction out of you

You still have to be present and guide your developing motor skills. You can get better at doing the wrong thing just as easily as you can get better at doing the right thing.

But since we're specifically talking about osu!, how stupid do you have to be to not comprehend that you're supposed to click the circles at the rhythm of the song? You're just a vegetable at that point. Bad osu! players do realize what they must do, but they fail because their motor skills are not as refined as someone who has been playing for months. I've never seen anybody play osu! in the "wrong way" and that's because it'd completely impossible for you to play the game in a different way than it was originally meant.

Foxtrot wrote:

Didn't you claim to be logical, Blitz? I'm surprised to see such a reaction out of you

Who said I'm logical, I'm Blitzfrog

Foxtrot wrote:

But since we're specifically talking about osu!, how stupid do you have to be to not comprehend that you're supposed to click the circles at the rhythm of the song? You're just a vegetable at that point. Bad osu! players do realize what they must do, but they fail because their motor skills are not as refined as someone who has been playing for months. I've never seen anybody play osu! in the "wrong way" and that's because it'd completely impossible for you to play the game in a different way than it was originally meant.

You'd have to be an idiot

The repetition you do in playing osu! will also have varying degrees of effectiveness when it comes to improvement and it all comes down to what you, as the player, are doing while playing the game. If you're playing the game absent mindedly just thinking that the more playcount you accumulate the better you will become, you're in for a disappointment. While the gameplay itself is very simple, getting better at it is something that requires effort other than just playing the game. You have to be constantly paying attention to how you play the game, while constantly figuring out new ways to do the simple movements required better, more efficiently.

It doesn't necessarily require logic, but it does require a kind of self-discipline. The capacity to pay attention and the will to put in some effort without just pretending and crying to the good players about you not getting any better despite how much you've been pretending. Intelligence isn't just logic. It's the ability to properly utilize every faculty you have at hand. What good is sharp wit if you lack self-discipline and the ability to focus? Nowadays it seems to be a common belief that if you can't pay attention, there's nothing to be done about it other than taking some ADHD medication.

Edit: Oh, and to not cause any confusion: I strongly believe that anyone can easily get to my level at this game in way less time than what it took me. Talent doesn't exist in this game. The people who are good at this game are good at this because they're good at getting good at things. Which is something anyone can learn.

This drama for me has thelewa as the main character and Foxtrot as the bad dragon

Foxtrot raises valid points and his insight is highly appreciated.

What drama?

thelewa wrote:

What drama?

The crimson knight and the flying dragon

The best advice I would offer would be to have fun

Brian OA wrote:

The best advice I would offer would be to have fun

Having fun is not good for your brain. Life is all about having as much misery as possible

Based on?

Brian OA wrote:

Based on?

Brian OA

You must have me mixed up with someone else

Ahh it was Brian OT, my bad

thelewa wrote:

I'm not saying that the ones that are good at clicking circles or playing other games are especially smart or anything

thelewa wrote:

Talent doesn't exist in this game.

case in point?



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.

johnmedina999 wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/504759

i thought of linking my thread but i'd rather have him look at just my comment from now.

The thread was meant to stir up the community (and it did so very well), the discussion quickly devolved from people arguing the main point to people picking out minor flaws while not really talking about the main point at all. They also got very offended. Just read all of chainpullz or Taigas posts. The thread was basically written to be derailed.



Anyway, i stand by the main point. People who argue that talent doesn't exist, are naive.

Are there male versions? I'm throwing money at the screen rn answer senpai

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.

Railey2 wrote:

thelewa wrote:

I'm not saying that the ones that are good at clicking circles or playing other games are especially smart or anything

thelewa wrote:

Talent doesn't exist in this game.

case in point?



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 truly lead a sad existence believing that

Maybe you feel better not believing in the reality of self-evident truths, but it doesn't change the fact that they are true.

and maybe you're just that lazy that you have to believe yourself incapable of achieving something instead of actually, you know, trying?

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'?

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.

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.

Here it comes again

Grab the popcorn boys

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'?

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!

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.

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.

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!

"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.

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.

Please do not butcher my posts into paragraphs like that.

Obviously, you have to assume reasons exists for things that take place. Why does things fall to the earth when you drop them? There's a reason for that. Now, I don't believe the argument was ever based upon a claim based off of evidence solely from looking at people's profiles. I can talk from my own experience, from looking at friends, from looking at various other people, and conclude that that people put in the same amount of effort and get different results. There are two possibilities: you conclude it's entirely due to their training methods, their mentality, etc. and that we are all 'blank slates' that have the same potential as each other. Or you conclude that some people simply have more natural talent. And really, I don't know how you can do all the mental gymnastics to conclude the first option is right, when you have examples from every competitive institution of humankind that some people, athletes, mathematicians, gamers, etc., some people will natural excel over others, even when both are both on the same intensive training program.

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.

this thread reminded me of ye olde OT when somewhat intelligent exchange of opinions used to take place more often

thelewa wrote:

this thread reminded me of ye olde OT when somewhat intelligent exchange of opinions used to take place more often

it's all because of you you know

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.

Amusing. That is exactly what I used to say.
ADDENDUM: How do you know that the best you tried is the best you're capable of?

Now then, the opening paragraph of your post is very wrong, I haven't implied any kind of special training routine at all. That's your invention and if that's how you've been trying to get better at this game then no wonder you didn't get anywhere.

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.

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.

You do that

I heard the larger your chin the more likely you will become #1 in osu

thelewa wrote:

You truly lead a sad existence believing that

You don't know enough about me to take a guess like that.

I consider myself to be pretty talented at most things that aren't pertaining to artistic skills or got something to do with any sort of spatial thinking (such as measuring distances or thinking about 3 dimensional bodies etc.). The only thing i try to do is stay realistic. But most things i do that i find fun don't require me to work very hard or to really make my talent count, and since the same is true for my work at the time, no part of my life is particularly affected by my beliefs about talent - and even if it was.. why do you think that i'd be particularly sad about it? Doesn't make sense to me.

in other words, you're talking out of your ass.

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.

Semantic nitpickery.
if you see talent as the ability to improve faster than others (better effort to result ratio), it also becomes the potential to reach greater heights if we assume that the skill ceiling is sufficiently high for all players - which it probably is, for osu.
in other words, your talent is your potential as an osu player.


As for you demanding more data..

more data can always change your perspective on things, but this is one case where enough we do have enough data. Not for this particular case maybe, but there's been a lot of analysis on other games and composite skills in general.

The fact stands: if you have a situation where you add a lot of sufficiently independent factors to get your end result, all end results will end up showing as a bell curve. This phenomenon is known as the Central limit theorem (CLT) in statistics.

if you want to make a case for this being different for osu, YOU are the one who needs to come forward with more data points, because the claim that osu-skill is NOT normally distributed, is far more outlandish and improbable than the claim that it is. Your default assumption should be that there is a bell-curve, and that is not a matter of cynicism.
There is a clear difference between being cynical and being realistic.

And no, am not in the least emotional or wishful about it, it just is how it is.

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.

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.

B1rd 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.

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 mate

hey

Internet Arguments:

Wasting 10 minutes of your life to make yourself more angry when they reply

Railey2 wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Just keep bashing your heads on that wall and cry about not having as much "natural ability" when any sensible person would just walk around it. I suppose it is a kind of "natural ability", the will to search for a better, easier way. I'm not going to try and change your opinion on this because you clearly derive your identity and a kind of path from your perceived talents. Instead of trying to find what my aptitude is, I've always striven to improve myself. If I find a thing that I have absolutely no aptitude for, I just get all fired up to try and excel at it. Just focusing on the things I'm good at is boring, although easy. Isn't it better to increase the amount of things you're good at? Although lately I have been very lazy...

osu! is one of the things I consider myself to have no aptitude for. For a long time I thought that I was "talented" and as such somehow better than the rest because of being able to click circles accurately. Looking back at the path I took to reach where I got back when I was one of the very best players, I realize that anyone could have done it better than me. If my "natural ability" is not giving up in the long run, then so be it.

I'm obviously also very proud of myself for not giving up, which is why I go on long tirades about myself.

Blitzfrog wrote:

Internet Arguments:

Wasting 10 minutes of your life to make yourself more angry when they reply

That's not the case at all! If replies made me angry then I wouldn't bother trying to provoke replies