Thread: Past our gaming prime at 24?

Originally Posted by Mr_Blonde_OPS

Did you know the human brain has the ability to hold even more information than the encyclopedia? Don't tell my what humans can and can't do if we are going to start talking about technicalities.

The point trying to be made is that just because a game is tactical doesn't mean a younger mind can't comprehend it...children well that's obvious. I'm not going to argue semantics with DG, I already know you'll regurgitate more info than I can.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Im sick of people around here thinking distinct differences are semantics. People need to go get a dictionary.

Comprehending is not even close to carrying a mindset for something. I comprehend heart surgery but do you think i have the mindset to go and start performing the surgery?

Now let get into your encyclopedia example. The average iq is a mere 100. Now when you say hold are you talking about retention? The reason i ask is i know my mind is holding the phone number i had when i lived in maryland but i have retained what my first car was, what it looked like, what it, and just about every detail to it.

Last time i read a medical journal/article on brain capacity it said the brain was around 1 million gigs. That being said it has to hold a life time of sensory information and all the other garbage we cram in there like a roach farting every 15 minutes. Its limited on its capacity and instinctively knows a lot of shit is not worth taking up space for. That is why we have short term and long term memory centers. If we didn't have an etcha sketch section we would fill up quickly.

Now how this fits together is a full set of encyclopedias is a little over 21 gigs. Yes it fits but you and 99% of the population globally would retain very little because your brain would recognize it as non essential and throw it in your short term center. I could go on but i dont want you to think there's something in here that lends itself to semantics between holding/retention and long term/short term

Originally Posted by Mr_Blonde_OPS

You missed the point of me stating that 17 year olds can join the military and now you've missed the point of my encyclopedia comment. I understand some people are more naturally gifted in areas than others, but that does not mean that someone who is not good with math, technology, mechanics, etc etc...can't learn to be proficient in those areas. Is it unlikely that someone who sucks at painting and doesn't really enjoy it, puts the time and effort into that area to become "good" at it? Probably. And even if a person does that doesnt mean they'll do it as well as someone who it comes to easily, but they'll still get better with experience.

Just because your young doesnt mean you cant learn tactics. Just because your not naturally good at something doesnt mean you can never be good at it. That is just what I choose to believe.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I took every class available to me in construction, mechanics, metal working, wood working, drafting, shorthand, and typing when i was in school. Plenty of practice and a life time of trying. I still suck at typing, shorthand, and the last person you want making something out of wood is me. I still try but it still always looks like shit. Practice makes perfect applies a lot of the time but not always. Some people just suck at things and always will.

Originally Posted by iLLusioN

Is it because of age or because most people start getting real lives by then? Just saying I still can get pretty damn good at games when I don't have the wife and kids bugging me all the time.

There's a lot of truth to this. I've found that RL and a massive increase in responsibilities has greatly diminished the amount of time I'm able to devote to my hobby/fun time stuff. Which means that naturally one doesn't gain the same proficiency at something based on muscle memory (like all twitch-based games - not just the FPS).

So while I'll grant that there are declines in "Twitch gaming" proficiency as people get older I'm not as sold on the idea that it's necessarily related to a decline in "brain function" or ability but rather born out of changing priorities and less practice/muscle memory.

Originally Posted by Mr_Blonde_OPS

Sorry I'm trying to sift through all this info and find what's relevant. So your saying that young people can comprehend tactics, but don't have the mindset for it? Remember we have been talking about video games this whole time... tactical vs run and gun. Age appropriate.

And you're right about the encyclopedia. The probability that anyone other than maybe the 1% of the world could really hold that much knowledge in their brain is unlikely. Does that mean it's not possible? Maybe for you with all your facts and information, but I like to think that I have the ability to achieve anything I want to if I put my heart and mind into it.

Scion please explain why you decided to post such a comment.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Yes to a degree they can but they lack the mindset to be really good at it. No different then a 70 year old person has the same reflexes as a 16 year old. Both contain both but at different levels. Where it does become different is tactics is a learned skill where reflexes aren't.

Wanting to believe you can achieve anything is irrelevant. If you had the capability to actually retain all the knowledge in a set of encyclopedias you would be able to type out every math book you've ever had right now. Odds are vastly against you having that ability. It does exist but your talking about 1-2% of the total population with photographic memory and even then it isnt a life long memory. Its still short term recall.

So to answer your second question yes it is impossible.