
'StarCraft' Gameplay Boosts Mental Flexibility, Says Study - Libertatea
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/08/25/starcraft-gameplay-boosts-mental-flexibility-says-study/?mod=WSJBlog
======
EllaMentry
"The participant pool was composed entirely of 72 female students at the
University of Texas at Austin, because researchers were unable to find male
participants who played computer games for less than two hours a day."

The sample size seems far too small and narrow to draw any conclusions from.

~~~
chid
Sample size has nothing (not strictly true) to do with whether a result is
statistically significant. I imagine they chose this sample size because it
could potentially yield a statistically significant sample.

A larger sample size means that a smaller average increase is required to show
that it is a statistically significant deviation than a smaller sample.

~~~
lutusp
> Sample size has nothing (not strictly true) to do with whether a result is
> statistically significant.

I hate to rain on your parade, but sample size has _everything_ to do with
whether a result is statistically significant.

[http://sph.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-
Modules/BS/BS704_Power/BS704_Powe...](http://sph.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-
Modules/BS/BS704_Power/BS704_Power2.html)

~~~
wisty
No, almost any sample size can be sufficient, as long as the effect is big
enough. Though in psychology, larger samples are often needed, because there's
generally smaller effects.

If you want to test whether penicillin can cure a staph infection, you can get
statistically significant results with a handful of tests.

~~~
lutusp
>> Sample size has nothing (not strictly true) to do with whether a result is
statistically significant.

>> I hate to rain on your parade, but sample size has everything to do with
whether a result is statistically significant.

> No, almost any sample size can be sufficient, as long as the effect is big
> enough.

Your sentence says "no", but it agrees -- sample size has everything to do
with determining statistical significance. The ratio of sample size to
population is critical to deciding whether a result is significant:
[http://classroom.synonym.com/select-statistically-
significan...](http://classroom.synonym.com/select-statistically-significant-
sample-size-2410.html)

> Though in psychology, larger samples are often needed, because there's
> generally smaller effects.

Yes, but many of those kinds of result are insignificant and instantly
forgotten regardless of the circumstances, because psychologists generally
aren't testing a falsifiable theory, only measuring an "interesting" effect,
like whether leaning to the left makes the Eiffel Tower look shorter (the 2012
Ig Nobel Prize winner):

Title: "Leaning to the Left Makes the Eiffel Tower Seem Smaller -- Posture-
Modulated Estimation"

Link:
[http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/23/095679761142...](http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/23/0956797611420731.abstract?rss=1)

Ig Nobel Prize announcement:
[http://www.improbable.com/ig/2012/](http://www.improbable.com/ig/2012/)

~~~
wisty
Normal distribution of a sample scales with sigma, and inverse to sqrt(n-1),
so effect size is more important than sample size. That's all the guy who
originally posted was talking about.

I don't think anyone on hn won't know this. Everyone is just quibbling over
the wording.

Your new point is very good, and I'd expect someone has used the correlation
!= causation argument too.

------
frozenport
" were unable to find male participants who played computer games for less
than two hours a day."

BUT THE DOCUMENT S1 DAYS

"Participants who reported 2 hours or less of video games per week qualified
for inclusion in this study"

Week != Day

This is some bad reporting, Riva Gold.

------
xal
I'm CEO of a medium sized company now. I played semi pro broodwar and masters
level SC2.

Nothing in this surprises me. More then anything else Starcraft is a game
where you learn how to use limited information better than your opponent.
Think about it, it's really silly that people treat chess as this game with
all these advantages for your brain and games like Starcraft are ignored. When
in life do you have perfect information about a situation?

Building a company is incredibly similar to a 1:1 in starcraft. You start
blank slate, you make lots of decisions based on the information you have. You
invest into experiments and reconnaissance and you eventually try to build up
a small advantage that you leverage into a win. Early game, mid game, and end
game are totally different phases that all map well to the lifecycle of a
startup.

This kind of training is _incredible_.

------
eykanal
The best analogy I've heard is that a good game of Starcraft is very similar
to fencing; you have to predict what your opponent will do, and react
accordingly, with speed and agility. Another good comparison is chess; see
where the pieces are going and be sure to be ready when the battle comes.

~~~
Sagat
Starcraft is arguably a more difficult game due to the real-time element and
the fact that the pieces aren't constrained by squares on a board (meaning
there is more positional variation). As Bobby Fischer complained, chess
between accomplished players can seem stale when the first twenty moves are
often played from memory, following opening theory and leaving no place for
experimentation.

~~~
rsheridan6
The beginning of Starcraft can be stale too. You're probably going to follow
one of the standard builds at first.

~~~
dmead
you say that, until you get proxy everything'd

~~~
EthanHeilman
I haven't been successfully proxied in a very long time and I'm an awful sc2
player (you see many more proxies in bronze than silver). A standard build
order will crush a proxy 99/100 assuming the players are vaguely close in
skill.

~~~
karl_gluck
If you really believe that, I'd suggest you check out the WCS Season 2 Grand
Finals from last night. Really, all of the WCS event. Proxies do quite well
against standard build orders--that's one of the things that makes pro play so
much fun to watch.

------
UweSchmidt
Consider the opportunity costs involved. The huge amount of time and energy
usually 'spent' on games like this could have been used for something else,
possibly boosting mental flexibility and other things equally or more than
Starcraft.

I would expect the purported positive effects of gaming should be way more
pronounced, given the many hours many people play each day. It seems that
someone who spends the same time honing a real skill (e.g. programming) would
come out way ahead!

Tangentially, speaking of the "costs" of gaming:

A game like Starcraft combines

\- a competitive 1 vs 1 mode, forcing a maximum effort each game

\- is using a wide range of motoric and cognitive skills, requiring not only
quick reactions and multitasking, but also several levels of higher level
thinking (analyzing the ongoing game, analyzing build orders and metagame
between matches, reading up on things on forums).

To me this seems to lead to a complete exhaustion of the player, instead of
giving a challange combined with relaxation and distraction.

I would rather recommend casual games ("let take my mind off work for a few
minutes"), 3D shooters (positive stress, excitement, but resting cognitive
brain functions) or "thinking games", be it chess, or a civilization style
building game (giving a mental challenge that one might have missed in today's
work). And avoid a super competitive environment that gives you a negative
feedback if you're giving 100% all the time.

Would you agree?

~~~
Vaskivo
As kayoone already said, people usually play games for fun. Knowing or
realizing games have some benefit is a bonus. As the effort/exaustion part,
people actually like that. In fact, the tiredness is mainly something people
tolerate as a "cost" for all the "fun".

When I play sports with friends I'm not doing it to be fit, I'm doing it for
the social intercation, the friendly competition. I'll be tired and with some
bruises, and will struggle to get off bed the next morning, but I feel it was
worth it.

Another example, video game related. I like Dark Souls. But I kind of suck at
it. During a more frustrating sessions, after some groans and curses my
girlfriend naively asked me: "If the game makes you so angry and frustrated,
why do you keep playing it? Why don't you play another game?". It made me
think. I guess I like being challenged. And the harder and the more times I
fall, the better is the feeling when I finally win. The more I shout and swear
at the game, the bigger is the smile after beating a challenge (or the sigh of
relief).

~~~
cloverich
> It made me think. I guess I like being challenged.

I think this is a somewhat overlooked aspect of gaming and its relation to
one's personality in general. I've found, especially as I've aged, that I much
prefer competitive, difficult games. Especially with starcraft, the
combination of the skill and focus required seems to relax me in a way - even
when it frustrates me, I'm still completely drawn away from every other thing
I was focused on / worried about previously. I've now found that if a game
isn't genuinely challenging, for the most part I don't enjoy it (and to the
point, play very few games at all anymore).

Conversely, I have a friend that only enjoys casual games - I think he'd
happily complete every game available on God mode, if it were an option.

------
zeidrich
It's interesting that similar studies have been done with brain-training games
and they have no noticeable effect on a persons mind.

[http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/brain...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/brain-
games-are-bogus.html)

I think one of the things that makes SC2 special is not simply the gameplay,
but the stress that it puts you under at the same time. Not only do you have
to make the correct decision, you have to make the correct decision NOW and if
you don't, you will suffer consequences. This combined with the need for
precise control forces you to either develop or suffer repeated failure. As
it's also - in it's highest difficulty - a competitive game, there's also
social pressure to not fail. Look only to these comments to see that; one
commenter states his rank, others try to discredit his position. This pecking
order is something important to them.

A game like the Sims as a control, is very different. You tell a story, you
might have game elements, but there's much less stress, you have much fewer
decisions you need to make in a short period, and if you make an error it
changes the story rather than typical cause disastrous failure. You can not
develop and still enjoy yourself. The fun is in the narrative, not "win" or
"lose". There is no competition.

------
kayoone
Nothing new really. There have been alot of studies that show that games train
reflexes and other mental abilities [1]

If engaging in a very strategic game for a couple of hours each week wouldnt
lead to any positive mental improvements, i would be suprised. Human ability
is based upon experience, training and talent in almost any field.

[1] [http://www.wate.com/story/3684503/study-video-games-help-
qui...](http://www.wate.com/story/3684503/study-video-games-help-quicken-
reflexes)

~~~
astrobe_
What is a far from obvious, to me, is that this specific training in a
specific context improves response outside of this context and for other
tasks. Really how knowing that you have to build immortals when you see
roaches - or vikings when you see colossi, could possibly useful in everyday
life?

~~~
luanfernandes
It's not the information that useful but how you use them. I have no study to
back me up but imo if you keep playing strategy games that tell you which
thing is best than another and how one thing can be beaten, it can apply to
anything in life when it comes to decisions, that's the lesson learned.

~~~
arh68
I think you've got the right idea. The 'facts' of what-counters-what don't
matter too much; it's the feedback mechanism that matters. When you see Player
2 do X, you use that info to play the best Y. Good scouting decreases this
feedback timing, and the player that iterates better will, given enough time,
come out on top.

In SC2, there's a spectrum of _usefulness_ to information. Finding a proxy
pylon is hard, but screams intention. Scouting early double gas is easy,
perhaps, but is more clouded. In chess, all the positions of the pieces are
obvious (no concept of scouting), but _all_ the information is clouded beneath
layers of moves-after-moves. A very powerful attack can be hidden in plain
sight.

In this more general context of iterative gathering & analyzing of information
in pursuit of a victory condition, I can see how it applies. The fact that the
general mechanism (however it works, exactly) can be exercised through a
specific game is still intriguing.

------
kenster07
The conclusion would not surprise me. Competitive games with a high "skill
cap" require as much mental activity as anything else. The cause and effect
may not be clear, but gaming can, at the very least, increase confidence in
one's decision-making capabilities, which will improve performance on other
mental tasks.

------
pcunite
I've always suspected that the reason I'm such a good driver is from my _Need
for Speed III_ binges.

~~~
angersock
And playing a lot of _Payday_ and _Counter-Strike_ has made me a really
good...um...er...huh.

------
shire
I think I'm going to try and play this game now, I've been playing call of
duty for the past 4 years I'm addicted to Black ops and I feel like this game
also increases decision making and better understanding of strategy.

------
j2kun
Why the scarequotes around Starcraft? Is it...not really Starcraft?

~~~
kmfrk
StarCraft is the title of a work, and as such should probably be either
italicized or put in quotes cf. the WSJ style manual.

Italicization is obviously not possible in plain text, so their style manual
would prescribe that the title of the work is set in quotes.

------
mahyarm
I feel Dota 2 and probably other MOBA games have a similar effect too. The
game is incredibly fast paced. It's like the hunting party edition of RTS
games.

------
kor023
HN inhouse sc2 tourney is in order based on these comments

~~~
ilyanep
Apparently there are top GM folks who hang around here. I think we'd all get
thrashed.

------
morenoh149
I can't help but think that's not a good sample.

------
dmead
bad study. they don't account for the mental toll induced by lack of sleep.
source: myself.

~~~
Sagat
I've also noticed from personal experience that playing video games for long
lengths of time reduces your ability to concentrate on real world tasks or
simple things such as reading.

~~~
dmead
yes.

------
rfnslyr
Top 100 world ranked grand master here. The amount of time I have poured into
this game is absolutely unreal, I could have probably raised a family of 5 in
the time I spent playing StarCraft.

I found myself better at a lot of games after being so intense in SCII. Co-
ordination, decision making, a better understanding of strategy, all improved.
I got better at Chess, was able to pick things up quicker.

Great experience but I'm too burnt out to keep going in SC2. It got so hard
you had to treat it like a job.

The thing about SCII competitive is, once you seriously get competitive, every
single game you play is such an absolute mental drain. I used to have to do
pushups / run a few KM before a few games. I had to mentally prepare myself
for every single game.

Once you play at top competitive tier in SC2, every other game is honestly a
joke (videogames, not boardgames). What other games REQUIRE you to have
300APM? None, that's how many.

~~~
niuzeta
> What other games _REQUIRE_ you to have 300APM

sort of tangential point here, but this usage of 'require' is exactly why I
dropped starcraft 2 and possibly will never come back. When a game stops being
a game and starts being a... work, it loses all the fun.

Back in the days of WoL I toyed with the idea of playing with less APM and
winning with more strategy, like pincer-attacks or enclosure; it worked up
till Diamonds but when I found myself _training_ for some micro, I knew it was
time to give it up.

I'm still looking forward for the LoV, but probably will only play the single
campaign and quit.

EDIT: I still fancy a competitive games against my friends, but that's a
completely different story.

~~~
baddox
> When a game stops being a game and starts being a... work, it loses all the
> fun.

Unless your only aspiration was to play professionally, this isn't a reason to
stop you, and even the professionals don't _need_ 300 apm (and many don't have
it). I was pretty comfortable playing Terran in Diamond league in North
America (I stopped playing about 6 months ago) with 90-100 apm, and I never
specifically worked on increasing my apm.

