In other words, the "commercial video games" used in their research were "brain games" and not Pac-Man, Mario Bros, and Call of Duty, etc.
If you've ever taken a real IQ test where the proxy shows you cards to match or pictures with "missing" data, the 12 video games they used are very similar in spirit. It's not surprising that there is high correlation between the scores of those particular types of video games and real IQ tests.
However, that's not to say there is zero correlation between blockbuster video games like Call of Duty and IQ. Maybe another study will pursue that.
On a similar note, I once read that reaction time and IQ are correlated (not sure how strongly), which is interesting because you might expect motor functions like that to be orthogonal to higher-order cognitive abilities.
Speed is good, in many contexts. Say you've two people, and person A has overall cognitive speed 25% greater than the other.
That doesn't just help with Jeopardy!, it gives you 25% more time to think in normal conversations, on SAT tests, while playing video games, at work, etc.
Even a 10% slower speed differential from a baseline human is a big, big disadvantage.
This would make sense if all thinking is equal and only the rate of thinking varies. In practice, the quality of thought processes seems much more important than the the rate at which such processes are carried out.
For example, attempting to assess "cognitive speed" can be very dangerous in interviews. It seems like such a promising metric. A candidate who answers questions 10% faster than average will generally be much more impressive than a candidate who answers questions 10% slower than average, and it's tempting to think person A will be 22% more productive. Of course, over time, it may turn out that he occasionally provides more bad solutions to problems, or can only solve superficial problems, or solves the wrong problems. And you realize the person who consistently solves problems correctly (albeit at a slower pace) is a better choice than the person who introduces new problems as quickly as he solves existing problems.
It could always be argued that person B is actually thinking faster, but thinking through the problem much more carefully, causing him to verbalize his answer later. Or perhaps both people are thinking at the same speed, but person B has simply thought more. Maybe person B is actually thinking slower but more effectively. From an outsider's perspective, we can't know what's happening under the hood, which makes "cognitive speed" a weak metric for judging effectiveness in practice.
Of course the quality of thought matters.
But if you have two individuals that have the same quality, but different speeds, the faster one will seem smarter.
Think of a fast flowing conversation. A slower thinker is going to miss references and associations that a faster one will get. So the faster thinker will learn more from the conversation, and be able to participate more. This has many benefits.
In other words, faster cognition would probably help you formulate a slow, considered reply just as much as it would help you answer more quickly. That might be especially helpful in a public speech to a group asking unplanned questions.
I agree with freyr, though, that quality of cognition/ideation matters more than speed, and doubt that 'thinking speed' is necessarily correlated to better thought output.
Like IQ itself, faster basic cognition probably means something, but I don't think anybody knows what it means or how (or even if) it relates to "intelligence" (whatever that means).
In my personal experience, I have seen more great ideas and solutions come from "weird thinkers" than "fast thinkers". I realize that sentence does reduce to the cliche, "Think outside the box, bro," but it seems true over the course of all that I have observed in my own life.
I don't put a lot of credence to the speed thing here. I know one senior executive who made a point of writing down question on cards when he was asked them live at an event. Which I always thought was a rather clever approach to 1.) Make sure he understood the question correctly and 2.) To give himself some time to formulate the best response.
But I wouldn't expect a perfectly "normal", undamaged human to be a genius, but they would have superior reflexes. And there are tons of animals that are dumb, but have amazing reflexes.
If I were forced to choose, I'd say motor skills and reaction time combined with spacial intelligence are the key drivers of success. I have yet to see an FPS professional that doesn't have tremendous shot accuracy and agility, relying only on their strategic skills. But I have seen some with great shots and spacial awareness make many questionable decisions. But my exposure is limited and my perception is biased.
I'd guess general intelligence shares relevance almost equally as it affects weapon utilization, detection avoidance, enemy action prediction, strategic positioning, verbal skills (team games), random trickery, etc.
There's a lot to learn and practice to achieve mastery in those games. And experience in other similar video games will strongly correlate to how quick and high the skill in one particular (popular) game will be achieved.
I was watching a video a while back with these two guys playing QuakeIII. They both knew the map intimately, and kept track of when power-ups would respawn based on when they were picked up. Then they based their strategy on what resources they had, and what resources their opponent had and where the other was likely to go next.
So yeah, we're talking hundreds, if not thousands of hours devoted to mastery in this game. Against an opponent like that, two Quake newbies would score about the same (dying almost instantly), even if one of the newbies was otherwise very smart, and the other very dumb.
I fucking hated playing quake against him. I was ok, but he was amazing. He also would taunt you.
However, my best gaming memories were when we would basically live at Intel for days at a time playing UO across six diff machines simultaneously on that same corp net. No lag. Thanks for triggering that memory.
I think the time is ripe for Arena FPS to make a return to the mainstream (with updated graphics). Toxikk which is still Early-access seems very promising in this regard (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B28oQvaL7Mg).
I like it because maps like Dust 2 are so well known by competitive players. The success of an individual depends on sophisticated social factors around cooperation or divergence from team members. Strong teams nearly always outperform teams with strong individuals but poor cohesion in my experience.
Intelligence could be measured across a variety of types/dimensions including motor skills/reaction time, individual tactical performance and team cohesion.
Is anybody doing work like this? Is the data available from Valve or independent server admins?
I came to conclusion that IQ tests and brain teasers are just bullshit (in the context above, that is). You usually expect an exceptional result of it, because really, in day to day life you usually complete much more challenges and give good solutions than, lets say, 90% of the population.
I guess with the creation of phrases like "emotional IQ" and "cognitive IQ" even the research expressed its doubt that those tests can truly hold their promises. Freerk Huisken might be right in the end. He argued that it's a logical problem when one is trying to measure intelligence in artificial test as they can not retrieve the true capabilities of a human. Intelligence is a damn complicated subject and although we humans love to measure and categorize everything, we should consider that IQ tests are far from being comparable. Truth is, we still do not understand what intelligence actually is :)
This is actually a nice topic to discuss with philosophers.
We may not understand what intelligence is philosophically, but in the field of psychology, IQ/general intelligence/g factor is a statistical construct that isn't directly measurable but can be inferred by its correlation with measurable factors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_analysis
When we look at the research we find that if we know someone's score on an IQ test(how well they solve made up problems) we find they tend to do a little better(on average) at life then people who aren't as good at solving made-up problems. This is not meant to be the full measure of a man, or supposed to tell us the answer to what intelligence is.(This is probably a question a bunch of tenured philosophers could argue about until the end of civilization :) ).
An intelligence test for groups of people would be a very interesting idea.
You can go through the paper here if you want: http://www.emerginginvestigators.org/2015/01/gaming-cognitiv... OR http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01665
TL;DR; of the paper: I divided the class into two groups, one that played the video games and one that did not. Two tests were taken - one before the children were allowed to play games and another at the completion of one week. Children were made to play games for an hour daily. The results showed that gaming does improve cognitive skills. I was particularly surprised by the substantial improvement that it led to in scores.
PS: Anyone who wants to take this further or maybe has ideas for implementing this, please feel free contact me. I would love to help you out on this.
"Greetings, Starfighter. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan armada..."
It's also where patio11 + ptacek got the name for that project.
"The largest human cognitive performance dataset reveals insights into the effects of lifestyle factors and aging" Daniel A. Sternberg, Kacey Ballard, Joseph L. Hardy, Benjamin Katz, P. Murali Doraiswamy and Michael Scanlon,
Front. Hum. Neurosci., 20 June 2013
Wow, some psychology professor who read Ender's Game (Probably watched it since, come on, psychology is science at its laziest and the timeframes match) decided to make a quick buck by publishing an online paywalled paper on the "discovery" "for the first time" that people give up signs of their intelligence when observed performing an activity that requires them to use it (which matches the description of an infinite number of activities...).
Hey, I can reliably measure your intelligence by reading your comments on Hacker News. May I have your cash-money bucks, please? $_$ I have been working hard with hundreds of my students to prove it! For the first time ever! $_$
The fact is that you need specifically designed games for an accurate test. Most video games just won't make the cut. Even a combination of them: take the top 10 from steam. I dare anyone to accurately measure the IQ of their players just by looking at them them play in whatever lab environment they want. An those would be pretty boring. They would be in fact, tests.
I was curious what they meant by "commercial" video games. I was expecting real video games like Quake or Witcher but instead it's what you'd expect to be used to measure IQ - puzzle games, some of which mimic questions on regular IQ tests. Not as exciting as the abstract leads you to believe.
every article i want to read about this, is via payment only, so it is becoming really hard to research about this subject :( but today, you saved the day!!
You should do some research on your school's library's website.
How much impediment to the progress of the arts and sciences should we allow copyright to impose?
(also, didn't need anything weird to download, it was a straight HTTPS transfer over 443 for me)
Is this a joke? reliably measure ? 188 students?
So are you trying to tell me that if I could play Call of Duty with A. Einstein I would be humiliated despite him never having played a video game in his entire life?