Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

League of Legends Rank Predicts IQ, Study Finds (plos.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the interesting-relationships dept.

limbicsystem writes: A new publication in the journal PLOS ONE shows that your rank in League of Legends (LoL) correlates with your intelligence quotient (IQ). Games like LoL and DOTA II apparently depend on the same cognitive resources that underlie tests of fluid intelligence. That means that proficiency in those games peaks at the same age as raw IQ -- about 25 -- while scores in more reaction-time based games like Destiny or Battlefield seem to decline from the teens onwards. The researchers suggest that the massive datasets from these online games could be used to assess population-level cognitive health in real-time across the globe. The authors have a nice FAQ (and open datasets) here.

85 comments

  1. James Watson, head of the Human Genome Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    It's difficult to name many more important living figures in 20th century biology than James Watson. He ushered in the current age of molecular biology with his achievements in 1953, he built up one of the world's greatest biological research facilities from damn near scratch, and he is a former head of the Human Genome Project.

    Given such an august curriculum vitae, you would think that this man perhaps understands just a few things about genetics. But given only the condescending media coverage, you'd think this eminent geneticist was somehow "out of his depth" on this one.

    In his interview with the Times on Oct. 14th, we learned that:

    ... [Watson] is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address.

    These thoughts were a continuation of an important theme in his new book Avoid Boring People:

    ... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

    Full citation here

    1. Re: James Watson, head of the Human Genome Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a rocket scientist.

    2. Re: James Watson, head of the Human Genome Project by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      No black people aren't more gifted athletically. They're just only allowed to succeed athletically so they start younger they try harder and they live eat and breathe athletics because it's the only way they know how to succeed.

      --
      Just another second banana
    3. Re:James Watson, head of the Human Genome Project by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      James Watson is a moron. he's a second rate scientist but a completely and total moron who doesn't know how genetics work on a population level. Sure he was "critical" in finding out how genes are formed but he i grossly mistaken in how they function.

      --
      Just another second banana
    4. Re: James Watson, head of the Human Genome Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent observation. I find it interesting that the restrictions on their academic advancement and the positive reinforcements towards athletic advancement are practiced equally in every country of the world, even those that are majority black.

      I wonder how that happens. Care to explain? I am fascinated.

    5. Re: James Watson, head of the Human Genome Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are confusing IQ with penis size. Penis size leads to more success than IQ. People with small penises have more time and incentive to get rich, because they need something to get laid. On the other hand people in places with large penises tend to live more relaxed lifestyles because they don't have to struggle to get laid.

    6. Re: James Watson, head of the Human Genome Project by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      You made a small penis joke and people modded you down.

    7. Re: James Watson, head of the Human Genome Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know! :D It was epic.

      Isn't it amusing though how people try to attribute stereotypes with things that suite them, but then freak out when they are presented with stereotypes that don't fit the narratives they try to create?

      The OP was trying to throw out some racist stuff about IQ and probably had a little following. But then when the little penis stereotype comes in, they probably all get mad. So lulzy. :D

      What is even more hilarious about their neo-nazi racist IQ rants is that they try to attribute it to some higher form of evolution. As if somehow some people are smarter more civilized because of IQ. But, the moment you present them with the fact that Asians outperform the nazis on IQ tests, all the advanced talk suddenly changes.

  2. That's great. by hey! · · Score: 3

    Unfortunately, one of the things I've learned over the years is how little IQ correlates to anything useful; at least once you get much past 1.5 or 2 standard deviations over the mean.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:That's great. by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, one of the things I've learned over the years is how little IQ correlates to anything useful; at least once you get much past 1.5 or 2 standard deviations over the mean.

      That's actually because the cutoff for things like IQs actually meaning anything is roughly two standard deviations from the mean--in either direction, not just over. Tests like IQ tests are functionally rulers that are just long enough to go that far on either side of the mean--once you get past that the ends, the actual number is pretty much insignificant.

      Of course, there's problems if you were to just report those scores as something other than numbers, even though the actual numbers don't mean much anymore...

    2. Re:That's great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an IQ of about 130. 98% percentile.

      https://www.quora.com/How-do-the-average-IQs-rank-by-profession-Which-professions-have-the-highest-IQs

    3. Re: That's great. by Canbot · · Score: 1

      What a ridiculous statement. Your assumption of people's intelligence is meaningless. Unless you tested people with a valid IQ test you could not even begin to learn anything about IQ. People who do that consistently find the opposite.

    4. Re:That's great. by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      IQ measures your ability to give a shit about pointless and puzzling minutiae, a characteristic that leads to success in scholarly pursuits.

      I hear that League of Legends rank also correlates strongly with obesity, foul odor, number of burgers flipped, and mean proximity to grandmother's basement.

      --
      The real path to male liberation
    5. Re: That's great. by hey! · · Score: 1

      No, my assumption is that IQ tests are relatively meaningless. About the best you can say for them is that they're reasonably self-consistent.

      Here's I think why: intelligence isn't something directly observable, like height or length. It's something we infer. So to measure it we develop indirect tests, but how do we know that those tests measure what we think they should? We compare the results to what we expected to get, for example to they rank subjects approximately the way our intuition ranks them?

      The problem is that this empirical confirmation gets harder to obtain the further you get from the mean, because you have too few subjects with which the calibrate your results. For that reason you can be pretty sure that someone who has a 110 IQ is (by intuitive measures) smarter than someone who has a 100 IQ, which was by the original test design average. But you really know nothing about whether someone who has a 170 IQ is smarter than someone with a 160 IQ.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re: That's great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best post here. IQ is trivial. It doesn't correlate with success, nor does it take away from hard work. High IQ might give a very slight advantage for learning certain tasks but that just means a little less time is needed. IQ can also change over time, which means people can learn the skills needed for the tasks that IQ measures. IQ is nice to help boost the ego of people that need to feel their meaningless lives are part of some greater thing, but it isn't very useful.

    7. Re:That's great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately they discovered that the higher rank a player has, the lower his IQ and the more pathetic his life was :-)

    8. Re:That's great. by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, one of the things I've learned over the years is how little IQ correlates to anything useful; at least once you get much past 1.5 or 2 standard deviations over the mean.

      But over lo these many years you inch farther and farther beyond the mean?

      If the mean was ebbing, you could be just standing still. If the mean was also increasing, you would be getting smarter faster.

      Then we come to the question of "correlate". There are a lot of useful things popping up all the time. Seems to be more stuff and more frequently on top of that, so more times more, or more squared. Does that mean if your increasing intelligence is just bumping up little by little over years and years, the correlation fails because the world is getting so much harder to keep up with?

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  3. IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Khopesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Like any kind of basic test, IQ tests aren't terribly abstractable. Therefore, the supposed correlation between this type of games and IQ tests isn't terribly indicative of intelligence.

    Therefore: if you like IQ tests, you should really try these games.

    This also reminds me of a quote:

    I have no idea [what my IQ is]. People who boast about their IQ are losers. -- Stephen Hawking

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
    1. Re:IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not true that IQ (more commonly 'g' in professional literature) means nothing, there is extensive psychometric studies about what it means and what is in it and what isn't. Some aspects of it is observable in biological measurements.

      https://source.wustl.edu/2012/07/brain-imaging-can-predict-how-intelligent-you-are-study-finds/

      It means that performance across a wide, but not comprehensive, variety of cognitive tasks is correlated in individuals, i.e. if you are good at some of them, it is highly more likely than chance you will be above average on the others. There are of course many other tasks and demands on human performance which aren't related.

      Nevertheless, it is true that people who boast about their IQ are losers.

    2. Re:IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are of course many other tasks and demands on human performance which aren't related.

      There are also mental skills that aren't even measured in IQ tests. My biggest complaint with them.

    3. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Canbot · · Score: 1, Informative

      IQ results are proven to predict success in a lot of things. Thinking that IQ does not measure intelligence is a sign of low IQ. You can go ahead and argue that there are other types of intelligence, but that argument does little other than conflate skills with intelligence. IQ measures your ability to solve problems. IQ tests a are reproducible, consistent, and predictive. That so many people write it off as pseudoscience proves only how stupid most people are.

    4. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Half of all people have an IQ below 100."

      People with an IQ beyond +2sigma are at best 1/20 of the population.

    5. Re:IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by keltor · · Score: 1

      Generally the areas they do not test are areas that are either hard to test or have a low repeat-ability. Again like the GPP said, it's because we can predict that people with high IQs will generally have a high aptitude for most of those areas as well.

    6. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Canbot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What it tests for is shown to make accurate predictions of important things. That is all that matters. No one is saying that it measures a person's worth, or the full extent of their intellect. There is no problem with what it is, only with what people misinterpret it to be.

    7. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by sound+vision · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's pseudoscience on the same level that the MBTI is pseudoscience - not so much in what it does, as what people *think* it does. An MBTI or IQ test very accurately measures... your ability to take an MBTI or IQ test. The basic premise behind the tests - that personality can be reduced to four scores on four linear axes, or problem-solving ability reduced to a score on one linear axis - seem to be gross oversimplifications. Incomplete pictures, vis-a-vis the Platonic ideals you think you are measuring with these tests. Which is not to say that you won't find all sorts of correlations between peoples' MBTI and/or IQ, and how their lives turn out. It *is* to say that those correlations don't mean what you think they mean. An IQ test measures very specific types of problem solving, taken in a bubble, in a manner that almost no real-world problems are presented to a person.

      FWIW, since you wanted to make this personal, I assume I did quite well on the IQ tests I was given in school. The result was always that they wanted to put me in GT or AP courses. But I am lacking in the sort of narcissism that would prompt me to go out of my way to take an IQ test at age 28, or join Mensa, or make a post like yours on Slashdot.

    8. Re:IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Gussington · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Like any kind of basic test, IQ tests aren't terribly abstractable.

      What does that even mean? The IQ tests I've done were abstract, and by that I mean the tests where about pattern matching so required no prior knowledge, and weren't specific to any cultural or social standard. eg series of shapes guess the next one, rotating shapes to find match etc. That is about as abstract as a test can get.

      Therefore, the supposed correlation between this type of games and IQ tests isn't terribly indicative of intelligence.

      I've only played a little LoL, but it is effectively abstract too. You have a pool of characters to choose from with special powers which compliment or contradict each other (think paper/scissors/rock on steroids). The people who do well are able to process the various combinations more quickly than others, which is effectively is the same as an IQ test.

      People who boast about their IQ are losers

      Not sure how this is relevant. TFA is merely pointing out a connection being some types of games which are very similar to some IQ tests, therefore have corresponding results.

    9. Re:IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I've only played a little LoL, but it is effectively abstract too. You have a pool of characters to choose from with special powers which compliment or contradict each other (think paper/scissors/rock on steroids). The people who do well are able to process the various combinations more quickly than others, which is effectively is the same as an IQ test.

      Or they care more about the game and went through the pains to learn nooks and crannies.
      Or they played a LOT and managed to become proficient through repetition.
      Or they learned some cookie cutter strategies by heart, effectively knowing nothing about anything else.

      If those stats are true, then look no further for proto-Einsteins, just pick the LoL world champions and call it a day.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    10. Re:IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Sique · · Score: 1
      Basicly you complain about car speedometers that they don't give any information about the charging state of your battery. An IQ test gives information about a certain subset of mental skills, those related to problem solving. It does not test your musicality, it does not test your ability to identify details in pictures. It does not test your reaction speed to sudden movements, and it doesn't measure your aiming prowess.

      And while a speedometer readout still doesn't tell you anything about your car's battery, it's not a problem of the speedometer. It's a problem that you apparently want it to do things it is not meant for.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    11. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      Also, there are a few confounding factors.

      Teamwork and selecting overlapping synergistic heros is crucial to game outcome.
      The matchmaker will pair you with poor players, and disagreeable players (who create constant dissent that destroys teamwork)

      Your ranking in games like this (Also Heros of Newearth) is strongly influenced by whether you play with a full picked team of 5 good players exclusively or if you play games with matchmaker assigned teammates since that's such a huge disadvantage.

    12. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who are playing Battlefield and are not teens
      - have job, playing as recreation , perhaps have already kids playing battlefield ..
      - have job, doing "battlefield stuff for living" and the only score is staying alive ...

    13. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Especially because if you play LoL long enough to get ranks then you have proven you aren't very smart.

      Data supporting this hypothesis:
      - The funding model involves paying to unlock pixels, some of those pixels have temporary advantages/disadvantages over pixels owned by other people. The game is shifted periodically to ensure you need to keep paying for new pixels. Long time players do this.
      - The amount of time consumed in grinding and gearing and modding could be better spent doing nearly anything else, some of which will benefit the human species.
      - Reading the analysis of strategies by people who play the game frequently and well, suggests these players have a very limited grasp of the english language, wherein words like "jungle" have become verbs, and words like "sustain" have become nouns.

      Suggesting that people who continue to play this game are smart sounds like a marketing campaign masquerading as science. Let us all go play LoL so that we all can be smarter than the average bear.

    14. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      The matchmaker will pair you with poor players, and disagreeable players (who create constant dissent that destroys teamwork)

      Does it really? Or is that simply the pool of people that PUGs draw from? Or is it perhaps when people run with PUGs they turn into angry rosie o'donnell?

    15. Re:IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Or as I recently posted in another /. discussion, the g-factor is kind of like the master clock frequency of your brain. I don't think I'm alone with such computing analogies of cognition; for another example, learning things by heart remains a useful skill in the era of Google etc., due to caching and I/O latency. Memory and I/O analogies also explain issues in large organizations (e.g. SMP vs. clustering vs. globally distributed computing).

      I also don't have much interest in measuring my own IQ. If it turns out very low, I'll be disappointed. If high, I'll be disappointed for not being highly succesful in academic/business life despite the potential. So I'll rather try and measure my success with actual success, rather than any potential indicators.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    16. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do question this story with a large grain of salt. The direct ranking of your character is pretty well hidden, as are the math behind it as well as the matching mechanisms.

      My own observation is that if you do not make a certain win ( a tier in the ladder), the game will severely punish you with a string a long string of bad pairings, and my observation is there are often more 'disagreeable' fellows in this same group.

      BUT through game-outcome observations which many people have spent great deal of time ascertaining --- The LOL game does consistently create 'asymmetric' pairings. It should be noted the game also has a significant skew of toward one side of the map which tends to win, so the'stronger' team is often palced on the disadvantaged side. As if this is supposed to balance it out?

      Yes, I have played ranked for years.

      but It behooves me why this game is so popular.

      RIOT's non-transparency with pairings / rank metrics / their inability to create balance in champions / their seemingly intent to keep certain champions over-powered (or under-powered) / their inability to squash/address severe bugs / their inability to let players review damage information accurately to make an informed choice of purchases / and their inability or unwillingness to address CHEATING.

      With the new changeup and new season,and I will phase out my normal play and eliminate my ranked play.

      sunk costs onyl kept me from moving on.

    17. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      How you play is strongly correlated to whether or not you win.

      I have found that many people feel they "deserve" something out of the game they are playing. Minion kills, champion kills, a certain territory, a certain behavior from their teammates, etc., ad nauseum.

      If you also feel you "deserve" something you will, most likely, create friction as the things you think you "deserve" will come into conflict with those that your teammates think they "deserve." The result is *you* will create trolls and bad attitudes by not recognizing the needs, desires, and objectives of your team mates. The result is will lose more often.

      If you take certain actions that serve the interests of your teammates and show you recognize what they think they "deserve" you will find you create games where quid pro quo is the initial state, quickly progressing to true teamwork where the "I deserve" motivation is replaced by a feeling of accomplishment when your teammates succeed with your assistance. This is the essence of teamwork.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    18. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      You are wrong and therefore stupid.

      Data supporting this hypothesis.
      - You don't have to pay anything to play LoL. Ever. There is no "pay to win" component either.
      - Grinding is irrelevant in LoL. There is no gear. Mods are not allowed. Recreation benefits the human species. Also, some of the people playing LoL should stay inside as much as possible. By playing LoL for hours on end they are benefiting the human species.
      - Mutability of language is one of the characteristics of language. Development of jargon is proof of advanced use of language, not the opposite.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    19. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      You are wrong and therefore stupid.
      Words have meaning. If I am wrong I am ignorant. This is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove stupidity, which means diminished intellectual capacity. This is not an example of language mutability, this is lack of precision. Lack of precision leads to unclear thinking. Unclear thinking is frequently associated with stupidity.


      Data supporting this hypothesis.
      Again, words have meaning. Data should be observable and incontrovertible, only interpretation is open to debate. Allow me to provide some data to enhance your grasp of this word.

      - You don't have to pay anything to play LoL. Ever. There is no "pay to win" component either.
       True if you play in the free rotation , but I do not know many very successful players who do this. In fact, their business model refutes your data directly. They absolutely do sell champions and boosts, as you should know if you played this game 5 minutes.

      - Grinding is irrelevant in LoL. There is no gear. Mods are not allowed.
      Gear that is irrelevant, yet comprises the skill tree which you of course use to win. Abundant strategies are on the internet for how to best work that skill tree for various scenarios by player. Additionally there are runes which you acquire by grinding out battles. Not to mention both player and character levels which are also increased by, you guessed it, grinding constant and usually inconsequential battles.


      - Mutability of language is one of the characteristics of language. Development of jargon is proof of advanced use of language, not the opposite.

      Changing the meaning of words on an individual basis is not language mutability, it's simply incomprehensible. What we have instead is jargon, which will not significantly mutate language, but which is simultaneously incomprehensible to speakers of that language. There are ways to express their ideas succinctly and clearly without making up mean down.

    20. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop talking, you know nothing about league. You proved it twice now.

    21. Re:IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Gussington · · Score: 1

      I've only played a little LoL, but it is effectively abstract too. You have a pool of characters to choose from with special powers which compliment or contradict each other (think paper/scissors/rock on steroids). The people who do well are able to process the various combinations more quickly than others, which is effectively is the same as an IQ test.

      Or, Or, Or, If...

      Of course, you could spend all day making wild guesses about it, or you could actually do a study and document the process you used and the results you found. You know, exactly like TFA has...

    22. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by gustygolf · · Score: 1

      An MBTI or IQ test very accurately measures... your ability to take an MBTI or IQ test.

      ...I didn't know that an MBTI test required skill. What does being better at an MBTI test mean?

      I thought it was just a way to pigeonhole your personality into sixteen categories...

      (ISTP myself...)

      --
      "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
    23. Re:IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IQ means they aren't retarded or worse, but it never meant they were smart. What I get from this is that the low ranks in League of Legends are actually filled with legitimate idiots.

    24. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      The MBTI doesn't require skill - of the similarities I noted, that wasn't one of them. The comparison I was trying to make was that both of these tests have their limitations and paint an incomplete picture of what they are trying to measure. And that a lot of people, from employers to Slashdot posters, would do well to keep that in mind.

    25. Re: IQ measures your ability to test for IQ by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      INTP/INFP myself, depending on what mood I'm in when I take the test, and who wrote/administered the test.

  4. AI by Barny · · Score: 1

    So that an AI beat a top world ranked player in 1v1 means that AI has an incredible IQ?

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
    1. Re:AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because you can take an IQ test, perform like a god in one category but bomb the rest. AI.

        But, it does point out that IQ is mostly a measure of your performance in fetch and correlate. Same thing AIs do.

    2. Re:AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My comment disappeared, so I'll repeat.

      No, because you can measure like a god in one category and like a dunce in the rest. AI.

      But it does point out that IQ is mostly a measurement of your performance in 'fetch and correlate'. Like AI.

    3. Re: AI by Canbot · · Score: 2

      It may be possible to write an AI that does really well on IQ tests. That would not invalidate the validity of the test on humans nor prove that the AI is more intelligent than a human. IQ tests predict success in humans, they may not in AI.

    4. Re:AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can ask the AI when that happens.

    5. Re:AI by behrooz0az · · Score: 1

      Dendi (danil ishutin, Probably the best dota 2 player of all time) already lost to a SF(nevermore) dota 2 bot(OpenAI with a lot of training) in a 1vs1 mid match just recently.
      http://www.mineski.net/news/ti...

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
    6. Re:AI by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      My comment disappeared, so I'll repeat.

      No, because you can measure like a god in one category and like a dunce in the rest. AI.

      But it does point out that IQ is mostly a measurement of your performance in 'fetch and correlate'. Like AI.

      your comment didn't disappear.

      --
      Just another second banana
  5. amazing new way to test your IQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you waste all your time playing LoL
    congrats, you're a retard

  6. Joint Aches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    while scores in more reaction-time based games like Destiny or Battlefield seem to decline from the teens onwards.

    That's probably also something to do with the stress injuries, inflammations and other problems which start to bother after the teens years..Increased experience leads to optimal tactics, movements and aim, but the body can't keep up with the necessary training. Then the eyes start to fail as well.

  7. IQ Test Question #1: Is this study a gimmick? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I smell a marketing gimmick: play-our-game-to-feel-smart

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:IQ Test Question #1: Is this study a gimmick? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Which is stupid as IQ has almost nothing to do with being smart. It's at best a possible measure of potential. High IQ people aren't any more or less prone to being idiots as the rest of the population. They just don't have an excuse to fall back on.

      --
      ~X~
    2. Re:IQ Test Question #1: Is this study a gimmick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been done - BrainAge

    3. Re:IQ Test Question #1: Is this study a gimmick? by BronsCon · · Score: 0

      Actually, since the definition of "idiot" is based on IQ, anyone with an IQ of 20 or higher has exactly 0 chance of being an idiot. They may not use their intelligence, so they may be quite dumb, but "idiot" has a definition that excludes all but the absolute least capable people in the world.

      You actually make a great example of this. I'm almost positive your IQ is 20 or higher; you're here, so it's quite likely it's over 120, even; yet you didn't know the mental health definition of "idiot". This is, as I'm sure you were intending to point out, because intelligence and knowledge are not directly correlated. That is, while a higher IQ does indicate a higher capacity for processing and absorbing knowledge, it's absolutely no indication that you'll actually use that potential.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    4. Re:IQ Test Question #1: Is this study a gimmick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My son got me to play the game. I found it uninteresting. I do not want to play it enough to get any good at it. He did get me hooked on Hearthstone for a while, but I eventually tired of that also.

    5. Re:IQ Test Question #1: Is this study a gimmick? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Someone care to explain to me how a statement of fact is a troll?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  8. Someone alert the outrage gang. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The researchers suggest that the massive datasets from these online games could be used to assess population-level cognitive health in real-time across the globe.

  9. The people I play against are smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're all incredibly well-versed in reproductive organs and my family's genealogy! Often times my allies are also smart but they're usually pretty quiet unless I'm not playing well.

  10. Shoo-ins at the Point! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll tell you what I can do off Stalker.
    10 years from now, I can go to West Point.
    It's all coming down to video-game reflexes. Computerized tanks, Star Wars. In 10 years, a heavy scorer on Stalker... is a shoo-in at the Point.
    - Tom Cruise, The Color Of Money (1986)

  11. Different kinds of genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are different kinds of genius. Mozart was a child prodigy composer. In contrast, one time Einstein was playing chamber music with friends, playing the violin. He had a hard time keeping time while he played. One of his friends said impatiently something like, "Albert, don't you know how to count to four? 1-2-3-4 - that's how to count to four!" Then the friend remembered that his friend Einstein was a mathematician/physicist, and got sort of embarrassed. Einstein smiled apologetically, and everyone laughed.

    Composer, physicist - different kinds of genius.

    1. Re:Different kinds of genius by war4peace · · Score: 1

      ...gamer, pornstar, florist. One's a LoL genius, the other's a dick genius, the other's a... scissor genius?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  12. Re:PC or console? by Desler · · Score: 2

    League of Legends and DOTA are not a first-person shooters...

  13. Meanwhile the highest level of intelligence... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    ... correlates with not playing it at all.

  14. Re:PC or console? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm playing Destiny 2 on PC. I plugged in my PS4 controller and it was automatically recognised. When I'm on keyboard and mouse - no aim assist. As soon as I switch to the controller - instant aim assist.

  15. Self selection..out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article assumes that people with high intelligence waste time playing games on the internet. I suspect smart people are doing something else. (And THAT scares me).

    1. Re:Self selection..out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. Some people with high intelligence waste time reading Debian source code.
      Your lifetime is not enough to read those 30 GB of compressed C source code.

  16. A little far fetched by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    Let's assume there is a real corellation between IQ and score in LoL. And let's further assume that this is good enough to use it as a predictive tool. Then you can at best identify the IQ of those 100 mio gamers using it. Unfortunately, LoL gamers are not a random selected group of any society and definitely not globally. Therefore, you cannot just scale that up, like you do with an perfectly randomized set.

    1. Re:A little far fetched by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      exactly. A facebook IQ link would be more interesting. You could make a much better argument that facebook can be used to measure some aspect of populations globally and get actual interesting populations. again not complete populations is facebook had that kind of penetration they wouldn't be creating initiative to bring facebook aka "the internet" to the global south.

      --
      Just another second banana
  17. WTF? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    When did it jump from November to April First?

  18. Here's a prediction: GAMERS IQ LT 80 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    games are for fvcking idiots.

    FVCK all you fvcking gamer lusers.

    Boring people filling up their boring worthless lives.

    LOL

  19. Re:PC or console? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    League of Legends and DOTA are also not fun.

    Then again, when I tried them, I immediately thought "this would be better as a first-person shooter." Then I remembered why: It's basically UT2k4's Onslaught mode, but in an RTS engine. So I started looking for something modern that would compare to UT2k4's Onslaught mode.

    I've been playing Planetside 2 for a few years now.

  20. Holy, barrel of assumptions batman by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

    the massive datasets from these online games could be used to assess population-level cognitive health in real-time across the globe.

    I mean do people really think entire populations play LoL everywhere around the globe? You're talking a really really limited data set. I mean event the simple tech barrier (has computer or money to regularly visit a cyber cafe) is enough to remove a LOT of people from your supposed "population".

    --
    Just another second banana
  21. no score = infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Therefore if i don't play those games, my score is infinite(as all the possibilities are open), therefore my IQ is infinite! great! thanks study!

  22. Horse shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Video games make you stupid. Only an addicted gamer would say otherwise.

  23. Sampling bias and a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps there is another pool of folks the study is missing that were smart enough not to spend time on this.

    What was the sign of the correlation?

  24. That lawn looks fake by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    That means that proficiency in those games peaks at the same age as raw IQ -- about 25 -- while scores in more reaction-time based games like Destiny or Battlefield seem to decline from the teens onwards.

    No no no, those young punks win because they're all Low Ping Bastards! >:-(

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  25. Re:PC or console? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, you are saying you don't have the IQ to play LoL. It's ok, you can just say that.

  26. thats flat out BS... MOBAs and intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like almost all online games, performance is very strongly attached to physical dexterity and exploiting game weaknesses. You figure out the patterns that work and you play it until its muscle memory. The only time you're engaging higher thinking is when you're new to a game.

  27. Re:PC or console? by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    "while scores in more reaction-time based games like Destiny or Battlefield seem to decline from the teens onwards." This is what DontBeAMoran is talking about.