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.

45 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
  2. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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)
    8. 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*
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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?

    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    16. 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...

    17. 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.
    18. 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.

    19. 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.

  3. 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 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.

    2. 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)
    3. 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
  4. 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 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.
  5. Re:PC or console? by Desler · · Score: 2

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

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

    ... correlates with not playing it at all.

  7. 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)
  8. 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
  9. WTF? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    When did it jump from November to April First?

  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. Re: James Watson, head of the Human Genome Project by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

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

  15. 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.