[crAzerk]

@Paroxysm

+ [mambo jumbo about research methods that I just enjoyed typing you dont have to read] +

I love what Baka points out about the confounding variable, in case you missed it:

The issue with taking statistics result from University SC2 clubs is that you're taking the results from a sample that already have high intellectual capability. Furthermore, there may be an existing correlation between people who play sc2 and their intellectual capability since sc2 require a high level of computational ability and skills, and people who don't have that don't make the cut would very likely to have left the sc2 scene. The best way to actually find out if there is an actual effect is to have a longitudinal study involving random sampling with two groups of people, one playing sc2 and one not, and see the results after several months.

Though I don't see how the 'best way' will give you any results - you're assuming there's no ceiling effect in 'increase in intellectual capacity'.


And directly at what you said, Parox, I myself have played games since my 'O' levels (Singapore's major exam for 16-year-olds) and have done reasonably well. But correlation (good results correlating with playing sc2) does not imply causation - you can't claim that 'SC2 improves intellectual capability' just because of this correlation.

The only way that I can see for this to be tested accurately is to have a group of people, pair them up matching them for intellectual capabilities, then random assign one to SC2 condition (learn and play SC2 ) and the other to non-SC2 condition.
Still, many other extraneous variables is bound to creep in so ... GAH. Complicated.

Do tell if the article resurfaces