aiming atalent or can be proved

doop51 wrote: »

And I find that your suggestion that one race is superior than another very offensive

ShawnShady wrote: »

Jesus Christ stop spamming omfg

Lammero wrote: »

Reaction time (RT) is the elapsed time between the presentation of a sensory stimulus and the subsequent behavioral response by the participant. RT is often used in experimental psychology to measure the duration of mental operations, an area of research known as mental chronometry. In psychometric psychology, RT is considered to be an index of speed of processing. That is, RT indicates how fast the thinker can execute the mental operations needed by the task at hand. In turn, speed of processing is considered an index of processing efficiency. The behavioral response is typically a button press but can also be an eye movement, a vocal response, or some other observable behavior.

Scores on many but not all RT tasks tend to correlate with scores on paper and pencil IQ tests. This is especially true for so-called elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs). These require participants to perform trivially simple cognitive tasks, like deciding which of two briefly-presented lines is longer (the inspection time task), or which of three lighted buttons is farthest away from the other two (the odd man out task).

Most people can perform ECTs with near 100% accuracy, but individual differences in RT on these tasks are large and correlate well with IQ scores. Jensen (2001) argues that ECTs could replace traditional IQ tests as measures of intelligence, because the former are measured on a ratio scale whereas IQ tests only rank people on an ordinal scale. Jensen has invented a Jensen box to present ECT task stimuli to participants in a precise, standardized fashion.

Not all RT tasks, however, are good measures of intelligence. In general, RT on tasks that take between 200 milliseconds and 2 seconds to perform tend to correlate well with IQ. Tasks that most people can do faster than 200 milliseconds generally measure the efficiency of sensory processes (seeing, hearing) rather than intelligence. Tasks that take longer than about 2 seconds typically allow for strategic differences among people which cloud any relationship between RT and IQ (for these tasks, accuracy-- versus speed-- is likely more related to IQ).

Reaction time best predicts IQ test scores when participants perform many trials (i.e., 100s) of the same ECT. Aggregating average reaction times across different ECTs also produces significantly larger RT/IQ correlations. In many studies, the within person variability of RT is also a strong predictor of IQ. Participants showing relatively large RT differences from trial to trial tend to score lower on IQ tests than do participants who do not deviate much in their reaction time from trial to trial. Finally, the slowest trials for any person tend to better predict that person's IQ relative to either his or her average or fastest response.

Although the literature on RT is vast, far less research has looked at race differences on RT as a potential explanation for the race/IQ gap. The general pattern, however, is that race differences exist on ECT performance, and that these differences are in line with those found on traditional IQ tests. For example, a recent study in the journal Intelligence looked at race differences on the Wonderlic Personnel Test (a traditional paper and pencil IQ test) and performance on two ECTs (an inspection time and choice reaction time task). A black/white difference was found on the Wonderlic, and both ECTs. Statistical mediation was found in that controlling for race differences on the ECTs resulted in the race difference on the Wonderlic no longer being significant. (EDIT: yeah right)

RT = Reaction Tiem

I knew that you were writing this for nothing ( concerning mister Intelligent lol) but I hope that it other has benefit from what you wrote . thanks for that cause it`s very instructive , I learnt a bit more , and do not listen to that guy , cause it is a perfect answer to that thread .:D
thanks again for the share of knowledge

doop51 wrote: »

The IQ test is a flawed test.

Situations in FPSers are well below 200 ms, your post contradicts itself.

And I find that your suggestion that one race is superior than another very offensive

There is nothing offensive it that and it is less offensive than treating others as idiot or saying to people that they need to learn English " knowing that many here are not English and are of different races."

MnR10 wrote: »

well guys

when i made this thread i wouldnt imagine that i,ll see all this replies

but some ppl seem to say that it is alittle talent with some practice so both

and some says it can be 100 % improved by alot of practicing

any way i cant say which is true but ty for ur replies

inspite that this guy ( doop51) and the one who replies him wrote 2 pages on the thread to insult each other

If he would have been cool ( not treating the other guy as IDIOT i would have said nothing to him ( what he did was VERY offensive ) others deserve respect even if you do not agree with what they say .

Lammero wrote: »

Reaction time (RT) is the elapsed time between the presentation of a sensory stimulus and the subsequent behavioral response by the participant. RT is often used in experimental psychology to measure the duration of mental operations, an area of research known as mental chronometry. In psychometric psychology, RT is considered to be an index of speed of processing. That is, RT indicates how fast the thinker can execute the mental operations needed by the task at hand. In turn, speed of processing is considered an index of processing efficiency. The behavioral response is typically a button press but can also be an eye movement, a vocal response, or some other observable behavior.

Scores on many but not all RT tasks tend to correlate with scores on paper and pencil IQ tests. This is especially true for so-called elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs). These require participants to perform trivially simple cognitive tasks, like deciding which of two briefly-presented lines is longer (the inspection time task), or which of three lighted buttons is farthest away from the other two (the odd man out task).

Most people can perform ECTs with near 100% accuracy, but individual differences in RT on these tasks are large and correlate well with IQ scores. Jensen (2001) argues that ECTs could replace traditional IQ tests as measures of intelligence, because the former are measured on a ratio scale whereas IQ tests only rank people on an ordinal scale. Jensen has invented a Jensen box to present ECT task stimuli to participants in a precise, standardized fashion.

Not all RT tasks, however, are good measures of intelligence. In general, RT on tasks that take between 200 milliseconds and 2 seconds to perform tend to correlate well with IQ. Tasks that most people can do faster than 200 milliseconds generally measure the efficiency of sensory processes (seeing, hearing) rather than intelligence. Tasks that take longer than about 2 seconds typically allow for strategic differences among people which cloud any relationship between RT and IQ (for these tasks, accuracy-- versus speed-- is likely more related to IQ).

Reaction time best predicts IQ test scores when participants perform many trials (i.e., 100s) of the same ECT. Aggregating average reaction times across different ECTs also produces significantly larger RT/IQ correlations. In many studies, the within person variability of RT is also a strong predictor of IQ. Participants showing relatively large RT differences from trial to trial tend to score lower on IQ tests than do participants who do not deviate much in their reaction time from trial to trial. Finally, the slowest trials for any person tend to better predict that person's IQ relative to either his or her average or fastest response.

Although the literature on RT is vast, far less research has looked at race differences on RT as a potential explanation for the race/IQ gap. The general pattern, however, is that race differences exist on ECT performance, and that these differences are in line with those found on traditional IQ tests. For example, a recent study in the journal Intelligence looked at race differences on the Wonderlic Personnel Test (a traditional paper and pencil IQ test) and performance on two ECTs (an inspection time and choice reaction time task). A black/white difference was found on the Wonderlic, and both ECTs. Statistical mediation was found in that controlling for race differences on the ECTs resulted in the race difference on the Wonderlic no longer being significant. (EDIT: yeah right)

RT = Reaction Tiem

Load of bull.

Different abilities and one being considered superior to another race are two very different things.


We throw around the term racist way too loosely.

MnR10 wrote: »

well guys

when i made this thread i wouldnt imagine that i,ll see all this replies

but some ppl seem to say that it is alittle talent with some practice so both

and some says it can be 100 % improved by alot of practicing

any way i cant say which is true but ty for ur replies

inspite that this guy ( doop51) and the one who replies him wrote 2 pages on the thread to insult each other

aiming comes down to about five things

ergonomics - how you sit. how you hold your mouse (what grip). height of your desk. etc. this is all personal preference, but you wan't to position yourself in a way that elimnates fatigue.

the mouse itself - most people prefer to have their mouse set up to simulate raw input or direct input. depending on where you windows sensitivity is at, the mouse either adds or subtracts inputs. the default setting of 6 does not do this. another factor is dpi, if you use a higher sensitivity you will want more dpi. otherwise your mouse's sensor will begin to fail. if you use a low to medium sensitivity I wouldn't worry about it. Crossfire's resolutions are so low a dell mouse with 400 dpi is just fine.

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1265679

link for more info on mouse failure, and perfect tracking speed

computer - your computer also plays a role in the feeling of your crosshair ingame. your fps (frames per second) helps determine your sensitivity. one fault of crossfire is there is no FPS cap. you used to be able to use programs to cap the game's fps, but the recent xtrap patch blocked them. a fps cap is important, because if your fps is constant your sensitivity will be constant. since crossfire does not have an fps cap, if you base your sensitivity off of a fps of 125 anytime your fps is below 125 your sensitivity will be slower then your baseline. anytime your fps is above 125 your sensitivity will be faster than your baseline.

your computer also plays a role in the amount of input lag your mouse has to your computer. some older computers had problems running the usb ports at 500 or 1000hz. however if you have a computer that was made in the last 5 years you should be fine, (anything above a athlon xp or intel prescott). input lag is a feeling of sluggishness between when you move your crosshair and how it feels on screen.

muscle memory - this is what causes the good players to hit those shots that seem impossible time after time. if your sensitivity is consistent you will begin to develop muscle memory. you well move your crosshair and be able to hit the same things through repetition.

counterstrike source has some good things going for it. there are muscle memory maps and sprays. doing a round of muscle memory training, before you dm helps decrease the amount of time you need to play before you are warmed up. this is great because it means you can get ready for a match in 10-15 minutes instead of around 30 (those numbers are from my personal experience).

links to muscle memory info:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dU9-fN1Az0
http://www.wandeag.com/counter-strike-strategy/css-muscle-memory-guide

You can do muscle memory in crossfire to. trace buildings, doors walls, bridges, arches. any object can be used. just pick a spot to start from and then simulate a flickshot towards some object. do it repetitively and you will begin to hit it on command.

the final part to aiming is alertness. you need to be alert, awake, and not fatigued. this is so that when you are trying to track/follow a target you are able to keep your crosshair on them. when you are fatigued, players tend to aim sloppily.


As you can see no where in this post have I talked about intelligence, natural talent, or any other bull**** that people have been spewing out. It simply isn't true. Aiming a mouse requires very few fine motor skills, you use your arm and wrist for the most part.

Natural talent and intelligence do play into overall gamesense, but you must keep this separate from the physical act of aiming. This post explains the PHYSICAL act of aiming, not ingame skill/gamesense.


In my opinion, people like to use natural talent/ intelligence as an excuse for their laziness. Take the time, find the setting you like, minimize the errors in your setup, and put in the effort to develop good aiming skills.

Crossfire is a rather slow FPS, if we were talking about quake3 or a dueling game, I could buy the natural talent thing more. But we are talking about crossfire, it's a pretty basic game.



I'm sure lammerro will come in here with some more racist garbage, and kissmb will still be talking about how speaking creole makes him a better crossfire player.

When it comes down to it, I am one of the more experienced players in crossfire. I have played several games on different platforms at a above average to high level. I have been gaming since I was a kid, and I have spent the time and done the research to become very efficient in my aiming methods. This allows me to be able to play several games at the same time without feeling a difference between them.

Here's probably the most important tip I can give you. Find the settings you like and make sure each game you play emulates those settings. This will allow you to get better even when you are playing a different game.


If you want to learn more, add me on xfire and I can help you. My xfire username is: kingdoop

Omg doop. How long did it take you to write up that essay?

some people are naturally good aimers.
others can learn to have good aim.
overall, it's learned because you need to refine your aiming skills with sensitivity and things.

doop51 wrote: »

about 5 minutes. i didn't check spelling, use punctuation properly or capitalize letters.

Your fingers must have flown.

doop51 wrote: »

being a nerd has it's benefits.

Except for the ability to reuse glasses?

Hi_l wrote: »

Except for the ability to reuse glasses?

When you drink as much as I do, sanitation becomes an afterthought.

doop51 wrote: »

you must not of read the thread then, cause it's been one giant flame war

Not the last few pages :P