Actually, theoretically in esports it's mostly younger people who are more successful, supposedly, due to reaction times... and it's not like I had a vastly different mindset back then, nor do I play it now in some super serious settings... so, it's probably a technical thing on their side... (ranking doesn't always seem to go down in loss if something is present, unlike before, and there also seems to be a choice of a remake if someone is afk... and it seems they might be played automatically... before it was always 4v5).
Yeah, I have no idea. I don't really play the game. I'll just accept your expertise on it.
Popularity is, as mentioned, just random... in this case, as with the female version, likely depending on the viewer's gender/physical ability... but what less skill? I'd like to see professional NBA players try to do it in a wheelchair... doubt they'd do anything but fumble... it's just a different method, different sets of skills...
To some degree, it is random. More often than not, however, it's really not. Why were fidget spinners popular? I have no idea. Why are explositons popular? Because we are drawn to wide spread destruction, fire, and tragedy out of morbid curiosity as a species.
I think fewer things are random than you might be thinking, but you'd probably have to elaborate for me to be sure on that assertion.
"Less Skill" generally means... you have less skills at play.
Wheelchair basketball, far as I know, doesn't really have dribbling... so no hand-eye coordination, no leg training or anything for "juking" and "skilled ball play". Much of the "skill" lies in upper arms being able to push you around and maneuver you while also being able to just make a shot or make passes. Things of that nature.
The problem is that "the standards are changed" therefore it isn't the same comparison of skill. Even then, you will always have "the superior skill" in play. Do you need more or less skills to be refined to do something than something else? More or less training?
If you were only compare Wheelchair basketball to wheelchair basketball, there might be a valid argument about "what less skill"? But, since you're comparing something that has fewer requirements and standards to something that has arguably more... there's not a lot of wiggle room to be had.
Likewise, you're talking about "If you just plopped an NBA player into a wheelchair, they'd fumble". Well, I mean, yeah, they would. They've no experience with it. But, give them a few months to get used to it, and would they be better? They might be, because they have an innate drive to be as competitive as possible and the best, no matter what. But, who knows?
It's also not really a useful comparison. Take those people who can't use their legs and toss them on the court with their wheelchairs against NBA players. Think they're going to be just as good? Or able to compete? What if we use your comparison of tossing them into something they can't do? Toss 'em out on the floor without their wheelchairs. I bet all they'd do is crawl around!
It's a silly comparison, if we're honest.
Again, it's not like I'm seriously aiming for the second while playing WR... I really doubt trying harder really works, it's mostly already acquired knowledge and ingrained instincts... when it comes to 'larpers'... well, I'm not sure if there's any competitive aspect to it, but I'd personally rather not die than compete in a life and death match...
The point is just that:
If you're fine with LARPing, then be fine with LARPing. But, LARPers don't get the same respect and accolaides and even "passes" on mistakes that those who are good at things do.
It is what it is. Whether we resent it or not.
Still, though, it's not like everyone doesn't have their specialist areas... I mean, should Yoshitaka Amano have given up drawing, despite that being clearly his specialism?
Yeah, I have no idea who that is.
Similarly, should I give up writing just because I can't draw?
How does writing have anything to do with drawing? I'm lost.
Sometimes 'borrowing' feels 'cheap', almost, but what else can I do? It's not like the people who collaborate on these franchises aren't borrowing each other's specialisms, too... I just don't have active collaborators...
I'm not sure what a "specialism" is. Unless you mean "specialty". At which point, it just becomes a "false equivalence" argument.
Not everyone is going to have every talent, especially when something like "game design" requires a multitude of ways to think in order to even grasp all the concepts well enough to do them all. Which... makes a "one man band" in terms of making an amazing game pretty rare. But, they'll generally fail in other areas.
If you can't do a specific task, you hire out for it. If you can't draw, you hire someone who can. Or, you figure out how to learn to do it. Whichever you're most comfortable doing.
How is something still so vague actionable? It's still a "x is worthless" template... but, still not sure how many 'no knowledge projects' are out there... i.e. if I'm still in the early stages of learning a keyboard, I'm certainly not recording myself, or put my stick figures in a game (which is why I borrow)...
It's actionable if you know how to parse criticism. Which, I told you how to parse it. The person is saying that you're doing something that even "newbies" wouldn't make the mistake of doing. So, you grab your game, you grab a textbook, and get cracking. Which is part of learning how to "be a beginner" at a task. Being able to figure out where you're bad at something and then how to begin to fix that lack of knowledge.
You could also use context clues. What are they most complaining about alongside the "you have no talent"? I'd wager they might have left an example, even if it wasn't detailed. If they didn't, then you just gotta check EVERYTHING. Or... ask them which part they are referring to. If they say "everything", then you're probably in deep trouble. Typically means you gotta rework the whole project.
You are going to find that most people don't know how to tell you what exactly is wrong. They might tell you, "the combat is terrible", but now you gotta figure out WHY it's terrible, because unless you're dealing with someone who analyzes your game as hardcore as an expert in the field... that's all you're gonna get.
While I'd argue that is the recipe for abuse... but, I guess, as long as the desired practice is sadism, and not collaboration...
It isn't. You're a leader. Your job is to lead. It isn't to sit around and let your employees push you around, make you doubt your authority, let them have authority in the group, etcetera. Your job is to lead people.
"Collaboration" means nothing if people can't agree. It means nothing if you allow people who get upset at their ideas not being used are allowed to cause problems.
Hence why "wishy washy" leaders tend to be pretty bad. They foster toxic work environments due to not enforcing discipline and making decisions.
Joe Bloe in the art department doesn't get to say what the project needs. He can make an argument for WHAT HE WANTS in the project, but THE BOSS gets to decide what the project needs. THE BOSS makes the decision on what goes in and what doesn't.
I suppose, one could also be waiting for a report by Sue G... oh, that's another issue...
If you're waiting for a report for two weeks... Sue G might be incomptent and in desperate need of replacing.
When my bosses would ask me for a report, no matter how complex it was, I threw it together in about 3-5 hours. But, that's 'cause I have the foresight to track things so reports can be easily and quickly generated.
If Sue isn't doing that... she's likely not qualified to do the job.
Or, she's got too much work to do, at which point, time to hire someone to take some of the burden off of her so we can get things done faster.
Well, that's a lot of self-congratulations, but which is it, talent or qualifications? Latter is typically more formal... and, really, unless your colleagues said you had ability you can't really say that about yourself...
"Talent" is just doing something naturally. Meaning, you really didn't have to "learn" it. It's as easy to you as breathing. "Qualifications" is understanding what, exactly, it takes to do the thing.
Does the explanation of the difference help you?
I'm sorry you don't like when someone has confidence and can state they're actually good at something. Or, does someone cease to be good at something just because they state they are? Does that somehow diminish someone's abilities to talk about how good they are at something?
As for myself:
Yes, my colleagues said it about me. I was brought in to do interviews for other supervisors because I was pretty good at picking out "good workers". When I left my Supervisory position, in less than a year almost all the staff I had hired immediately quit or moved on to bigger and better things since the new boss had no idea what she was doing. Several staff even asked that I come back because "You're a great boss".
In 3 years, I ran the division I was in charge of... OUT OF WORK. That is to say, I had nothing to do by 11:00 every single day and my staff was out of work at 3:00 every single day. I managed them and the workload. I held them to a high standard so that we could basically goof off and get paid for the rest of the day with nothing else to do.
The boss immediately after me managed to go from "there's no work to do" to "we are 30 days behind, perpetually".
I only ever had to fire 1 person in my entire tenure. The only people who left under me were those who wanted more pay, and I wrote glowing reviews for them as they left.
My employees were the best. I couldn't shine if they didn't. They put all the new employees over there to shame. That's how good they are. They were absolutely AMAZING at their jobs.
I ran a tight ship. My staff excelled as a result. They didn't want me to leave. They asked me to come back. Most of them told me that I was a great boss. A few said I was the best they had ever had.
But, this is the internet. Anyone can claim to be anything on here. Maybe I'm worth believing. Maybe not. I leave that up to you.
Eh, still mostly useless... e.g. some years ago a group of people suddenly agreed that I was deficient in 'x', but if objective measures were made I was so for much of the time before then, but somehow they all agreed I was deficient at this specific point... only "why" in that case would be that it's the bandwagon effect...
Or any number of other reasons.
1. Lack charisma in some way. If people are angry with you, they will invent any number of reasons to belittle you. Not like I haven't been a victim of that as well. If people dislike you, any slight they can think up is "correct" against you.
2. You were expected to do more than you were actually doing. If the perception was that you were skilled enough to do better, and you didn't meat that expectation... now you're deficient. Expectation versus reality. Happens a lot. Just like people expect "those in charge" to just not be people who have flaws and make mistakes. Because the expectation is that "they should be held to a higher standard". You'll notice this prominently in regards to politicians and police officers. Or, even, if you know of someone who is super reliable all the time... they're expected to always be reliable and to be amazing at everything they do, so they aren't allowed to fail.
3. Maybe the data that was shown wasn't "good enough". Depends on the data set. I collect data routinely as part of every job I've ever done. Data can even be spun in any number of ways to "prove" whatever you want. Three types of lies. Lies. Damned lies. And Statistics.
4. Could be that one person had it out for you and just convinced everyone else to be rid of you or to punish you.
5. Could also just be that nobody really knew anything about you, so anything that sounded "remotely plausible" became fact. Your "bandwagon" effect. Rumors are sometimes treated as fact, because they seem plausible.
I'm not sure how much neuroplasticity functions like that... even if I effectively 'gave up' on doing most mathematics I tried to do hopelessly in school, it's mostly because it doesn't intensely interest me as much as reading does, but I'm still not sure it's about capability, even if it might feel like it... I mean, apparently some people live with a lot of their brains in a reduced volume, and they still adapt... Phineas Gage survived even with a rod in his brain, despite personality changes... as long as the brain isn't dead I think it can be plastic enough.
You'll probably have to go read things about how habits are formed. It would probably give you a bit more insight. There's a reason it's said that "if you do something for 30 days, it becomes habit, and you do it even if you don't want to". Real change in a person requires habit... or actual brain surgery/damage.
Can you teach someone who is the typical "dominent" one in a relationship to be "submissive" instead? Not likely. You MIGHT be able to, but it's going to be rare you ever succeed. Their "submissiveness" will typically just end up being a form of dominating their significant other in a more "demure" way.
The argument you're making is predicated on the assumption that "all people are 100% physiologically equal". Which... isn't true.
People are different. If your personality doesn't allow you to do specific things, then it just doesn't allow for it. Think about that for a second. Could a pacifist learn to execute children in brutal fashion? Maybe. But, I doubt it. Their personality would be a large blockade to taking such actions. Makes them incapable of the violence against such an innocent.
Many job skills work that way too. If a person isn't wired to "have innate curiosity" or even "the ability to track down the problem rather than just solve the symptoms", then they might never have the ability to do a great many tasks. You said you "gave up" on mathematics because "it doesn't intensely interest you". Sounds like your personality prevents you from becoming a lot of jobs to do with anything regarding mathematics. Are you capable of developing an intense interest in mathematics that would make it possible for you to learn physics and make it second nature to you? Or, will you only ever be able to develop a surface level understanding of physics?
I, for one, am not capable of drawing. I know how it SHOULD look. I know the technique of how to get it that way... But, I can't pull it off. My brain just doesn't work that way. What is in my head does not match what my brain can actually do. You'll find this true of a great many "creative" endeavors. Not just across me, either. I've known lots of people who could paint and draw amazing works of art... But, if you gave them 6 years to pen a paragraph about a character they thought up and make them sound compelling.... They'd be hard pressed to do so.
Brains just not wired for it. It can't make the necessary trains of thoughts to get to where it needs to be to do it. Can't make the necessary connections to get there.
It is what it is.
@Kes
It tends to tell you something objective about your capabilities at the time of the criticism. Sure, it could be "just being toxic", but... negative criticism doesn't usually "come out of nowhere".
The point is more what you do with that criticism. If you just dismiss it, always, then you're doing yourself a disservice. If you label it as "useless" and ignore it... then you're hurting yourself.
Maybe the criticism exists just to hurt your feelings. Maybe it's valid. That's why it's important to learn how to parse that criticism. Because, if you can't, then you just go, "it's always toxic" and can ignore something useful.
After all, how many people dismiss ALL criticism that "isn't specific", because "I can't do anything with it"? Or, how many justify dismissing criticism as "They're just being mean to me" and firmly stick to that, even when presented alternatives for what a specific piece of criticism means? How many justify dismissing criticism under the umbrella of, "They just want me to change the vision of my game FOR THEM"?
It's a slippery slope to dismiss all criticism or place justifications for those dismissals. You need to know WHY you got the criticism in order to make a decision on how useful it is.
But, we can all probably agree that, "You suck, you're a terrible person, go die in a fire" is not criticism at all, and is just someone being an a-hole.
