You are just bringing up some weird, very philosophical explanation of what is smart and what not. :?
Well yeah, how can you talk about something without defining it at least to some degree?
Well, then let's assume a professor and a sparrow jump out of a destroyed plane, who will survive? Both DO want to survive, so the sparrow is smarter because... he was born as a sparrow?
I'm sorry, but I thought this was obvious:
It's a matter of free will. And while I for the sake of the argument would assume that animals don't have it since the thought of animals on equal footing with humans is emotionally disturbing to most and as such will just make it easier to sway away from the actual point the matter of fact is that the sparrow has spent his life learning how to fly (equal footing, remember!), while the professor, I assume, hasn't. Free will implies endless possibilities so the "well humans can't fly!" argument doesn't apply. (In most metaphysical discussions, it is assumed that anything one can conceive of is logically possible).
If you want to make it easier for yourself, in this situation just think of two humans, one which always carries a parachute and one who doesn't . The one with the parachute you could probably call an idiot in most situations since he's making it very hard on himself, except for this one where he is probably the smartest guy on the planet.
My main point is, which I still doesn't seem to have convinced you of, that stupidity is a malleable, situational concept. A very simple and straight forward example would be a guy who can't tie his shoelaces or conduct normal conversation but who can solve advanced calculus in a matter of seconds. Is he a genius or an idiot?
It of course depends on the situation, and that's why one should refrain from calling people stupid since that is just very narrow-minded and ignorant. If at any time the situation was different, the tables might just be turned, and that is a very important lesson not only for your personal understanding but also one in respect. Here in Sweden in the early 20th century, we used to lock up and basically forcefully sterilize people deemed "slow-thinking" - in order to "save the gene-pool".
The professor would actually try to avoid the fist fight against the hooligan, and by simply having the try to do so he would prove to be the smarter one (as remaining unscratched after a fist fight that didn't even happen is more likely than remaining unscratched after any other possible fist fight with whatever chances for everybody).
Now this is just sidestepping the problem and assuming something that DEFINITIVELY isn't necessarily true. I just said they were in a fistfight, not how they got there. There's nothing saying that the professor wasn't the one who started it. Maybe he got really pissed at the hooligan for messing with his girlfriend for example? It doesn't matter, point is this is not a valid response since you're not actually solving the problem.
Isn't it most beneficial to NOT run into a bunch of enemies, as you say you do, but to stick to your teammates? How many enemies can a good player kill when being outnumbered, and how many can he kill when being supported?
But here again you assume that the ultimate goal is winning. As I said earlier, my *ultimate goal* is fun, but since that doesn't seem to bite I can tell you one thing I value higher then winning and that would be personal progress.
Rushing into a bunch of enemies, challenging myself, putting myself in situations that require me to play with utmost skill and efficiency, those kinds of things advance my unnderstanding of the game however useless it might be for the team. Call me a douche if you want, but I won't learn much just hanging back with a pike (which would probably be the most "beneficial" thing to do for your team as a polearmer), that I do in strategus and clanbattles.
But please, don't hook yourself up on any further philosophical discussion about the word "stupid". People have different intelligence, and in general higher intelligence is always better than lesser. Period. There is nothing to discuss about.
As I explained earlier, this is a VERY ignorant position and strongly advise you to revise/think through it throughoutly.
I was speaking of infantry. Although, to be honest, I think on most maps a good two handed infantryman is leading the scoreboard... but that's only my personal impression.
Well, you're contradicting yourself from the beginning. First you say that benefit = helping your team win and now benefit = good K:D?
I said many people are too stupid to think about tactics, you said they perhaps only want to have fun and relax, and then I said that having fun and relaxing doesn't exclude thinking about using tactics. If I attack three times and fail every time, I don't even need to think about changing my behaviour, I do this by default, it's not tiresome or anything else. If I cross open fields and I am constantly "afraid" of missiles or cavalry, I instinctively get the idea that crossing that field (at that moment) could be a bad idea, so I won't repeat it. I don't say I am super smart, but I really worry about people who don't understand such things within the blink of an eye. It's not like I would want people to watch the map from above in spectator mode and to think hard about the most beneficial maneuvers. The things I am talking about are on the level of "If you are walking, and a cliff is approaching you, stop walking." Whoever is not capable or too lazy (which means it would be an effort for him) to think that far is nothing else than a lemming. And NOT smart.
Still, they might be playing just for shits and giggles and don't really give a fuck whether they die or not. You spperently see something wrong with that - I do not.
You can play this game with whatever situation comes into your mind. Basically you are saying: "there is not THE stupidity, it always depends on the situation", and I can't really disagree on that (although I think all Johnny Knoxville and the other retards deserve are doubled health insurance contributions and not shitloads of money :mad: ), I think you will also agree to me that there IS stupidity concerning certain situations and possible behaviour. And I say one of those cases is: cRPG battle, charging alone against a bunch of enemies.
Yes, and I disagree with that since there are things to be gained that are beyond "winning the round", which are, as outlined earlier, fun and personal (skill) progression.
Problem is: the professor did not prepare for the fist fight, as he didn't know he will get into one. That's what I said before, being smart has nothing to do how "suitable" you are to get over certain, special situations. The example you created has nothing to do with being smart, it's a fist fight. It's not like the hooligan decided to NOT go to the university to study maths but rather hang out with those semi-skinheads. And it's not like the professor knew he would get into this fist fight and still thought he would do better with maths.
Yeah, but such is the nature of life.
Just as you can get through life without ever getting into a fistfight, you can also manage well without ever having the need for higher-level math. And yet you seem to blindly idealize the math professor.
This also boils down to very deep questions about causation and whether existence is predestined and so on which I can't really be bothered to discuss (yet). Fact is, you're going to find yourself in all manner of situations, and blindly thinking that higher academic education is the way through life seems, well, not too smart.
If you want to compare them, the only way to do so is to give them the same task and then let them accomplish it their way. This way you can find out who is the smarter one.
Nope, you could never compare them. This is the kind of cut-corner, full throttle, lowest-common-denominator thinking that is WAY to prevalent. What task? Different tasks are of course going to produce different outcomes.
You can't say that one person is "smarter" than another, unless you define smart in a very shallow, narrow way like IQ or something; which I think would just be sad.
But if you think that being smart is equal to "If you have the upper hand in a situation you have been the smarter one" I remember you to my example with the sparrow and the professor. If this is being smart, then what is having luck?
If you "have the upper hand" then yes, you have obviously been smarter in preparation for that certain situation.
- old cRPG: getting rewards for each player killed. New cRPG: getting rewards for winning rounds.
- it's always a team vs. a team. Otherwise it could have been created just deathmatch free for all. The one with the best k/d wins.
- winning means you (or your team) killed more enemies, killing more enemies doesn't (neccesarily) mean you'll win.
- Upkeep is independant of your K/D-ratio
As said earlier, gold, xp and such are not rewards in themselves to me at least.
You just slandered me to not be thinking before posting. :?
Yes, that's because I think that's what you need to do. I always enjoy a debate, but just crushing obviously faulty statements is no fun :P
The important part there was that that is just my personal opinion, it has nothing to do with the argument. Feel free to ignore.
(Hurr-Durr)
I hope this time my answer is meeting your high standards, and I would appreciate very much if you wouldn't make fun of my lingual mistakes, as English is not my mother language, it's German, which is one of the most difficult languages on earth. Just to inform you. All I have is what I learned at school, I never was even travelling through an English speaking country, let alone having spoken more than a few words to someone with English as mother language.
Of course, as a non-native speaker myself, I am well aware that language can be a hindrance. If you think I was making fun of any of your lingual mishaps then you must have misunderstood me.
What I do think is quite *funny* is that you seem to idealize education yet you boast one of (in my opinion) the most uneducated opinions there are.