Name the game, Yea Forums

This theory has no basis in factual science. Kruger is not backed up by peer review (mass red flag in any study) nor does it use the scientific method, therefore it's utter trash like the rest of sociology, which also regularly fails to fulfil these base scientific conditions.

Attached: fatcontroller.jpg (458x458, 28K)

>R1
>not circle or X for sweet posture damage

Civ or any other 4X
100% of RTS
100% of Fighting Games
LoL, DOTA, and any other cookie-cutter MOBA like them

Fighting games
>I just picked up the game
> " Best in my neighborhood " syndrome settles it, think of myself as much better than I am
>Get a look at Smash Tournaments, curious why they're not using items but think it's no big deal, i'd be able to beat them, but not as confident as before
>Get my ass handed to me, lose more confidence, think i'll never be able to make sense out of everything: Whether it be tough execution or me being retarded with bad habits
>Slowly get better, not without retaining some bad habits, being able to execute combos, punish moves through repetition, all that on a basic level.
>Finally get good, can do the toughest combos, understand neutral on a multi layered level, but simultaneously know how difficult that was

if it's not true then why does it have a fancy name and why are there infographics about it?

Animal Crossing
Minecraft
Smash (Most fighting games)
Most shooters (CS Go, TF2, I haven't played Battle Royale but I bet they're like this)
Puyo Puyo

The kingdom hearts story

Melee

see the OP picture

Devil May Cry

>Trust me, it's complicated

Attached: .png (475x600, 495K)

The same reason African basket weaving and womens studies do. Sociology is considered the one true joke science in the scientific field. It exists so political activists can make up bullshit to support their point of view.

>filtered by ogre

Attached: 1554130959822.jpg (1920x1080, 300K)

Factorio

all multiplayer pvp games

>Sociology is considered the one true joke science in the scientific field
>he said, in an anonymous post on the Yea Forums videogame board

There is some support of the hypothesis, it's just that it's exaggerated in mass media because it lets people call others NPCs.

I can't believe overfags are still fucking seething about TF2 being better

Attached: image.gif (275x400, 34K)

sociology is even more a joke than the bottom of the barrel of Yea Forums
okay maybe not smash threads, just an inch above that

Don't know about games, but after my second class of algorithms I believed I could write any program I could imagine.

>shilling for peer review
Actual NPC
Literal ad populum

Crusader Kings 2 or any grand strat from Paradox.

huh?

Pretty complex b8 in a context where b8 is not expected

Attached: 1385551945433.png (625x626, 178K)

>he still believes in peer review
Fucking wew

"I know everything"

>water is not fire
>he said, in an anonymous post on the Yea Forums videogame board

Attached: 1544050431321.png (1024x768, 931K)

Starcraft

>i need authority people to tell me that noobs overestimate their skills before i can form my own opinion
you're looking for a priest not science

on Yea Forums? csgo. every thread ive seen was filled with silvers and gold novas

t. Liberal arts major

not him but peer reviewed does not really mean anything because its the same people who review each others shit
bringing up liberal arts major is stupid because its most prevalent in gender studies

>accuses someone of using appeal to authority fallacy
>when the initial OP post is doing that exactly, on top of being wrong

Attached: maeks.png (213x207, 57K)

Titanfall 2

Attached: bonedad.jpg (400x400, 51K)

Reminder man-made climate change has not been proven via the scientific method.

I was going to say Warframe, but you never even hit the "I know everthing" state. It's just constant confusion.

Attached: 1544077284935.jpg (471x386, 36K)

Where is the authority in OP's post? Nobody else made any claims before you came along.

There's a website that does dps calculations & has builds . Assuming it works should be easy.

the underage in this thread is strong

just drop out of college now, it's clearly not going to help you. /pol/ has poisoned your brain enough to ensure you will be an unemployable autist tranny before you hit 30.

Guild Wars

Attached: 1554843284031.jpg (248x248, 19K)

Are you whoring yourself out for a research grant or why the massive attachment? Wrong place anyway to circlejerk about it.

Literally DMC

you are at the second point right now

That doesn’t invalidate the concept that the unskilled are unaware of how unskilled they are. That’s like saying no one scratches their ass because no one did an empirical study on it.

There was a recent experiment where a bunch of guys put a literal segments from Mein Kampf into some gender related study and it got approved and everything. its not hard to find.
And I'm not even the original guy that said peer reviewing is useless.
But there are two undeniable things. First is social science cannot be compared to hard science. Second thing is studies need funding. People will fund the kind of study that proves what they want. also the reason why social science cant be compared to hard science

I believe in Dunning Kruger though

Don't forget the part where studies with "wrong" results don't get published and they try again til an outlier get's them what they want and get's published. Then it exists officially as the sole study and everyone believes it's true because nobody sees the amount of failed attempts that would invalidate it.

Any good fighting game

> site does DPS calculations and has builds
> 90% of what you need to make those builds is in some obscure fuckoff random corner of the star chart, requiring you to spin around three times and shit your pants to make the enemy that drops it at a 1% chance begin spawning
Warframe really keeps the good old MMO spirit alive.

>social studies show things I disagree with, therefore studies are unreliable
Cope

>It works in practice, but there is no proof that it works in theory

Attached: 8d6.jpg (645x729, 48K)

>meta-study proves 50% of studies can't be verified
>quality of a coin flip
>deny deny deny
how does it feel being useless garbage?

retail_ WoW

Yeah its overall super fucked. In medical studies for example the vast majority of studies is often funded by the developing company. There are drugs that have been on a market for decades and there are still ongoing studies whether it can cause irreversible side effects and what not. And this is the medical field where people actually measure and compare extremely precise numbers and overall supposed to be one of the most regulated and strict fields.

Then some fuckwit comes up with his own theory in social ""science"" and I'm supposed to take it like a holy grail or something. fuck off

>how does it feel being useless garbage?
I don't know. How?

Kerbal Space Program.

You gotta add all the casuals using a trainer. That was just pathetic

>check out this one cherrypicked example which somehow shows an entire institution is useless

>I believe in Dunning Kruger though
that's good, because you're a shining example of it.

event-exclusive mods, more like it.

>check out this one cherrypicked example which somehow shows an entire institution is useless
I never said peer reviewing is useless, its just not much of a guarantee for anything. In social sciences its the same people who review each other for example.

This

I think for most people it's just relatively difficult to know where you fall on this graph unless you're at the absolute extremes of knowledge.
People misjudging themselves could be just falling prey to classic narcissism, modesty, or 'imposter syndrome,' etc.
It's difficult to even know what average intelligence is like if you surround yourself with people that mirror your own. Even if we knew what the average was, is it still relevant if 3rd world countries are included-- or illiterate people?

so dunning-kruger effect is just a pretentious way of presenting overconfidence?

>smash
>fighting game
you're still at point 2 it seems

>It works in practice
Can you post evidence of that?

Super Smash Bros (original)

>All these sociology eternal waiter/NEETs majors popping out of the woodwork

Attached: 1553827825316.png (1280x1280, 1.42M)

This
Literally at the beginning -> Right before SS Isshin -> Many tries after Isshin

And underconfidence, but yes.

I mean I feel like the Dunning Kruger effect is something every has experienced in their life so I have no idea why would anyone try to deny it. You don't have to be at the absolute top to realize its existence, its enough if you are at a point where you realize things are more complex than you thought they were.
But it also opens the gate for people who try to appeal smarter than they are so there is that

Literally how I felt going through Sekiro's story

No, it specifically covers overconfidence that would drop if you learned a bit more.
It doesn't cover optimists who are always overconfident, but rather people like:
>"science fan" fedoras who want to replace all energy generation with nuclear
>/pol/tards talking about statistics
>anyone who has ever uttered a phrase like "akshuly, 4th dimension is time"

t.

Attached: 475155FE-CE7F-4C83-8C16-D691252092F7.jpg (499x174, 10K)

CS:GO

>Trainer
Elaborate

>observe how people act
>"hey guys what if we call this specific behavior something"
>NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT PEER REVIEW FIRST IT'S JUST A THEORY YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY

More like
>this is how people act
>do you have solid evidence that this is what commonly happens?
>FUCKING PEER REVIEW AD POPULUM KIKES, everyone who disagrees with me is an example of this behavior

Cheat engines for people who can't learn the game

One thing I'll say that adds some credibility to it is that there is definitely some wisdom to knowing what you don't know.
I just find the term irritating because of how people misuse it in an argument as an ad homenim attack.

>point at dog
>"this is a cat"
>"wtf what do you mean you want evidence it's a cat? Shut up I'm right because I said so and wrote it on a piece of paper and called it a study."

>peer review
Lmao I need a science man to tell me this obviously true thing is true

It's funny but these days they'd obfuscate the argument by saying the names cat and dogs are merely a social construct, as if that means anything

>This theory has no basis in factual science
Gee it's almost like that's why it's a theory

>a large number of pedophiles wear glasses
>therefore all people who wear glasses want to fuck kids
t. you
Take your "observation" and shove it up your faux-science asshole

Attached: penn_jillette.jpg (300x400, 31K)

>Using a self-evident truth as the basis of your argument against trusting self-evident truths.
When retards try to use logic....

A theory is not a guess idiot

>self-evident truth
>when someone disagrees with you
This is why you can't into STEM.

The Dunning Kruger effect:
> an observation of one general curve human behavior can follow, usually accurate once its initial few steps have been observed
the bullshit comparison effect:
> a flat statistical manipulation
Nobody is saying everyone fucking follows the retarded "I know everything" curve. They're just saying that some people follow it, and that particular curve has a name. Retard.

The worst thing is that in the paper itself there literally isn't a graph that resembles all those infographs.

Attached: dunning.png (375x339, 30K)

>self-evident
I was taught what a cat and dog was you mong, with education that sits on hundreds of years of peer review and scientific method. This can't claim to have any of that, just a reddit choir who uses it to straw people who complain about terrible matchmaking programming.

>i need authority people to tell me that noobs overestimate their skills
you dont need a faggy psuedoscientific graph to say that shit either. sociology faggots are more retarded than psychologists

Lemmi explain it to you like a child then brainlet. You're trying to argue that trusting self-evident observations is wrong, but you destroy your own argument because you're trying to use a scenario where someone makes an incorrect claim about something that anyone can observe to be self-evident (i.e. a cat is a cat) as the basis of your argument.

>I was taught what a cat and dog was you mong,
Rofl, retard. If you saw a new breed of cat would you need to sight peer reviewed research paper before you would agree that it was a cat?

it's a mix of argumentum ad verecundiam and ad populum , where the (((peers))) are both the authority and populum.
dunno why it's still considered a fundamental process towards validating a study, a lot scientific discoveries that revolutionized our world were shat on by the peers of their time, if not deemed heretical

I don't think there is anything wrong with that but they should separate that from real science.
Personally I believe in a lot of Freud's theories, even if they sound absolutely ridiculous at first. The psychoanalysis he and others at the time developed was used a lot in marketing and propaganda. For example, when tobacco companies wanted to destroy the stigma around women smoking to create a bigger market, they contacted a guy called Edward Bernays to help them. He was a relative of Freud, but in this project he contacted a different psychologist in the US to help him. The guy found that women have some sort of penis envy and by smoking a cigarette, a cigarette represents a penis and it makes them feel like they are competing with men. So pretty ridiculous stuff, but in the end it worked. Also I believe that a lot of women feel an envy or jealously towards men. But I wouldn't call the "penis envy" theory very scientific you know.
The other thing is, if Freud lived today leftists in social science would not allow him to live.
I also like Freud's ego-superego theory and what he thought about OCD. But you can't compare it to the theory of gravity for example.

based and wise

>Rofl
Way 2obv

Peer review isn't about validating the results but the methods.

It's about why overconfidence exists. Namely not knowing what they don't know and thus assuming they know everything there is to know.

>Get your primary-school tier argument btfo.
>Nitpick words instead of manning up and admitting to yourself that you're not very smart.
Sad but predictable.

You already posted it

Xenogears plot line and history.

Attached: 700 pages.jpg (1055x791, 134K)

>he needs to be told what a cat and dog are to know they are different
Yikes :^)

Street fighter & many other fighting games
>easy just button mash
>maybe i should control what i do
>hit boxes iframes?
>juke him to counter
>jedi mind tricks to counter the counter

Attached: BABA is YOU.png (1300x1041, 270K)

the methods critique is just the mean to validate or invalidate the results.
Im just speaking from an historical perspective, it just happened too many times that methods were superficially attacked by a group of experts because they didnt like the new "truth". Even after giant scientific advancements I think it's still true, especially in this political climate. prob unlikely to happen in something like math field, but I see it very possible in shit like sociology (which findings are parroted by media and influence public opinion, so the "group of experts" has all the interest in pushing, shifting or blocking new dogmas )

Fucking gender studies.

being able to repeat an experiment is the literal basis of scientific knowledge. like science doesn't exist without this concept, that's the whole point.

>Even after giant scientific advancements I think it's still true, especially in this political climate.
It's non-scientists trying to suppress scientists, not peer review.
Don't confuse shills shilling for experts experting.

definitely this

This

>Don't confuse shills shilling for experts experting
what does that even mean? and experts are still flawed humans anyway, so is the person doing the study.
but still, a flawed human study being validated or not by other flawed humans isnt the most logical thing

Attached: 1525456732664.png (1112x678, 1007K)

Only pseudo intellectuals name drop Dunning Kruger effect

This is a really good one

>Using critical thought instead of blind faith makes you /pol/
Sorry for disrespecting your religion.

Attached: credentials.jpg (1864x4116, 882K)

Attached: VirginDunningKruger.jpg (1300x1041, 237K)

Buy them on the WFMarket. Not like Plat is hard to get or amass in large quantities.

>I need scientific and peer-reviewed evidence to believe in the vague maxim that people rush to logical conclusions instead of studying things in depth.

But that's where we know peer review is fucking flopsville. All that garbage papers that Boghossian and friends was able to pass off as legit is embarrassing.

>>I need scientific and peer-reviewed evidence to believe a sociology study that wasn't peer reviewed
Science isn't about vague maxims you dip.

>check out this one cherrypicked example which somehow shows an entire institution is useless
How about you learn the difference between an universal statement and a particular one before trying to sound smart.

Attached: serveimage.png (400x518, 35K)

Attached: thatsthejoke.jpg (480x360, 23K)

based

Actually what you described is an objectivist theory.
An Interpretivist Theory does not demand that it is tested.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is an Interpretivist theory, though if it has a community of agreement surrounding it, I'm not sure.

Attached: Theory.png (691x290, 31K)

>Im just speaking from an historical perspective, it just happened too many times that methods were superficially attacked by a group of experts because they didnt like the new "truth"
you're brainwashed to hell

Green is literally me.

my bad, didn't know you were just pretending

Attached: ttr16mx5up821.jpg (750x830, 42K)

So what source of validation would be required to meet your impossible standards, random shitposter on Yea Forums that believes in conspiracy theories ?

I'm surprised this thread is arguing about peer review when Yea Forums is full of complete fucking literal retards who believe empirical papers on their own are WRONG because the person personally disagrees with the findings.

shh, that's the secret irony of the thread

>there are retards on Yea Forums
>so everyone on Yea Forums is retarded
>everyone except me

Attached: 1551610336802.jpg (379x250, 15K)

That's not what he said at all, retard

>unironically using a notorious disinformer as a meme-pic

Attached: penn jillette.png (871x837, 254K)

Pretty much everyone except me is retarded, yeah. Deal with it. I'm the smartest person on this fucking shitstain of a website

Attached: 1197013708123.gif (390x600, 52K)

Only thing this lacks is the post-traumatic consideration to change career and forget everything about it.

Only because I haven't posted anything yet.

Fuck off brainlet

Attached: header.jpg (460x215, 20K)