This is just wrong. There is most definitely something to be said about verbally abusing your teammates, and this resulting in more losses - regardless of the type of person you are. If as a test, you had a really nice person have a bad day and spent all day ripping on his team mates - instead of supporting them as a true team mate, then there is a greater chance he will have worse match results.

If I am having a bad game and go 0-3 in the first 5 minutes, my performance begins to worsen dramatically when my team mates begin flaming me. It's very likely that I will go 0-5 shortly after (regardless of the other teams skill level - since you could argue that im only 0-3 because Im being out classed by the other team, and will therefore continue to perform poorly). This is just simply because of my morale. If my team mates encourage me and say 'don't worry about it - we got this' - I am more likely to rebound and correct my mistakes.

I am also a masterdebater. 4N6.

I must be wasting my time studying Sociology because I couldn't follow that at all.

When you're looking at data with tons of variables and you want to check out just a few for "optimizing", would you just do partial derivatives to pull those variables out while leaving the rest constant to drop off and then at that point you can be left with something in R3 or greater for analysis? that stuff isn't so bad as far as finding critical points and whathaveyou but don't you typically just jam it into statistical software (such as the open source R) to get what you're looking for?

I guess that i'm just struggling with that age old idea of "I'm never gonna use this stuff when I'm in the work place"

Also, do you still run hypothesis tests? I feel like i've been doing them forever and hope they're worth it.

The quote does not say cause, necessarily follows, due to etc. There is no causal language at all. You are a free to draw your own conclusions from the hard data.

That still proves nothing about causality....

Tilting is a very difficult concept to comprehend. Apparently.

>> I must be wasting my time studying Sociology because I couldn't follow that at all.

Sociology has a lot of uses in games and in general!

What you are saying is basically correct. You could optimize for a particular variable or parameter by doing partial derivatives. If you take mathematical statistics (usually junior/senior level), you will learn this. The same is true for statistical models that have a lot of parameters. You can study the behavior of one or more parameters by integrating out the ones that are not of interest.

Something like R would be used to actually do the optimization, but it is good to know how it works under the hood. For example, what if this complicated surface is not differentiable? Then, R won't give a very reliable result. If you don't know that, then you might report a result that is incorrect.

I still use hypothesis tests for certain things to convince myself, or someone else, that I am correct ;-). They are more powerful for small samples though (less than millions).

Sorry bud, but I feel like your assessment is fully off the mark.
First off, you made quite a few absolute statements and have no data to back them up.
That's called an assumption, and while I'm not a statistics nut, historically, blatant assumptions tend to lead to incorrect logic.

Extending your example, if you have a bad day and then a bad game and get criticized you are likely to not play another game, thus you will not lose the game you choose not to play.
More importantly, you do not influence the outcome of this theoretical game for your 4 theoretical teammates. Maybe, because your poor state was inflamed, you call it a day and don't cause a loss the next game.

On the other hand, if you receive positive reinforcement, you are still likely to lose the game, and it is also likely you queue and lose again.

Under the negative reinforcement scenario, a positive outcome is may be met.
Under the positive reinforcement scenario, a negative outcome is may be met.

Also, there is the assumption that you cannot rip on your team AND play towards the goal of winning. That's wrong, sometimes the way to avoid a disaster is to create a social bias that promotes avoiding said disaster, and often this is with very abrasive language, because lets be honest, that's what gets attention. I'm not saying it always works or even works the majority of the time or is even executed properly, but it DOES happen, and it DOES have positive effects. Whether the net gain is positive or negative is open to debate, but assuming the variables are simple is inadequate and will lead to inaccurate assessments.

As far as the whole rebound thing, again I think it is an assumption that negative reinforcement cannot result in a positive outcome.

"Stop playing like a noob and farm under your turret, I'll be there in a minute to save your lane."

Overall, the language here is very negative, and it will likely be seen as a negative attitude.
I'm not going to pretend it's a positive statement but I do believe it to be a REALISTIC statement.
REALISTIC attitudes win games, not positive or negative attitudes.

Again, I think this requires players to be objective about the game and their teammates.
Given that, I don't find it at all surprising that a society that is socially retarded has so many issues cooperating in an anonymous environment.
Most people are simply unwilling or incapable of being that objective.

Again, a game that fosters placing players on more equal ground where they can actually trust each other would do wonders to create a better environment overall.

84% of statistics are made up anyways