[HN Gopher] Gunslinger Effect
___________________________________________________________________
Gunslinger Effect
Author : CharlesW
Score : 115 points
Date : 2022-07-02 15:23 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| perihelions wrote:
| - _" Based on the inevitability of this outcome, Bohr suggested
| that the most logical conclusion to a gunfight would be a
| peaceful settlement, since neither gunslinger would want to draw
| first knowing that they would lose."_
|
| I think rational actors wouldn't choose to fight a duel with a
| 50/50 chance of death either. The second-mover bias makes it even
| _less_ rational, but does it matter?
| j-pb wrote:
| Makes you wonder if the ultimate winning strategy is picking an
| arbitrary external stimulus, like the ticking of a clock, or the
| opponent placing their foot.
|
| You could also think of a special purpose revolver with a timer,
| that provides a haptic click, with a n-second delay when a button
| is pressed.
| Kinrany wrote:
| I'd expect the reaction time to be better when the event is
| unambiguous. So a church bell tolling noon would work, but a
| randomly chosen swing of a pendulum wouldn't.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| I guess nobody ever told Bob Munden about this.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSd8V-kb6Ro
| ccvannorman wrote:
| _I do not shoot with my hand; he who shoots with his hand has
| forgotten the face of his father. I shoot with my mind._
| M_bara wrote:
| Mister, I deal in lead...
| im3w1l wrote:
| > However, the study also found that reactive movements were less
| accurate than intentional ones, and that the increased movement
| speed did not make up for the initial delay.
|
| This makes some game theoretical sense I think. If the first
| mover is allowed to take his time he will hit and win. The second
| mover rushing denies this, it creates the opportunity for a lucky
| hit. Now the first player adapts by aiming a little less than he
| would want, also creating a possibility of a miss-miss.
| chmod600 wrote:
| At first I was skeptical, then I thought "wait, this was done by
| a physicist, so it must be reproducible".
| jotm wrote:
| Makes sense I think for anything that requires at least some
| intelligence to perform/finish.
|
| Baiting animals (incl. humans, for that matter) into making the
| first moves gives you a distinct advantage, as you are reacting
| consciously to their unconscious. Practically controlling the
| fight.
| [deleted]
| sebastianconcpt wrote:
| Deterrence once again!
| jamestimmins wrote:
| This is a plot element in Unforgiven, the 1992 Best Picture
| winning western starring Clint Eastwood. His character, an old,
| ex-gunfighter, routinely fires last in shootouts, but still wins
| because his opponents get caught up in the moment and miss.
| yadaeno wrote:
| This is very obvious if you've ever played CSGO.
|
| Your character dies extremely quickly, so most people will panic
| and quickly react when taking fire. If you do this, you can
| usually land a few body shots before dying, however unless you
| manage to headshot them you will surely lose the exchange.
|
| You eventually train yourself suppress this reflex and calmly aim
| for a headshot in high stress situations.
| Borrible wrote:
| Bohr was an observant observer.
|
| Does a wave function collapses faster, when the measurement is
| not intentional?
| yonaguska wrote:
| My experience in martial arts competition lines up to this. The
| best way to "win", although not the most interesting or fun, is
| to train with an emphasis on drilling and repetition. Which is
| one of the many reasons wrestlers do so well against non-
| wrestling grapplers. Their training creates a very reflex based
| application of moves. You're always faster than your opponent
| when you don't have to slow down and make decisions on the fly.
| dixie_land wrote:
| so like Goku's Ultra Instinct, but IRL
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| Isn't the Gunslinger effect actually distinct from drilling
| movements to become automatic/second nature?
|
| Imagine two equally trained gunslingers. Both have drilled the
| drawing movements endlessly to the point where they're fluid
| motions that require no conscious decision-making. But the
| gunslinger who draws _first_ ends up losing because the one who
| draws second is _actually_ reacting, as opposed to making the
| conscious decision to draw first.
| uoaei wrote:
| No. Consider drills (and building habits more generally) as
| _compressing knowledge into preconscious processes_. The
| first gunslinger could be just as engaged as the second.
| Because they don 't have to devote brain calories to the
| draw, they are focused on other things actively in conscious
| thought.
|
| I think the "OK Corral" analogy breaks down here because life
| isn't like gun duels. But the first gunslinger is given
| freedom to approach with "higher-level thoughts" just as the
| second is. Requiring some kind of stimulus to react to
| doesn't pass the sniff test here.
| dymk wrote:
| I don't think it's different. When shooting sporting clays,
| in which you call for the clay and then move the gun once you
| see where it was thrown, I miss when I'm putting in too much
| conscious effort. I hit the target if I'm letting muscle
| memory take over, trained over tens of thousands of rounds.
| marcodiego wrote:
| As someone who plays the classical guitar as a hobby,
| automation through repetition is key to clean execution.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| a professional drummer (full-kit) told me something very
| similar; the topic came up many times since we both did
| tutoring
| Barrera wrote:
| Quite a shock to see Niels Bohr staring at me from that page.
| He's a towering figure in atomic theory.
| zach_garwood wrote:
| I'm used to seeing the picture of him as a younger man.
| rytill wrote:
| This seems really wrong. No way you would see this effect with
| more highly trained participants. Did anyone try more than some
| mock experiment with two unpracticed students?
| MrsPeaches wrote:
| From TFA:
|
| "A 2014 study conducted with two groups, karate practitioners
| and people without karate training, found that reactions were
| faster than intentional movements, regardless of training.[15]"
| Toutouxc wrote:
| There are various references listed under the linked article,
| including "more than some mock experiment".
| User23 wrote:
| Wyatt Earp knew a bit about gunfighting so here is his take:
| When I say that I learned to take my time in a gunfight, I do not
| wish to be misunderstood, for the time to be taken was only that
| split fraction of a second that means the difference between
| deadly accuracy with a sixgun and a miss. It is hard to make this
| clear to a man who has never been in a gunfight. Perhaps I can
| best describe such time taking as going into action with the
| greatest speed of which a man's muscles are capable, but mentally
| unflustered by an urge to hurry or the need for complicated
| nervous and muscular actions which trick-shooting involves.
| Mentally deliberate, but muscularly faster than thought, is what
| I mean.
| skmurphy wrote:
| This is from Wyatt Earp Frontier Marshall by Stuart Lake
| https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671885375/
|
| according to Jul-2-1956 Life Magazine article "Bang" which
| several longer excerpts
| https://books.google.com/books?id=7UgEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=P...
|
| See also
| https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TranquilFury/RealLife
| valbaca wrote:
| Someone had fun in the Abstract for one of the papers:
|
| "To obtain bullet-proof evidence for a true reactive advantage,
| we investigated willed and reactive movements during a
| cooperative interaction of two participants."
|
| HAR HAR
|
| "Disarming the gunslinger effect: Reaction beats intention for
| cooperative actions"
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-018-1462-5
| hprotagonist wrote:
| _A good fight should be like a small play but, played seriously.
| When the opponent expands, I contract. When he contracts, I
| expand. And when the opportunity presents itself, I do not hit.
| It hits all by itself._
| motohagiography wrote:
| When I watch olympic track cycling in the pursuit event, what
| they seem to be angling for before the bell is to cause their
| opponent to start the sprint first, likely to leverage this same
| effect. In boxing there are "counter punchers," whose strategy
| appears to be similar, where they draw out their opponents. In
| chess, a pawn sacrifice to draw out aggresive moves and open up
| their defensive position seems related. In poker, "limping in" to
| a hand draws out inexperienced but aggressive players. In
| organizational politics, some experienced players use exaggerated
| humility to draw out politically aggressive managers who make a
| play for the percieved weakness and embarass themselves. In
| public politics and debate, the "motte and baily" argument is
| related in that it is a seemingly weak provocation before
| retreating behind a stronger argument.
|
| These aren't the exact same as this gunslinger's advantage, but
| each of them is related in that they rely on a second movers
| advantage in responding to aggression, and what's not specified
| in the gunslinger version is how the second mover has necessarily
| already provoked the first mover into acting. If you want to
| domainate a competition, this upstream provocation to pre-empt
| downstream action is straight forward sports psychology. To be
| provoked is to be played, and to be masterfully provocative is
| almost the very definition of strategy, which is to purposefully
| influence others to achieve an outcome.
| zelos wrote:
| > Bohr suggested that the most logical conclusion to a gunfight
| would be a peaceful settlement,
|
| And there ain't been a gunfight for a long time Maybe never, but
| nobody knows for sure...
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| The person who shoots accurately, first, wins. Drawing quickly is
| only one component of that goal.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-02 23:01 UTC)