L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
I disagree. I think we are very good at calculating the probabilities of things we encountered during the first few hundred thousand years of evolution, but (unfortunately) the tools we evolved for doing that don't translate well to the modern world.
As I said before, humans turn out to be pretty good at detecting some kinds of patterns (e.g. noticing that plant X helps with sickness Y), which would require some pretty careful statistical analysis to detect in a laboratory.
I wish I had a reference for this, but in the 60's a psychologist built this box with a grid of 25 lights that blinked in (so he claimed) random order. He asked subject to guess which light was going to blink next. Most subjects showed some improvement over random guessing after they played it for a while. In reality a complex set of rules determined which light blinked next, so it wasn't random at all. But even those subjects who guessed there was a pattern couldn't actually deduce the rules.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Nope.
Okay, I guess i have to go into this. I was hoping the dog and Frisbee would be enough.
Let's take an easy example. Face recognition. Face recognition is a relatively "hard" problem for AI, that's relatively easy for humans. Why? Is it because humans have some amazing facial recognition algorithms? Um ... well, it's actually because we have a specialized part of our brain that allows us recognize (quickly, and independently of our regular um... "consciousness") faces. Famously, if this part of the brain is damaged, then we can't recognize other people, even though we can still describe them (cue up "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat").
Same thing with your ball example, or a lot of other examples (dog and frisbee). We have specialized parts of our brain that allow us, without conscious thought, to do things such as "track a moving object with our eye." In fact, in addition to other neurological conditions that can effect it, it is relatively well-known that the worst thing that can happen is for an athlete to start "thinking" about these automatic functions- the dreaded "Yips" or "Steve Sax disease" (see also, possible Markelle Fultz issue). Again, though, there is no knowledge of a higher math being utilized by the conscious mind, any more than we would say that locusts understand the complexities of higher math due to the properties of their swarms.
And that's the thing- that illusion. The same illusion we get when we "react" to something- and our brain says that we caused that reaction, yet we can later see (SCIENCE!) that this is our brain "back-filling" that decision to something that was autonomically done. Literally, our brain creating a false history to give us the illusion of making a decision! Our brains our truly amazing.
But we are also *piss poor* when it comes to statistics. When it comes to abstract probabilities. Even the most basic understandings, and even in our modern age. You can look anywhere at the studies - it is embarrassing; to use the common example, if you flip a coin ten times and it comes up heads 10 times in a row, the majority of people believe it will come up tails on the next flip.
Seriously- look at this evidence on this board, alone. If the claim had been, "The people in this made up world are really in tune with the seasons, and are likely to know when to plant their crops" I would have no issue with that. That's the type of lore and knowledge that gets passed down. Same with edible herbs (and efficacious ones- although that was trial and error and death, not statistics, and many of them were just wrong).
But it is interesting, as I had assumed that the premises behind [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] were idiosyncratic to him (her?). Apparently, I was mistaken! So I have learned something.
You're getting pretty snarky and dismissive. Not attractive. Or impressive.
I think I see now where we are disagreeing. You are literally talking about the dice rolls of the game, and I'm talking about the imaginary laws of physics that the dice rolls represent.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Last edited by a moderator:
Manbearcat
Legend
@lowkey13
I’m going to agree with @Elfcrusher here.
I tend to think of D&D Fighters as representing the tails of the (demi)human distribution in the same way that world class Jiujitsu players like Renzo Gracie, a boxer like Vasyl Lomachenko, and a QB like Drew Brees would be.
My guess is that as you move toward that tail, the ability to perform immediate multivariate analysis (particularly when those variables include spatial relationships, relative velocities, force/angle requirements to propel a familiar object or compel a relatively proportionate mass/force) increases dramatically in speed (this would be measured in obviously very small units regardless) and accuracy. Their processing speed and the accuracy of their processing speed is borderline superhuman when dealing with an integrated set of variables (that certainly hook into selection pressures that our ancestors faced from East African chimp-dom onward).
For instance, the ability of Dree Brees to perform the following with unbelievable accuracy is extremely far beyond the pale of your average human.
1) Read 4-5 keys (that are each trying to be disguised via alignment) and determine the back 7 coverage scheme of an NFL defense (of which there are dozens), including determine if any blitzes are on, where they are coming from, and make sure protections are adequate, and communicate any hot-read adjustments to eligible receivers if there are any formational issues (eg you don’t have enough people to pick up a potential blitz on the weak side of the formation).
2) Prioritize your passing progressions based on your presnap coverage read.
The above 2 things have to take place in an extremely short window (typically around 5-7 seconds).
Then, post-snap they have to:
3) Confirm their read in the span of inside of a second (which means post-snap reading multiple keys that are often not in the same “UI window”)…while you’re dropping back with appropriate footwork.
4) Get the ball out…on time…with accuracy and ball placement to your primary read if it isn’t taken away from you by a Flat/Hook-Zone (for example) defender playing the route combo you’re looking at.
5) If that 1st read is taken away, immediately get to that 2nd, and possibly 3rd (which often involves panning a full 90 degrees left or right), read while being aware of the pass rush (and doing the actual computations of OL
L relationships but not actually looking at them), climbing or sliding in the pocket if you need to (again, in-pocket evasion without actually looking at the dynamics of the pass rush and the pocket…merely “feeling” it…which is the output of subconscious, multivariate calculations).
6) Process/assimilate all of the (now very changed) information regarding spatial relationships, relative velocities, your ability to get the ball out with enough velocity and on time (and often over the underneath coverage).
All of 3-6 happens in an interval of less than 3 seconds.
Again, or someone like Renzo Gracie or Vasyl Lomachenko who are basically performing Go with the added variables of physical elements and the threat of extreme damage to their person.
The OODA Loop of alpha, tail-of-the-distribution physical performers of our world (and we aren’t facing the sorts of stakes that a D&D Fighter would be) is just something well beyond your average human. I’m a very good athlete and my OODA Loop (when it comes to what I’ve quoted above) is well beyond your average person (in terms of speed and accuracy). But I’m not close to the tails of the human distribution. Not even close. There processing power (moreso than their physical prowess) sets these guys apart as absolute genetic freaks more than anything else. I tend to think that your average D&D Fighter is more tails-of-the-distribution than it is “above average joe”.
@Lanefan
I’ll get into your post a little bit more later. Let me quickly say that you’re extrapolating from “be Falstaff the fighter” is WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than I would say is intended in Gygax’s quip and then you’re using your extrapolation as a rider on the rest of Gygax’s (and maybe even B/X as its contemporary?) DMG. To wit, I think your extrapolation is wrong and when your first principles are wrong, the work you intend for what comes after it is pretty much always off.
I’m going to agree with @Elfcrusher here.
I tend to think of D&D Fighters as representing the tails of the (demi)human distribution in the same way that world class Jiujitsu players like Renzo Gracie, a boxer like Vasyl Lomachenko, and a QB like Drew Brees would be.
My guess is that as you move toward that tail, the ability to perform immediate multivariate analysis (particularly when those variables include spatial relationships, relative velocities, force/angle requirements to propel a familiar object or compel a relatively proportionate mass/force) increases dramatically in speed (this would be measured in obviously very small units regardless) and accuracy. Their processing speed and the accuracy of their processing speed is borderline superhuman when dealing with an integrated set of variables (that certainly hook into selection pressures that our ancestors faced from East African chimp-dom onward).
For instance, the ability of Dree Brees to perform the following with unbelievable accuracy is extremely far beyond the pale of your average human.
1) Read 4-5 keys (that are each trying to be disguised via alignment) and determine the back 7 coverage scheme of an NFL defense (of which there are dozens), including determine if any blitzes are on, where they are coming from, and make sure protections are adequate, and communicate any hot-read adjustments to eligible receivers if there are any formational issues (eg you don’t have enough people to pick up a potential blitz on the weak side of the formation).
2) Prioritize your passing progressions based on your presnap coverage read.
The above 2 things have to take place in an extremely short window (typically around 5-7 seconds).
Then, post-snap they have to:
3) Confirm their read in the span of inside of a second (which means post-snap reading multiple keys that are often not in the same “UI window”)…while you’re dropping back with appropriate footwork.
4) Get the ball out…on time…with accuracy and ball placement to your primary read if it isn’t taken away from you by a Flat/Hook-Zone (for example) defender playing the route combo you’re looking at.
5) If that 1st read is taken away, immediately get to that 2nd, and possibly 3rd (which often involves panning a full 90 degrees left or right), read while being aware of the pass rush (and doing the actual computations of OL
L relationships but not actually looking at them), climbing or sliding in the pocket if you need to (again, in-pocket evasion without actually looking at the dynamics of the pass rush and the pocket…merely “feeling” it…which is the output of subconscious, multivariate calculations).6) Process/assimilate all of the (now very changed) information regarding spatial relationships, relative velocities, your ability to get the ball out with enough velocity and on time (and often over the underneath coverage).
All of 3-6 happens in an interval of less than 3 seconds.
Again, or someone like Renzo Gracie or Vasyl Lomachenko who are basically performing Go with the added variables of physical elements and the threat of extreme damage to their person.
The OODA Loop of alpha, tail-of-the-distribution physical performers of our world (and we aren’t facing the sorts of stakes that a D&D Fighter would be) is just something well beyond your average human. I’m a very good athlete and my OODA Loop (when it comes to what I’ve quoted above) is well beyond your average person (in terms of speed and accuracy). But I’m not close to the tails of the human distribution. Not even close. There processing power (moreso than their physical prowess) sets these guys apart as absolute genetic freaks more than anything else. I tend to think that your average D&D Fighter is more tails-of-the-distribution than it is “above average joe”.
@Lanefan
I’ll get into your post a little bit more later. Let me quickly say that you’re extrapolating from “be Falstaff the fighter” is WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than I would say is intended in Gygax’s quip and then you’re using your extrapolation as a rider on the rest of Gygax’s (and maybe even B/X as its contemporary?) DMG. To wit, I think your extrapolation is wrong and when your first principles are wrong, the work you intend for what comes after it is pretty much always off.
Last edited:
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Really? You don't think you're being snarky and dismissive with "Oh, I guess I have to go into this after all." (I can practically hear the sighing.) Or the little dig in the last sentence? It comes across as not much different than Saelorn's, "Oh, well if you don't want to roleplay..."
I guess probability isn't the only thing that humans are bad at seeing. (Zing!)
Anyway, if you (or somebody else) is still reading, your example about the coin flips illustrates that humans are bad at understanding what concepts like "random" and "probability" mean, but that's very different from intuiting probability from data is in the first place. A person might very well believe that 10 heads in a row increases the probability of getting a tails, but that same person over 10,000 flips, without counting heads and tails, might notice a bias in their coin.
And, yeah, humans are also subject to superstition. They might see a pattern and mis-ascribe the causes for it. "It's because I was wearing my lucky shorts! So I kept wearing my lucky shorts and my team kept winning! Amazing!" (c.f. David Mermin's explanations of quantum physics from the point of view of baseball fandom.) But that doesn't mean they're bad at seeing the patterns in the first place.
I wish I had a link handy (I can research it if you really don't believe me) but there was a bunch of research done about these child bookies in Rio de Janeiro who would recompute complex odds in their heads while taking bets. And yet I bet those same kids would demonstrate the phenomena you cite, such as the coin flipping one.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Manbearcat
Legend
[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]
This is going to get into neuro/cognitive science a bit:
1) We’re starting to discover that the overwhelming % of our decision-tree work is performed before our conscious mind (the machinery that we identify as “I”) comes online. It appears what happens then is that the conscious mind just cleans up the now constrained subset and post-hoc rationalizes itself into the computations it was absent for.
2) Being unable to articulate the machinery of your brain’s/body’s process doesn’t mean that the machinery doesn’t exist/doesn’t perform those processes (especially if the overwhelming % of the machinery’s work happens before “you” come online).
This is going to get into neuro/cognitive science a bit:
1) We’re starting to discover that the overwhelming % of our decision-tree work is performed before our conscious mind (the machinery that we identify as “I”) comes online. It appears what happens then is that the conscious mind just cleans up the now constrained subset and post-hoc rationalizes itself into the computations it was absent for.
2) Being unable to articulate the machinery of your brain’s/body’s process doesn’t mean that the machinery doesn’t exist/doesn’t perform those processes (especially if the overwhelming % of the machinery’s work happens before “you” come online).
Similar Threads
