The gunfighter's dilemma
news.bbc.co.uk
The gunfighter's dilemma
1–10 of 63 posts
Re: The gunfighter's dilemma
#2So much for first-mover advantage.
Re: The gunfighter's dilemma
#3You can't skip the story about Niels Bohr at the bottom.
Re: The gunfighter's dilemma
#4There are existing studies which show that people react faster when startled than when not. There's a nifty little online test to check your own response times: http://www.mathsisfun.com/games/reaction-time.html
As far as I know this is the first test to show that startle response extends beyond reaction time, it's an interesting piece of data. It's worth noting that it's possible to force yourself into a state of mind similar to being startled, which may very well eliminate the advantage to "shooting" second.
Re: The gunfighter's dilemma
#5You can't skip the story about Niels Bohr at the bottom.
Niels Bohr should know something about reactions and reaction times - in 1905 he played professional football (soccer) for Akademisk Boldklub, playing goalkeeper.
Re: The gunfighter's dilemma
#6>In a series of mock gunfights with colleagues Bohr always drew second and always won.
I'm hoping the author of this article just didn't want to elaborate, but Bohr never thought it could've just been that he was faster at drawing than his opponents? Switching it so he was the first to draw some of the time would have been better design.
Re: The gunfighter's dilemma
#7>In a series of mock gunfights with colleagues Bohr always drew second and always won. I'm hoping the author of this article just didn't want to elaborate, but Bohr never thought it could've just been that he was faster at drawing than his opponents? Switching it so he was the first to draw some of the time would have been better design.
This part of the article is most likely intended as a funny anecdote, not as an accurate description of a scientific experiment. Rest assured that Niels freaking Bohr would have thought of that.
Re: The gunfighter's dilemma
#8[deleted]
Re: The gunfighter's dilemma
#9There are existing studies which show that people react faster when startled than when not. There's a nifty little online test to check your own response times: http://www.mathsisfun.com/games/reaction-time.html As far as I know this is the first test to show that startle response extends beyond reaction time, it's an interesting piece of data. It's worth noting that it's possible to force yourself into a state of mi…
That game is very telling. Try it at "arms length", then again with your face right up to the screen. See if you don't do much better when the dot fills more of your visual range. Speculation: a startle reflex depends upon the magnitude of the nervous signal, which is larger when more retinal cells fire.
Re: The gunfighter's dilemma
#10I could see this being the case, but it's got to be very narrow timing, and it probably only applies for the same type of action. A friend and I used to do a drill with his Glock 9mm. (After ensuring the gun was unloaded) one of us would point the pistol right at the other's head. The pointee would initiate action by grabbing the gun and the pointer would try to pull the trigger. It was impossible to pull the trigger in time, action was always faster than reaction in this case. We did it many times over, both of us with the gun. Semi-automatic handguns will not fire when you keep the slide from moving, which is what happens when you grab the whole barrel like this, though I don't think I'd be willing to try the maneuver in real life.