Gunslinger Effect | Hacker News Reader

Gunslinger Effect

en.wikipedia.org

138 pointsCharlesW44 comments

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.

so like Goku's Ultra Instinct, but IRL

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.

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.

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.

a professional drummer (full-kit) told me something very similar; the topic came up many times since we both did tutoring

As someone who plays the classical guitar as a hobby, automation through repetition is key to clean execution.

Especially with techniques like tremolo and rasqueado.

Have you read Unfettered Mind? Interesting intersection between martial arts and zen which touches on precisely this conditioning and state of being. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfettered_Mind

Not yet, but now I will.

just train leg locks

Only works until I run into the next guy that trains leg locks, then I'm back to drilling.

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.

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...

"Faster? Faster was his mistake" ~ Little Bill https://youtu.be/jRi_u4GbfIw

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.

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.

I'd imagine the stimulus requires some weighted response in order to trigger for fastest response time which seems rational to assume that requires a biased selection criteria. Given it was a fairly constant trigger such as a clock tick tock, it would seem like it would either not work or generate perpetual anxiety; not mutually exclusive and more likely to include other cons.

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.

Mister, I deal in lead…

- "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?

Are you arguing that it is rational to presume a conflict?

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

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.

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.

Quite a shock to see Niels Bohr staring at me from that page. He's a towering figure in atomic theory.

I'm used to seeing the picture of him as a younger man.

I guess nobody ever told Bob Munden about this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSd8V-kb6Ro

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.

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.

I hate CSGO and Valorant because my instincts when I'm getting shot at is to duck for cover (I was raised on Quake and similar). And CSGO magically pins you in place taking away any momentum you might have and preventing you from getting any.

The Three Methods to Forestall the Enemy
* The first is to forestall him by attacking. This is called Ken No Sen (to set him up).
* Another method is to forestall him as he attacks. This is called Tai No Sen (to wait for the initiative).
* The other method is when you and the enemy attack together. This is called Tai Tai No Sen (to accompany him and forestall him).

There are no methods of taking the lead other than these three. Because you can win quickly by taking the lead, it is one of the most important things in strategy. There are several things involved in taking the lead. You must make the best of the situation, see through the enemy's spirit so that you grasp his strategy and defeat him. It is impossible to write about this in detail.

-- From The Book of Five Rings (Go Rin No Sho) by Miyamoto Musashi (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi)

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.

> 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.

> 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…

At first I was skeptical, then I thought "wait, this was done by a physicist, so it must be reproducible".

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?

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]”

There are various references listed under the linked article, including "more than some mock experiment".

I'd say it is not wrong. Similarly related is Unfettered Mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfettered_Mind

Agreed, i don't quite fully buy it either (see my quote from The Book of Five Rings in another comment).

The way i understood this is that it is simply Tai Tai No Sen from the above book. You sense your opponent's movement and immediately start your reaction but move very fast to forestall him. It is very difficult to do and not always possible.

The person who shoots accurately, first, wins. Drawing quickly is only one component of that goal.

Deterrence once again!

Bohr was an observant observer.

Does a wave function collapses faster, when the measurement is not intentional?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com