Replies

"We placed pairs of participants in competition with each other to make a series of button presses. Within-subject analysis of movement times revealed a 10 per cent benefit for ****reactive**** actions. This was maintained when opponents performed dissimilar actions, and when participants competed against a computer, suggesting that the effect is not related to facilitation produced by action observation. Rather, faster ballistic movements may be a general property of ****reactive**** motor control, potentially providing a useful means of promoting survival." In other words, it suggests the exact opposite of Lewinski's claims. That's because it was done by a team of real scientists.

DID YOU READ YOU IGNORANT FOOL? Welchman found that those initiating the action almost always beat the one reacting in the gunfight.

Dr Welchman explained that it took around 200 milliseconds to respond to what an opponent was doing, so, in a gunfight, the 21 millisecond reactionary advantage would be unlikely to save you. WHICH IS THE POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING FROM THE BEGINNING, and which is the exact same point that Lewinski makes time and time again.

You just utterly destroyed everything that you've been rambling about in this thread, "PW."

"So what does this mean for Western gunslingers? Is it always better to draw second? Well, not quite. Welchman also found that the 21 millisecond benefit of reacting quickly was totally overwhelmed by the 200 milliseconds it took to react in the first place. Despite their faster movements, the reactors very rarely beat the initiators. If Greedo hadn't been such a bad shot, Hans would have died (not counting the subsequent editing)."

Apparently "PW" has trouble realizing that the Tueller drill was based on the initial reaction time problem, one that Dr. Welchman confirmed. Let's see if "PW" is honest enough to admit that he has been beat.

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/why_does_the_gunslinger_who_draws_first_always_get_shot.php

"In Western films, the gunslinger that draws first always gets shot. This seems like a standard Hollywood trope but it diverted the attention of no less a scientist that Niels Bohr, one of history's greatest physicists. Taking time off from solving the structure of the atom, Bohr suggested that it takes more time to initiate a movement than to react to the same movement. Perversely, the second gunslinger wins because they're responding to their opponent's draw.

Now, Andrew Welchman from the University of Birmingham has found that there's something to Bohr's explanation. People do indeed have a "reactive advantage", where they execute a movement about 10% more quickly if they're reacting to an opponent."

As previously noted, literacy is apparently not your strong suit.

Apparently literacy isn't "PW's" strong point. "Dr Welchman explained that it took around 200 milliseconds to respond to what an opponent was doing so, in a gunfight, the 21 millisecond reactionary advantage would be unlikely to save you." The entire point of the Tueller drill is that one can't react to an opponent's initial action in time to effectuate a response if the distance is too close. This is the same thing that Dr. Lewinski found. Now that "PW" has been caught, he's grasping at straws and trying to reinterpret what Dr. Welchman found.