Science Indicates Why Bad Cowboys Lose Duels

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
Science Indicates Why Bad Cowboys Lose Duels



There may be a scientific explanation for why the good cowboy will always defeat the bad cowboy in a duel.

We've all seen it a million times: a good cowboy is forced into a duel with a bad cowboy, the bad cowboy draws first, and the good cowboy's reaction is so quick that he defeats the bad cowboy anyway. Then, the bad cowboy's henchmen aiming at the good cowboy from the roof are taken out by the townspeople, which doesn't have anything to do with this story, but should be mentioned anyway. Henchmen aside, scientists have discovered that there could be an evolutionary reason for the survival of the good cowboy, other than movie magic or a well placed firebox door in the case of Back to the Future III.

Physicist Niels Bohr allegedly once performed his own experiment involving this situation using toy pistols, and he won every duel against a fellow physicist despite always drawing second. Experimental psychologist Andrew Welchman of the UK's University of Bristol wanted to bring this experiment into the 21st century to see if there was any truth to it, and to find out if it could reveal something about the human mind.

His experiment didn't have any subjects aiming pistols at each other, sadly, but instead had them competing to push three buttons on a console in a specific order. Those who reacted to the first movements of their competitors moved around 9% faster then those who initiated the exchange, though the reacting subjects' movements tended to be less accurate.

Welchman believes: "It would be sensible for the brain to have a reactive system that went a bit faster than a system based on decisions or intentions." An inaccurate, but quick response system may have evolved in the human brain for when survival is at risk, where making an error is less important than having some kind of reaction at all. However, in the case of the cowboys we're talking about, expertise in the ways of the gun could reduce margin of error.

The study is not over-inflating the results found, as the scientists involved know that they are not incredibly significant. Still, a 9% quicker reaction time can easily be the difference between a win and a loss in many situations. I know that when I play Halo, I'll often surprise someone only to get embarrassingly owned despite beginning to empty my clip first. Now, we know one reason why this may occur. Either that, or I just suck at Halo.

(Via: Slashdot [http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/02/04/1915253/Why-the-First-Cowboy-To-Draw-Always-Gets-Shot])


Permalink
 

tkioz

Fussy Fiddler
May 7, 2009
2,301
0
0
Makes sense, pretty interesting to see a real study done on it though. Reaction and Action are different functions in the brain, the military has be drilling that into people for years "act, don't react" because reacting in that case could mean a dead terrorist, or it could mean a dead kid carrying the garbage out of his house.
 

The DSM

New member
Apr 18, 2009
2,066
0
0
Ermm....Dont they have something more important to work discover?

Still waiting for Mass Effect technology guys....
 

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
3,051
0
0
"Now, we know one reason why this may occur. Either that, or I just suck at Halo."
How about lag and/or host advantage?
 

Plurralbles

New member
Jan 12, 2010
4,611
0
0
I've shotgunned so many people lunging with the energy sword in halo... I think it's probably very true.

And going around corners and knicking teh knifer...

Wow, I never would have thought about it as a thing that was historically significant.
 

domicius

New member
Apr 2, 2008
212
0
0
The final fight scene in Unforgiven is an effective demonstration of the principle. In general "keep your cool and act properly" works.

In Halo, too, situational awareness and experience trump "I started shooting first" 9 times out of 10. I've been on both sides of this, and the truth is... experience counts.
 

Table Chair

New member
Jul 8, 2009
50
0
0
When I first read the title I thought "It's cause bad cowboys aren't good shooters." Took me a while to work out it meant bad guys, and not bad shooters.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
MurderousToaster said:
So, if I'm a good cowboy, I can always beat the bad guy? This has been proven by Science?

Yee-haw!
hehe, Scientific proof the gooy guys always win!!!
 

Tony Harrison

New member
Jan 28, 2008
72
0
0
Well, don't get carried away.

?You?d still be the one who gets shot, but you?d at least die satisfied that you were faster,? said Andrew Welchman
 

AceDiamond

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,293
0
0
The DSM said:
Ermm....Dont they have something more important to work discover?

Still waiting for Mass Effect technology guys....
Which will be useless in terms of having biotics if we don't understand the mind.
 

thebackupfreak

New member
Jan 25, 2010
40
0
0
I think professor Gamow was dissapointed that he always got shot too. Of course, being a theoretical physicist, he didn't ragequit, he just stopped observing Bohr to make his wave function collapse.
 

SeanTheSheep

New member
Jun 23, 2009
10,508
0
0
I can see how this works, and it makes sense, but the illogical irrational part of my mind is asking "Why can't the first to draw move as quickly as the second?"
But I'll just shut it up, because it's an idiot that liked the abomination that had menace and phantom in it's name.
I feel dirty just having said that.
 

Byers

New member
Nov 21, 2008
229
0
0
According to Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday was the quickest shot he'd ever seen, but he also had a highly inaccurate aim, once drawing his gun and hitting an innocent bystander in the foot instead of the person he was aiming for.

In either case, it seems likely that drawing faster will reduce accuracy, but this still sounds like a plausible theory.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Heh.

This reminds me of the games of Call of Duty I played against a friend of mine.

He brushed it off by claiming it was because the computer I was playing on was slower, and couldn't render smoke as well (both computers were his, so if that's true, it's his own fault. XD)

But in any event, the amount of times he caught me unaware, only for me to rapidly turn around and head-shot him was a little freaky.

He opened fire first, yet I was the one that came out if it alive...
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
He opened fire first, yet I was the one that came out if it alive...
If gaming has taught me anything, its that if you kill your attacker his bullet will disappear before it hits you causing no damage.
 

duchaked

New member
Dec 25, 2008
4,451
0
0
"Now, we know one reason why this may occur. Either that, or I just suck at Halo."

haha it's true, and quite embarrassing when you catch someone by surprise...from behind...and they still kill you
and if I'm tired, man my reaction time is so slow and I just play terribly...even more evident with CoD when I'm too tired to focus
 

AWAR

New member
Nov 15, 2009
1,911
0
0
Godamn ye science, ye ruin everything!

Ok it makes sense but cowboy duels are folklore myths, they dont happen as often as in western films.