Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
p4wn3r wrote:
You are saying that you can see one post and use psychology. That's not how it works, because statistics doesn't work for a sample of one.
Statistics don't work for explaining anything at all, because correlation does not indicate causation.
If you thought psychology is about statistics, then you don't understand psychology.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
p4wn3r wrote:
You are essentially stating that the podcast from Scott Adams you linked to allows one to understand the psychology of the poster better than the poster himself, which is quite an extraordinary ability that Scott Adams appears to have.
One of the things he discussed was taking a statement from someone else and restating it to expand it into an absurd absolute.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Zeupar wrote:
No, readers can't judge it for themselves because they can't read your mind. They don't know which of the many absurd posts in this forum you remember, so they can't compare them to know if those posts you mentioned are actually within "the most absurd [you] have ever seen on this site" or you are simply being unnecessarily hyperbolic, which has been my point all along.
I mean what I said.
Zeupar wrote:
Now I wonder if what you think he meant by that quoted line goes in line with your public interpretation of it.
People are often unaware of their subconscious biases. I doubt he was aware he was performing mind reading, but it's clearly the case from the post itself. Please see everything I wrote in this thread about psychology and the links I provided to understand this topic better.
What I think he meant by his post is thoughts on multiple levels. Unconscious, subconscious, fully conscious. I'm giving a public interpretation of just the mindreading aspect thereby showing there is a problem with the line of thought discussed in that post in general. Obviously there's other levels, and I'm not going to go into them.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Zeupar wrote:
Nach wrote:
Judging from some of the posts explaining their no votes with some of the most absurd comments I have ever seen on this site, presented in what appears to be an honest reaction to your video
Considering the many comments you have read during your almost 15 years here, this is a highly bold claim, so you need to back it up with extraordinary proof if you want to be taken seriously. Since you decided to leave that part out, could you at least specify which posts are you referring to and what makes them so absurd?
I don't need to back it up, as the reader can judge for themselves if it's true or not. My goal isn't to make you to take it seriously, but for HappyLee to consider it.
I'm not going to point out which posts I found absurd, as that would hurt people's feeling and raise tensions, which we don't need. If you need help finding these, watch this to build up your toolkit: http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/05/26/episode-81-how-to-spot-cognitive-dissonance/Zeupar wrote:
Nach wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
As it stands, your run is sitting at 81% positive response. That's nothing to be upset about; its a fantastic positive response (and in my opinion not low enough for a judge to consider dropping the run to a lower tier than the current publication). You're only complaining because it's not MORE positive and closer to what some of your previous runs have attained. While it makes sense to base one's expectations on what previous submissions have attained, those results on previous runs don't guarantee ANYTHING about a current/future submission.
The bolded section is what I'm going to refer to as "mindreading".
Your post as a whole shows that you're not taking into account the psychology of what is going on (not that you should be expected to, few people are students of psychology). However, in general, you shouldn't jump to conclusions, and your mindreading is probably at least partially based on a lack of empathy with what HappyLee is feeling.
Your implication that he is jumping to conclusions is "mindreading" and jumping to conclusions in itself.
Nice try.
Telling somebody what they're thinking is "mindreading". He showed he was mind reading by saying "You're only complaining because". When you find an obvious cognitive dysfunction, you can point it out clearly, that's not "mindreading" at this point, he himself admitted it.
You'll note I avoided applying "mindreading" to him when I wrote "is probably at least partially based", this non-firm remark states I have no idea, I'm just guessing here, thereby not "mindreading".
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I see the guy from Spain is clearly not biased at all
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
As it stands, your run is sitting at 81% positive response. That's nothing to be upset about; its a fantastic positive response (and in my opinion not low enough for a judge to consider dropping the run to a lower tier than the current publication). You're only complaining because it's not MORE positive and closer to what some of your previous runs have attained. While it makes sense to base one's expectations on what previous submissions have attained, those results on previous runs don't guarantee ANYTHING about a current/future submission.
The bolded section is what I'm going to refer to as "mindreading".
Your post as a whole shows that you're not taking into account the psychology of what is going on (not that you should be expected to, few people are students of psychology). However, in general, you shouldn't jump to conclusions, and your mindreading is probably at least partially based on a lack of empathy with what HappyLee is feeling.
Let me share with you a personal experience.
When I was in school, I was an exceptionally good student. I got perfect scores on every kind of test (unless I was absent a few days and ended up with a test on material I wasn't there for). I got perfect scores on my graded homework. I won every school competition I was in. I won practically every award they had for everything. My report cards were straight As, aside from penmanship. My teachers wrote glowing reviews, aside from comments like "Nach doesn't smile enough".
So in college, I'm continuing my streak, and in one programming course where they graded the homeworks, I was getting a 100 on each. Suddenly one week, I got a 99.5 on homework. I was absolutely bewildered. What did I do to lose half a point? Half a point? How does one lose half a point? What kind of messed up grading system is this?
I tracked down which grader marked that particular homework, and showed it to him and asked him why he decided to take off half a point? How could my responses on my homework been better? He responded that he didn't like how in one area I used one technique, and in another area which was similar, I used a different technique, and I should be consistent in my work. I asked him if he actually knew the difference between the two techniques and when one should be preferred over the other (which is why I used one in one case, and the other method for the other). He told me he wasn't actually sure of the difference, and thereby demonstrated I knew more about the material than he did, and was grading me on. I explained to him the difference and why I used each, and he refused to fix my grade because he wasn't familiar with anything I was talking about. I went absolutely ballistic, I was super upset for days afterwords.
I wasn't upset because I got a 99.5, it's a fantastic positive response, nothing to be upset about. It wasn't because it was less than I got previously. I was upset because I tried my best as I always do for things I care about, and this guy who doesn't even understand the material as well as I do was taking off half a point for bogus reasons. He made it seem like I didn't try my hardest, which I know is absolutely not true. His suggestion for improving it (consistency), would actually worsen the quality of what I was doing, as it meant using suboptimal solutions for bogus reasons. By his own admission, he would have awarded a perfect score to each area if he had seen them in isolation.
I'm not going to mindread HappyLee here, but I suspect his reason for being upset is closer to my reason for being upset about that 99.5 than the reason you're suggesting.
Oh and in case you're wondering, the 99.5 thing no longer bothers me. I've since grown up and come to better understand how humans work, and realize that undeserved scores on a single homework are nothing to get worked up about, even though I'm still not enthusiastic about that particular grader's style.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
HappyLee wrote:
What if we use an open-source emulator, minus graphics and sound and all unnecessary process? Could anyone tell me how much it would be slower than MrWint's approach (simulation)?
Ironically, MrWint's approach actually uses less simulation.
Any emulator you use must simulate the hardware of the NES, which will automatically add considerable overhead. MrWint's approach ports the key aspects of the game that he knows about to a computer language and runs more natively on the system than a simulated NES. This is a tremendous savings onto itself.
If MrWint would add to his software graphics and sound processing, along with a few other missing pieces, you'd actually have a fairly faithful port of SMB to your computer.
Essentially, MrWint's approach removes all the emulator overhead, plus unnecessary overhead the game has in order to make it presentable to a human and fun to play. However, that graphics, sound and other unnecessary stuff you point out still outweighs the overhead added by just being an emulator in the first place.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
HappyLee wrote:
but what's even more disappointing is that many people refused to admit there is a problem and tried to justify the voting result
Let me assume you're correct for the sake of this discussion, and there is a problem people are refusing to admit, they may not be aware of it. People often make decisions without being consciously aware of why they made a decision. It's clear by the way people have responded and the raw attitude in their posts that at the moment they are angry with you. This anger may subconsciously influence how they view anything they know you made.
Judging from some of the posts explaining their no votes with some of the most absurd comments I have ever seen on this site, presented in what appears to be an honest reaction to your video, I'm fairly certain several people are trying to rationalize their decision (psychology) without being aware of the bias they're applying.
If I am correct about this, those people are incapable of admitting there is a problem, they aren't able to see it.
HappyLee wrote:
while blaming me for all what's happened.
This is also commonly a known psychological outcome of what I just described.
HappyLee wrote:
This could make my run look as if it deserves so many negative votes, and make me look crazy instead of the victim of an unfair voting result.
You're right!
In order to deal with this, please try to understand what happened. The more you understand the psychology of what's going on, the less it will bother you.
However, I don't think "unfair" is the right word to describe the result. Since the result is based on non-perfect humans voting, given the situation, this would be the outcome, as you cannot divorce all the viewers from their numerous feelings.
Now your run probably does not deserve as many negative votes as it got, but that's how people are viewing it at the moment. If you went over to the people who voted no, gave them a hug, and told them "no hard feelings, let's be friends", I'd bet some of them would subconsciously suddenly like your video more than they did the first time around.
This is life, understand it, and it becomes more enjoyable.
HappyLee wrote:
an administrator or a judge reminding people to vote rationally and based on the movie. I don't think such solution would offend anyone, and would definitely prevent the situation from getting worse.
But people don't vote rationally! Please try to understand the psychology I described above.
While I don't mind telling people to please vote rationally and on the movie itself, it's unlikely it will change anything. People coming up with some really absurd justifications for disliking it shows they aren't even aware of how irrational they're being.
HappyLee wrote:
I'm disappointed this time, and even somewhat regretted submitting our run here.
Please don't regret submitting, most of us like you! Even the ones who are angry with you probably will like you once again too after they calm down.
HappyLee wrote:
neither does our hard work.
I'd bet you that some people didn't even realize you had a co-author on the movie, nor how much he contributed. If some of them realized they're penalizing him too, I bet they wouldn't have voted as they did.
HappyLee wrote:
as long as they are fair and rational
Humans aren't fair and rational!!!
HappyLee wrote:
But this time, having to argue over a run that shouldn't be controversial at all really upsets me.
Please understand they are upset to for their own reasons. If you can work with others to make them less upset, the run would suddenly become less controversial, even though the run itself is not at fault.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Zeupar wrote:
Nach wrote:
The problem here is that some people are not voting on the run at all, they're voting on what they liked or disliked about what you had to say regarding SMB and TASing in the past couple of weeks.
How is that the problem when you are the judge and are aware of that, which means that it will have no impact in your decision?
You're taking that quote out of context. I am perfectly aware of what's going on, I'm ignoring the poll itself, and I can judge the nature of the various posts whether they pertain to the run or not, and whether they make sense or not.
"The problem here" is a response to the prior post by the author about how he should view the negativity on a personal level, and some advice how to reconcile with others.
Zeupar wrote:
I think the real problem here is that criticism properly backed up wasn't accepted by one author, so people started to complain about it, derailing the topic as a result.
That's a one sided view of what happened. The only correct understanding of the "real problem" involves seeing all the sides.
Zeupar wrote:
Submission polls have been quite successful for years at their goal of gauging people's interest for runs, especially in recent times, with the many submissions that get less than three posters giving feedback. I can't believe that a single author's refusal to accept a minority of no votes properly explained led to the questioning of submission polls as a whole, which are factually useful and a necessary feature.
This didn't lead to it. It's happened a number of times. Even one of the people who responded in the thread with a simple "I agree" is someone who intentionally goes around voting the opposite of others in every poll just to make a point about how useless the poll is. Someone else did something similar some years back, although got really nasty about it and was banned.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
HappyLee wrote:
I think maybe under circumstances like this, some administrator should come up and say something like: "People, place your votes seriously, and don't let your feelings take over the facts" (except I can't express it well).
We've said stuff like this more than ones, but it doesn't change anything.
Really, don't pay such close attention to the votes. If you have people writing to you how they feel, that's what you should be looking at.
HappyLee wrote:
I'm just not happy with so many people not voting seriously in this particular case.
Don't make assumptions whether they're being serious or not. A rule courtesy of Scott Adams: "Humans decide first, then rationalize their irrational choices with cherry-picked data. You see this all the time with the people who disagree with your brilliance. Just remember that they see the same irrationality in you that you see in them."
The problem here is that some people are not voting on the run at all, they're voting on what they liked or disliked about what you had to say regarding SMB and TASing in the past couple of weeks. They'll even make up excuses why they voted the way they did instead of just outright saying "I'm angry at you because I don't like what you've written recently, and penalizing all your SMB submissions because of it." (yet in their own minds not necessarily see it as an excuse, they may 100% believe they don't like the run)
I recommend trying to understand why they're upset (even though it may be irrational), and working to make them less upset. Also don't take the negativity you see about your run so seriously, not everyone is being objective at the moment.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Scepheo wrote:
Nach wrote:
You know those polls where they ask you 1 to 5 if you agree or disagree? I generally fill out nearly all such questions as 1 or 5. For most of the questions of that nature, I don't see the in between, at least not the way the question is phrased. To reiterate, I'm not wishy-washy.
"I have exactly zero nuanced opinions" != "I am not wishy-washy"
I have many nuances opinions, but they're not being asked for.
The question we have asks: "Did you find this movie entertaining?". It doesn't ask: "To what extend did you find this movie entertaining?" or something of that nature.
I pick 1 or 5 on the 1 to 5 polls often because the question is phrased in a way where I don't see any option in between. Questions like "Would you ever eat a potato?"
If the question isn't asking for nuance, making believe it exists is wishy washy and not approaching life with a firm attitude.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
In your example, couldn't you also go through all 276663 and prune the ones that contain any of the 6 letters not specified? I think that may end up being a much faster approach.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
I mean, it was okay I suppose in some regards, but had I known exactly in advance what I was in for, I would have preferred to see something else, and this is not because I don’t like the game or care about it, it’s just the movie was quite ”meh”.
This description is what I think of when I think wishy-washy.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Scepheo wrote:
Sure, you could mentally rate everything 1-10, and then decide that everything below 5 is a "no", and everything else a "yes".
That's actually what I do.
Scepheo wrote:
But considering that "meh" means "so-so", is commonly used as "average" and is literally counted as half a "yes" vote, it's perfectly reasonable to say that some range around the middle constitutes a "meh" vote.
To me, "meh = I'm not sure".
Scepheo wrote:
That's not being wishy-washy or not knowing whether you found it entertaining: you can be perfectly decided on the entertainment being average.
Except that's not the question that's asked.
You know those polls where they ask you 1 to 5 if you agree or disagree? I generally fill out nearly all such questions as 1 or 5. For most of the questions of that nature, I don't see the in between, at least not the way the question is phrased. To reiterate, I'm not wishy-washy.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I would like to say that I've never intentionally1 voted "meh", as I'm not a wishy washy person. I know if I found something entertaining or not. I agree with pirate_sephiroth that one needs to approach everything in life with firmness and not mediocrity.
As to why we still have a voting system, as I wrote originally: "As a rule judges completely ignore the votes if there's a robust discussion."
Sometimes submissions don't have much of a discussion. In those cases I need insight into what people are thinking.
Sometimes people vote without saying anything, I've even done that myself on occasion as I've felt other people in the thread mentioned anything I was thinking and I did not feel the need to be redundant.
Even when there is discussion, when I browse submissions, I sometimes decide whether I want to watch or claim a run for judging based on how many votes I see were cast, as well as the direction they were leaning.
So I won't say voting is useless. Just that for the judgement itself, a robust discussion supersedes them.
------------------------------
#1 - It's possible I've pressed the button by mistake at some point without realizing it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I'm not sure what to make of the ending of this run.
How do you guys feel about how it was completed? The players getting game over?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Memory wrote:
Keep in mind that every year, new people enter TASing, with their own ideas on entertainment. It is very much possible for these people to not like this run's entertainment methods.
It also possible the same person that liked it back then was not entertained by segments which were played similarly because they've seen it already and want something different.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
HappyLee wrote:
So all I say is this: I didn't have to be so hard on myself when making this run and spend so much effort trying to bring this run into a new level of SMB TASing, just to have my work degraded by some people here. I could have done this the easy way, without having to worry about how to deal with every jump, every fireball, every detail, every new and exciting ways of killing enemies, new ways to show more glitches of this game, or where to slow down for entertainment. If people here can't appreciate it, why should I bother submitting my work on TASVideos at the highest standard possible? I could care less.
I certainly appreciate it!
Also bear in mind not everyone here has the capacity to understand entertainment. Some of our members suffer from various issues preventing them from even noticing anything other than raw numbers. However, the focus shouldn't be just for them, they get their numbers either way. For those of us who can appreciate things beyond numbers really enjoy what you're doing. Keep up the good work!
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
The problem is, there's no such emulator yet.
MAME cannot do it?
Also, maybe we should consider VirtualBox-RR.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
slamo wrote:
is it bad that I can type that from memory now?
Back in the 90s, I could tell you the entire contents of all my various config.sys and autoexec.bat, and write them from scratch. (I had several to optimize various usage scenerios.)
DrD2k9 wrote:
I noticed during boot-up a note of CPU clock speed at 25mhz in that Quake video...is there a way to adjust the CPU clock speed settings in MAME?
EDIT: CPUs from the era when Quake was released were easily 100mhz+ and up to 300-400mhz by the next year.
It's not all about MHz.
Different CPUs have different features and different operations per clock performance.
From the little I saw, this is emulating a 4x86 system. That's marvelous if it does that well with an AMI BIOS and everything, but you'll need something more recent for the newer games.
Quake is specifically designed to take advantage of a CPU pipeline which can perform integer and floating point operations simultaneously. It was also built with the Pentium Pro / Pentium II operations and mechanics in mind.
If MAME is really supplying a faithful 4x86 lacking all the newer features, you might need to ramp that up to 600MHz or more just to match a Pentium II 266 MHz when the software in question is capable of using the newer stuff.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Does it matter? It wasn't brought them, it was mentioned as an aside now. It doesn't make a difference to how this run is handled.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
As a rule judges completely ignore the votes if there's a robust discussion.
For this submission, I really don't care what the votes say. I'm only going to be reading the posts, and those that seem valid (appears the poster actually watched the run etc...) I'll pay attention to. The rest are discarded.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
HappyLee wrote:
So why do I bother trying to make an entertaining run?
Don't expect to win everyone over. The best you can hope for is the majority of viewers.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
