3 ms·

This could have a completely rational explanation: If you find yourself overmatched, then it pays to take risks. If I found myself playing golf against Tiger W

by idoh 17y ago

This could have a completely rational explanation: If you find yourself overmatched, then it pays to take risks. If I found myself playing golf against Tiger Woods, I'd try higher risk / higher reward shots, because if I stick to my typical game I'm surely going to lose. This would make my score worse on average, but who cares about that when once in a while the bet pays off and I win?

redorb 17y ago
in your example I might care because it would pay off 1: 1million that you beat tiger. I would rather play a decent game with tiger and would hope to shoot my best.
tudorachim 17y ago
That does make sense, but the article is saying that people screwed up because they overthought their current strategies and played worse than normally, not because they overcorrected in the other direction and took more risks.
- idoh 17y ago
  The only facts quoted in the article are: Tiger woods in dominant, and "[w]hen the superstar entered a tournament, every other golfer took, on average, 0.8 more strokes. This effect was even more pronounced when Woods was playing well." Based solely on the above they draw their conclusions. I'm just pointing out that there is a simpler and more rational conclusion one could draw.
Dove 17y ago
Indeed. This part constitutes the science: "When the superstar entered a tournament, every other golfer took, on average, 0.8 more strokes." The rest is speculation.
- neilc 17y ago
  In fact, even that phrasing is slightly misleading, because it suggests causality -- I suspect the evidence only supports correlation. The article is a particularly idiotic example of uninformed speculation passing for science journalism.
roundsquare 17y ago
That makes some sense, but not quite. In golf, there are prizes for getting 2nd, 3rd, etc... So if you knew Woods was going to destroy you, you would still play your best game and try to get 2nd place. Now, for the people who might get 2nd, 3rd, and maybe a few more top spots, they might want to try to best Woods. But people who have no chance would still play their regular game (if your theory is correct). So I'd be interested to see if the drop in score correlated at all with the average score across previous games.

by idoh 17y ago

redorb 17y ago

in your example I might care because it would pay off 1: 1million that you beat tiger. I would rather play a decent game with tiger and would hope to shoot my best.

tudorachim 17y ago

That does make sense, but the article is saying that people screwed up because they overthought their current strategies and played worse than normally, not because they overcorrected in the other direction and took more risks.

idoh 17y ago
The only facts quoted in the article are: Tiger woods in dominant, and "[w]hen the superstar entered a tournament, every other golfer took, on average, 0.8 more strokes. This effect was even more pronounced when Woods was playing well." Based solely on the above they draw their conclusions. I'm just pointing out that there is a simpler and more rational conclusion one could draw.

Dove 17y ago

Indeed. This part constitutes the science: "When the superstar entered a tournament, every other golfer took, on average, 0.8 more strokes." The rest is speculation.

neilc 17y ago
In fact, even that phrasing is slightly misleading, because it suggests causality -- I suspect the evidence only supports correlation. The article is a particularly idiotic example of uninformed speculation passing for science journalism.

roundsquare 17y ago

That makes some sense, but not quite. In golf, there are prizes for getting 2nd, 3rd, etc... So if you knew Woods was going to destroy you, you would still play your best game and try to get 2nd place. Now, for the people who might get 2nd, 3rd, and maybe a few more top spots, they might want to try to best Woods. But people who have no chance would still play their regular game (if your theory is correct). So I'd be interested to see if the drop in score correlated at all with the average score across previous games.