Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1minatur t1_iz3tm7y wrote

Reply to comment by MufuckinTurtleBear in [OC] 3x3 Rubik's Cube Solve Times vs. Blood Alcohol Content by Willr0wH00d

Single solve times have a lot of random variance, that could just be a random cube pattern that allowed him to skip several steps when solving. The average dips slightly at that point, but not below the beginning average

−1

MufuckinTurtleBear t1_iz3tzfb wrote

Yes, which is why

> This gives *some* evidence for the Ballmer Peak (but not a lot).

Slight dip on the average. One exceptionally quick game. Not conclusive supporting evidence. Some evidence

2

doobieman420 t1_iz4olej wrote

No, it gives no evidence. Not “not a lot of evidence”. Zero evidence. The “dip” (I wouldn’t call it that) you refer to is two, maybe 3, consecutive data points below the average. Would you call three consecutive coin flips coming up tails evidence of a biased coin? You also need to consider streakiness, warm-up time, all that good stuff. You aren’t as smart as you think you are. You completely misinterpreted that poor persons reply about the ballmer curve!

1

Sahih t1_iz5b003 wrote

To me, evidence of a 'Ballmer peak' would be any evidence of high performance. If this was the only study, which for the comments it is, I would say this leads to an idea that the 'Ballmer peak' is on average slightly lower skill level at the point, but a larger standard deviation of skill level, leading to occasional brilliance while consistent performance is slightly worse than at 0.

I haven't looked up what the actual 'hypothesis' of the Ballmer peak is, but this shows that some elements of high performance could exist and that kind of thing leads to rumors, plus fun experimentation.

1