(button in upper right corner) Settings> (left menu under My Account) General Settings > in Thread Display Options > Number of Posts to Show Per Page: 40
That would require the internal smiling styles actually have an aggregate of pre-fights and fights, which I don't see happening any time soon.
Originally Posted by W. Rabbit
Yes, I know that some internal stylists compete in sanshou.
Originally Posted by ChenPengFi
Last edited by itwasntme; 6/11/2013 3:44pm at .
I know this is very anti-epic compared to Selena Gomez and the silly smiling study.
But it is sooo right, right now.
The Anvil similes, the Hammer metaphors.
I have noticed that people tend to smile during a fight mostly after getting hit. My analysis was that it was a show of toughness and bravado, and so while not necessarily indicative of mental weakness or "submissiveness", it tended to be displayed more by losing fighters. Counterpoint: Wandy.
Originally Posted by Permalost
Well, now this jumped the shark, didn't it?
So, I just read the study ( http://www.krauslab.com/UFC.Emotion.inpress.pdf ) and it seems to me that there are some things that are problematic:
1. the dataset includes just 152 pictures, which is a too small series of measurements to research a correlation between two highly complex (to the point of chaotic), dynamic systems such as facial expression and fighting.
2. Consequently, there was no sound statistical analysis of the data (p-value and correlation tests, anyone?).
Edit: to prevent misunderstandings - some p-values are given at page 18/19 and 12ff, but not about the correlation smiling/winning after clearing for chances and mismatches.
3. They used values such as the odds, body-heigt and previous fight-records for the calculation; odds are hardly an exact value of fighting-prowess at a given time (at least by scientific standards), fight-records do not say much about the current state of fitness.
4. They analyzed pictures, not videos, which would be more useful since there should be a whole range of facial expressions in a matter of seconds in a staredown (including "micro-expressions", which generally are much harder to fake).
So, it seems that if their data turns out correct (points 1 and 2 nonewithstanding), it would only show a correlation between the conscious (4.) roles the underdog and the favorite fighter are playing at the staredown. The correlation to the winning-percentage existing only because the underdog is more likely to loose.
Furthermore, if the correlation could be proven, the question remains if the implied causality (psychological domincane->better chances) should better be reversed (better chances -> psychological dominance).
Last edited by nils; 6/12/2013 5:53am at .
I've been told not to smile when hit, because that's another form of acknowledgement that their hit affected you, which you don't want to do.
Originally Posted by Wing-Kwan-Fu
Unless you start the fight grinning all the time like a lunatic. In that case, not smiling would indicate a change in your demeanor.
Originally Posted by Permalost
Really folks, you are doing far more of it, than it obviously is.
What I like on that study is the authors to take the staredown into attention, what IMO is a fairly ritualised setting. So there are some chances for significant results. Propably not within this tiny study/article, but that's fine with me. The idea is nice, there is not so much on that topic everyday, at least not in comparrison with marketing, consumer study, gender, etc.
Of course there are shallow points in that study. Frankly you may find some in nearly every study.
Sure, numbers are not that high, at least they had enough to use percentage.
The study is not the last call? Seriously, what have you expected? Pilosopher's Stone? RLY?
They call it science, thats why the repeat it, all over and again. Science very well mean: Try, fail, try again, fail better.
Working it out yourself is intended.
The only strong point I worry on that study is the lack of a winning system for sportsbook. But I understand, whoever finds that won't publish it. So I am fine with that. RLY, one f..ing study and some shitty title and so much fuzz about it...
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO