this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
357 points (97.6% liked)

Greentext

5961 readers
1275 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 65 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Fire quicker than your opponent is the essence of the duel. There's no way to "fire early" because they are watching for you to reach for your gun.

Although I always found the genre contrived. If they were an actual threat, you'd shoot them in their sleep.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 57 points 1 day ago

You’re entirely correct. Showdowns are a trope of westerns, anyway. If I remember correctly, there’s only historical evidence of one in the old west.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There’s no way to “fire early” because they are watching for you to reach for your gun.

The 'conventional' wisdom is to wait for the other duelist to reach for their gun because reflex is faster than conscious action.

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Well it's not. Not even close. Action beats reaction every time.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Still, while participants moved faster when reacting than initiating, reactors only rarely beat initiators. The extra milliseconds it took volunteers to respond to the movements of their opponents greatly offset any benefit the reactive advantage granted.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world -5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

"Rarely" is not "never", reaction is faster than conscious action by the study's conclusions (just not fast enough to offset acting first), and, furthermore, in an actual shooting situation, the important thing is not to actually be the second to draw, but to provoke your own reaction regardless of whether the signal you react to (ie an errant twitch of the opponent's fingers) is genuine or a false alarm.

[–] couch1potato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Bunch of armchair duelists in here lol

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

You didn't have to draw on me like that

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Yes rarely means not never but are you going to risk your life on something that rarely works?

but to provoke your own reaction

Which means like the study showed, you should make the decision and then do it first. Because their reflex being faster will rarely make up for the lost time of you consciously deciding to shoot first.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 0 points 1 day ago

But like... You can just trigger your reaction yourself. It's like when you sit there trying to learn to wiggle your ears or shake your eyes... You just have to try flexing muscles you don't have in the right area until you get it right

I guess I've never really talked to anyone about it, but you can program your own reactions. Then you can tell your body to do it - not move, but tell your body to do the sequence.

I have an airsoft gun I use to practice it sometimes even, holding it at my side I tell my body to pick one of a few cans, snap it up and fire. I look down the sights, but not consciously - i get a flash frame of the view down the sights, but I've already heard the hit before i can process it

It's like when a martial artist breaks a board - they line it up and run through the motion, but sometimes they pause for whatever amount of time... You don't move your arm, you execute a punch, and not even you know exactly when you're going to move

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] feannag@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

But I'll see what I can do.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Maybe the poster thought there was a countdown. Not this one though, so you're absolutely right.

It works better when both gunners care about innocents. Imagine the ranger couldn't find hits hideout, a big enough place it wasn't easy, and Texas red didn't wanna shoot up the place he was living.

The ranger might get a message saying a time and place, so they can meet without causing a bunch of damage or risking innocents.

Of course, the moustache-twirling sort of villains wouldn't work with that at all. Just can't trust them. But there's plenty of room for this to make sense sometimes.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

These were the "good old days" when fighting had rules. National armies would literally line up facing each other in uniforms with literal X-marks-the-spot targets.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago

National armies would literally line up facing each other in uniforms with literal X-marks-the-spot targets.

The reason for armies meeting up like that, and in bright colors, is to avoid friendly fire, not because of honor or anything like that. When you have a bunch of peasants dragged from their homes and shove a musket in their hands, anything more complex than "Holy shit, holy fucking shit, do NOT shoot or stab the guys in BRIGHT RED, only those in BRIGHT BLUE" tends to get lost in the chaos of battle.