Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[noload]

Hick's Law was not junk science, it was a somewhat simple test to see how long it takes someone to make a choice based upon the number of options presented. What Tony is guilty of is either not reading the actual Hick's study and results, or using science he doesn't understand. He also makes the stupid mistake of saying Hick's Law is exponential when it is logarithmic, big, big difference.

Here's a synopsis of Hick's experiment. How Tony or Siddle got what they practice from it is beyond me. Complete study by Steven C. Seow

4.1. Hick (1952) Original Experiments
Hick was probably the first to apply Information Theory to psychological problems (Hick, 1953). He used 10 pea lamps arranged in an irregular circle formation and connected them to a device that was (punch-tape) coded to light one random lamp every 5 sec (Hick, 1951). The response manipulandum was a set of 10 corresponding Morse keys, one for each of the participant’s fingers. The participant’s task was to depress the correct key for a lighting of a particular lamp. Both stimulus presentation and response were recorded in binary code by moving paper. (An author’s impression of Hick’s apparatus is provided in Appendix B to appreciate the psychophysical instruments used by experimental psychologists of his days.)
The goal of the first experiment was to determine the empirical relation-ship between choice reaction time and stimulus information content (entropy). Serving as the sole participant, Hick performed the task using a range
of 2 to 10 alternative stimuli, and imposed upon himself to attain errorless responses. His results, based on over 2,400 responses, are shown in Figure 4.

In Experiment II, Hick first trained his participant on a task with 10 alternatives. The participant then continued to perform the task in three phases. The participant was initially encouraged to perform as fast as possible, then he was instructed to perform as accurately as possible, and finally he was instructed to perform as fast as possible again in the last phase. The eight data points (circles)
located at the top right quadrant in Figure 5 represents the data that were produced during the training. The data points marked as diamonds represent reaction times(RTs) of the trials when the participant was encouraged to be fast. Recall that Experiment II employed 10 stimuli, not a range of stimulus set sizes. As such, the abscissa represents a second dependent value expressed as any positive real number called the equivalent degree of choice, ne.This is calculated by taking the participant’s errors into consideration(Equation3) such that“if there were no mistakes it would mean that all the information was being extracted, and ne would be 10” (Hick, 1952, p. 15). Hick called the ne “the antilogarithm of the information gained” (p. 16), because he calculated the alternatives from the
information gained, instead of using the alternatives to compute the entropy. As such, we can infer then that the first data point on the left (diamond) in Figure 6
would represent a trial in which many response errors occurred,which resulted in a low quantity of information transmitted. In this case, it is calculated to be
“worth” a little over 1 bit or equivalent to a little above 2 choices.(Hick reported that error rates were as high as 70%.)
Results of Experiment II showed that even when a participant was instructed to perform rapidly and to make “as many errors as he liked” (p. 16),
the function of these data points superpose the function established in Experiment I with “errorless” data points. This demonstrated that the RT was a logarithmic function of average information transmitted, HT, regardless of whether HT was the residual entropy of the stimuli after equivocation (Hy

• >0) in Experiment II or the maximal entropy available from varying number of alternatives without equivocation (Hy
• = 0) in Experiment I.

To ensure that the performance of his participant was not due to learning of a specific set of stimuli, Hick conducted Experiment III with a new set of stimuli. Results show that the mean RT of the new set of stimuli fell along the previous empirical logarithmic function (Figure 5, triangles), which suggested that the effects of learning were negligible in the experiment.

[Mesmeriser]

ive been checking some of his youtube movies and the stuff actually looks pretty cool(to me anyway)   but maybe im just glad to look at things thats very scenario based, has dedicated attack scenarios , relatively simple movements, mindset development  etc etc

The S.P.E.A.R. is a limiting thing, not an emancipating thing. It is limited and yet those who have bought into it feel they must make it the answer to everything

what exactly is the spear, if i read this right he wants to force this forearm thing into everything he does?
ive only seen some 5 min action movies and some of him talking i never took that out of it, all i gather is that its based on a panic responce and it looks practical.
obviously if he tries to build everything he creates around the forearm its stupid(as seen with the gun thing that gun grip really was morronic and very much stretching it and i dont even know anything about gun tactics), its building a big ass box trying to desperately make things fit,

but the basic cources looked good to me. if those are a sham to id be very interested in hearing the reasons (edit, him not having any realworld experience isnt exactly a plus, but still at least hes a longtime martial artist, if theres merit to  his work)

I keep hearing about this hicks law i never heard about before i came on here.
It makes sense though at least to me that one sound option (esp if based on a flinch responce) is better then 4000 diff tech especially if they require fine motor skills.
but if it means limiting people to only 1 answer to everything then it its obviously(at least to me) a dumb application of this law. you should never take away freedom and choices it makes people force something where it shouldnt be, but sometimes to many options creates paralysis im no professional but to me its common sense, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

anyway i dont have any affiliation with this guy i just think its great i found a place where people seem to actually know hat their talking about and can  build a case for their opinions, learning lots here

[noload]

The problem with Hick's Law isn't Hicks Law itself but trying to use it in the way Blauer does. There's also a lot more modern studies (better tests & better testing equipment) that go into how people mentally and physically react to different stimuli and stress. Most of these (ignored?) studies make Hicks a minor observation that has nothing to do with the subject matter. Which is how does someone react to aggression.
In other words, I wouldn't worry much about Hicks in regards to combat.

[Canuk]

If Hicks law had any aplliction it was to the untrained person who was not familiar with any type of response and then had to choose one. It has no application at all to a person that has been trained or is familiar with the choices. which of course leads to teh question of "when is a person trained" which leads to "how many reps" which leads to "how often" etc etc. I would have more respect for Tony if he adjusted his science for the 21 century

[noload]

Not really, as Hicks' test was incredibly simple. See light, press button (Morse code key). Being trained or untrained really didn't have anything to do with his study.

Training has more to do with Yerkes-Dodson, which had it's own issues... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1906714/figure/F2/

[JimH]

The concept of the Blauer SPEAR is that it is an ACTUAL RESPONSE.
That it realates to the Flinch,to a surprise attack.
The truth is it does not.
In a true Flinch /Startle Reflex,one covers up,backs up and or ducks AWAY.
The Blauer SPEAR is NOT a Natural Reflex to surprise it is a TRAINED Movement/Response /Action to surprise.
For the Blauer SPEAR to work One Must TRAIN to instantly recognize the Danger,arms up and jut them out forming the Wedge/SPEAR and we must ENTER the contact not Duck,cover and Move Away.

In the Late 60's,early 70's,I was taught a TRAINED response to a Haymaker,(whether empty hand or with a weapon in hand),arm on same side as incoming limb shoots out at angle to Block/Strike and stop the limb from making contact .while also,(Simultaneously) delivering an angled arm attack/strike to the attackers neck.
Very Similar KARATE response to the SPEAR and about 15 to 20 years before the Blauer SPEAR.,hey but it did not have the Mumbo Jumbo so called science attached ,lol.

Also in regards to Hicks Law:
Hicks Law was based on a computers time to respond/answer questions based on the amount of data that was input.
More data longer time to get response.
That was on a computer in 1952.
If we ran the same tests today would we come up with the same response data of time of response versus the amount of Data searched ?
No
Computers today are faster.

We like to equate the Brain to the computer ,in a way it is similar but the body is able to process and respond with minimum data input,as it has been learning and adjusting since birth.
We as Humans store information,the most used ,or in this case the most trained response will be the one we do almost instinctively,the training that is further from the time of use is recallable but is less likely to be done physically almost as instinct.

If I live in NY and the winters have snow and ice and I learn to drive in it,then I move to Virginia and have little need for the ability to drive in the snow and or Ice,what happens in a few years when I find myself in a sudden snow/ice storm ?
Can I expect to just jump in the car and think I KNOW how  and will be able to actually drive in this weather after this time?
No
If I assume I will instantly remember and be ABLE to do the PHYSICAL Task I will probably be in for a quick awakening.

Now my brain as the computer will probably INSTANTLY recall how to drive in those conditions but it has not been a Physically performed task in a while so mind to muscle memory has to be reestablished.
It will not take as long as to learn the task initially.

Like they say about riding a bike.
We remember how,we just have readjust to the body functions required to maintain balance.

It is not a matter of remembering,it is a matter of the physical,Mind / muscle connection being employed.

All scientific jargon used to try and validate a point.
(Great when first heard or written about and when thought of found to be lacking in relation to human performance)
Even after proven wrong for human performance these people still claim it is valid.

[Canuk]

The startle reflex that Tony relies on was also based on audio input, not visual input

[noload]

Also in regards to Hicks Law:
Hicks Law was based on a computers time to respond/answer questions based on the amount of data that was input.
More data longer time to get response.
That was on a computer in 1952.
If we ran the same tests today would we come up with the same response data of time of response versus the amount of Data searched ?
No
Computers today are faster.

Sorry Jim, but Hick's study had to do with humans, not computers. See the description of his experiment a few posts back. It's about human reaction time.

Another "problem" with his experiment is the quality of choices before the test subject, they're all of equal value. Humans don't usually apply equal weighting to the choices before them, but rather weight them based on some criteria (blue vs red: I like blue better, Chinese Food vs Italian: I had Chinese last night so I'll go Italian).

Even if we don't like Hick's Law or if it's outdated, we should at least fully understand it. I'm a computer design geek and have read a lot of the original studies for this kind of thing and the rebuttals.

If I live in NY and the winters have snow and ice and I learn to drive in it,then I move to Virginia and have little need for the ability to drive in the snow and or Ice,what happens in a few years when I find myself in a sudden snow/ice storm ?
Can I expect to just jump in the car and think I KNOW how  and will be able to actually drive in this weather after this time?
No
If I assume I will instantly remember and be ABLE to do the PHYSICAL Task I will probably be in for a quick awakening.

As a former New Yawker and now Virginian we had that very situation happen this winter. All of my old driving in snow and ice skills came back without a hitch.

[noload]

One more thing, even in user interface design Hicks is incredibly a minor thing. If it wasn't for Tony and his followers there wouldn't even be a need to spend time explaining it or rebutting it.

[hessian1]

 Hey guys,

      I guess it's time to re-introduce Hock's great article on Hick's Law:

http://www.hockscqc.com/articles/hickslaw.htm


and while we're at it since this is a Blauer discussion:

http://www.hockscqc.com/articles/startle-reflex/startle-reflex.htm


Keep safe and train hard/smart,    Mark H
     

[Mesmeriser]

right.. lots of interesting stuff here i understand it all a bit better now.

i guess me not being an old skool guy i''d never buy into those limiting believes anyway
 more choices makes harder processing time period. mathmetical accuracy? a bit of an over generalisation isnt it, the human brain and body  isnt a computer ( even though people like that methafore) theres alot more going on.
Been reading the hock article did they seriously only teach 1 move for everything? that just seems incredibly dumb. ive heard kiss before in various seminars (none ma)on various topics but it was always used as dont overcomplicate, simple is usually most profound, never in the retarded manner ala your brain is slow and dumb totally uncomplicated  and doesnt have multiple neural tracks and complicated inner workings so you can only have 1 answer for everything  having more would slow you down considerably, muscle memory and repetition dont have anything to do with anything either apparently. i almost cant believe people bought into that and massivel spread it.

And i never actually tought the spear thing would be an actual natural responce thats just stupid, just seemed like it was an easy learnable one, compared to alot of complicated and mostly useless blocks ive learned in traditional ma classes when i was younger, im fairly new to the reality systems..
that hicks law how people apply it to learning ma as i read it in hocks article just seems really stupid, it seems like  an oldskool idea that apparently spread like wildfire for that  generation of combative training (certainly never came up in  mine)

interesting conversation

[JimH]

I have written on here and other sites for a good few years that Hicks Law is based on a computer program,1952, operations time in response to the amount of data available.

Hock has also made reference to this in his blog:
http://www.hockscqc.com/articles/hickslaw.htm
"The actual Hick's idea was based on a computer study, a paper written in 1952 and simply set up an equation that states it takes time to decide between options. Just for the record, the equation is TR+a+b{Log2 (N)}. A computer performance study? Do you think that 1950 computers ran a bit slow? The 1950 idea was then extrapolated into human performance, based on very primitive, 1950 push-button tests. The lab method had the testee selecting from several buttons on sudden command. From this, the mythology of the slow decision-making brain developed. "

Hicks used an out dated concept to test Humans BASED on the interpretation of computer operations .

If Hicks law of time response to given input  causes reaction time to double with each added input then how do we drive cars?
The input to drive a car is gas,brake,speed,steering,then we throw in other vehicles and they are moving,crossing lanes all around us,yet we make split second decisions doing that task daily,we will not even add in ,listening to the radio,talking on a phone, talking toothers in the car,eating,texting,reading,applying make up and what ever else is being done in the car as we drive along at 55 MPH.

Hicks Law is Monkey business
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ravykEih1rE

[whitewolf]

Hey JimH- it looks like the monkey is really a human with a monkey suit on- is it?
 - WW

[Mesmeriser]

If Hicks law of time response to given input  causes reaction time to double with each added input then how do we drive cars?
The input to drive a car is gas,brake,speed,steering,then we throw in other vehicles and they are moving,crossing lanes all around us,yet we make split second decisions doing that task daily,we will not even add in ,listening to the radio,talking on a phone, talking toothers in the car,eating,texting,reading,applying make up and what ever else is being done in the car as we drive along at 55 MPH.

exactly
because we have an unconscious/subconscious mind.  and the human brain is alot more complicated then a computer.
i still cant believe people actually installed this unto the classes they trained, talking about limting believes and putting your students in confining mental boxes.
i was amazed when i read that hock  article hock wrote explaining this hick law applied to fighting.
  to me it sounded  as dumb as medievil drilling a hole in mans head to let the devil out.
I really wonder, how did people ever ever buy into this? it just doesnt make sense in anyway when you think of all the other things a person can do like driving cars split second descionmaking in the heat of the moment , multi tasking etc

[noload]

Not to be picky but I think TR+a+b{Log2 (N) is a corruption of Fitts Law, (MT = a + b log2(2A/W)), which is about human movement where Hicks is about decision making. Fitts is often lumped in with Hicks.

Sorry to be pesky about this but if we're going to say that something is incorrect we should at least make sure we're using correct info in our rebuttals. Please double check my work as I could always be wrong.