one reason why this is true is because the generally accepted model for ''how to analyse poker hands'' is beyond useless versus semi-competent opposition. what is good ''first-order'' (what is probably the best move in this spot given all possible histories/circumstances) advice for bruiser at 5/10nl may be terrible "first-order" advice for someone else. this is a problem of ''levels of description''. more on this another time.

right, and this relates to just about everything so it's worth commenting on. there is an introversion-extroversion spectrum. where you fall along it is the answer to general questions like, ''how likely are you to be introverted or extroverted at any given point in time?" that's similar to (since we're on a poker forum) "how likely are you to 3bet at any given point in time?" as anyone who has played poker and been successful knows, of those who 3bet 6-10% there is a tremendous amount of variation in when they are likely to 3bet. in the aggregate it comes out as 6-10% for the entire group of players, but when you analyse each individual's play more closely the % chance they 3bet can be anywhere from 0% to 100% depending on history and circumstance. the aggregate description of 6-10% provides some information but not as much as we'd like (it can and does mislead). similarly, knowing that someone is introverted ''in the aggregate'' does not give us very much information about their ''meta-motivational'' system. they may be more likely to be introverted after reading all day, or they may be less likely to be introverted after reading all day. just knowing they're introverted doesnt answer tell us (where they fall along the spectrum will give us a probability distribution for the answer but that information is not worth much).

I suppose I stand corrected. Looks like I have some reading to do. Sweet.

If someone 3bets 85% of the time, I'd say that alone is relevant information, and certainly there's a meaningful distinction between those who 3bet 5% of the time and those who 3bet 85% of the time. The metrics used to identify introverts classify most people (75% to 80%) as significantly "extroverted," so I think it's relevant when introverts are over-represented. Particularly in a field such as business where social skills are relevant, and particularly given that the traits associated with introversion tend to cluster together. Also, scores among those in the high IQ ranges show very low extroversion, which is the opposite of the general population.

Yes, different people exhibit these tendencies in different ways, but the general bias toward introverted traits means something. Maybe it means that the typical strategy of extroversion is not optimal.

not true. i see this all the time on the NLHE forum where people say "need more history, need more reads!!" but this is just a cop out. vanveen there are few people who i disagree with so thoroughly as you. have you considered that you use such dense hard to understand language you trick people into complimenting your ideas?

Wow, if this is true.

http://nerd.surpriseimo.tv

Just to add some thoughts, what VV has written earlier about many top level poker players finding success through a kind of intuitive, reactionary method ,does, from my own playing experience, hold value (until it becomes sloppy and devoid of rational thought) in my eyes.

Secondly, to tie in the social interaction part of this discussion, (from this misfits perspective), after an enjoyable day of reading It may be EXTREMELY difficult to channel extrovertive(word?u get it) desire into something of lasting value. For instance, yesterday I could only find an outlet in pretending to walk with purpose for an hour and a half, crippled to try anything which will lead me closer to achieving a seemingly perpetually elusive 'meta-goal'. eg, domain specific competencies, meeting women, making friends and influencing people in a positive rewarding way(which would loop back and reward my self in return).

yes, i also enjoy writing in an esoteric fashion.
Did you know Einstein prefered the company of women? sigh! twang of guilt there.. (writing soothes though, like many things that require effort)

Meh. Its like a lock it up for why Bruiser gets uber mad h8 h8 h8 in these threads.

have you considered that your hate for vanveen is simply lashing out to compensate for your inability to understand what he says?

it is mind-blowing to me that you would find what he says so objectionable. you can disagree with some of his claims but the degree to which you protest suggests something more, and it comes across as insecurity.

Insecurity about what?

about your inability to understand his arguments.

this argument is perverse. we are trying to communicate with each other and exchange ideas. so if i cant understand his arguments why isn't that a strong argument against him?

because if you read through this thread you will find that others here have been able to understand what he is saying while having trouble figuring out what points you are trying to make. so when you complain about how not being able to understand him should be a strike against him it doesn't really come off that way (to me at least, i can't speak for anyone else).

he does not make simple arguments but he is a pretty good communicator. try harder.

Really? You're obviously a smart man, bruiser. Why don't you take any pride in becoming better educated?

But you seem to be the minority in this department.

if most people who try to understand my arguments succeed in understand my arguments then i am an effective communicator. i do not have the time or energy to explain myself so thoroughly as to ensure that everyone who might want to understand my arguments will understand my arguments. i have (many) better things to do with my time. with that said, sometimes clarifying for those who complain that my writing is too dense helps me understand what i'm saying better. if nothing else the process of clarifying expands the range of sublanguages i can translate my understanding into, and that often yields unexpected payoffs later on (it is a ''general skill''; see elsewhere).

what do you mean it is just a cop out, bruiser? if history influences our opponent's strategy (it does), and if our opponent's strategy is an important variable in our decision-making algorithm (it is), then history matters. thanks for playing.

thanks for playing? you demolish my arguments in just one sentence so i shouldn't bother arguing with you?

I thought you didn't have any arguments cause you can't understand what he wrote?

no i understand most of his arguments despite his convulted rambling and i think they are uninteresting, nitpicking, and often flat out wrong. i was saying "okay let's pretend i don't understand them, are you sure that is a great argument?"

Beat it, Bruiser

this thread definitely got really interesting...

real fast...

Because I think it's pretty obvious that someone spending a large amount of time posting long, nerdy posts on an internet discussion forum is obviously much more likely to be lacking social grace out in the real world simply on that basis alone. and yes, I think the extremely intelligent individuals are less likely to be very socially adjusted simply due to the nature of their overly analytical minds. yes some will take the time to get it straightened out but more often than not the people who are the most social are the ones who simply place a priority on going out with friends, partying, hanging out, and socializing instead of posting on the internet.

the most social of guys in high school/college that you meet are actually going out and socializing, partying, drinking, and talking to girls. Very intelligent people tend to have more interest in spending a lot of their time on things that cultivate their intellect, rather than socializing all the time since they have interest in more sophisticated endeavors... which is certainly warranted but also makes them less likely to be as socially competent. someone being extremely social and good with women having some secret obsession with debating on an internet message board for long hours is pretty rare to say the least.

good post boobies4me

Why do you believe that having an analytical mind makes you less likely to be socially adjusted?

There is actually no good reason to believe that other than as a way to make yourself feel better. You view having a analytical mind as a positive quality and so it compensates for lacking another quality -- being social. It allows you to remain smug by implying that people who are social are also stupid so it is actually a good thing that you are not one of them.


Why are the two mutually exclusive? I agree that someone who spends 50-60 hours playing MUDs or WoW is likely lacking in social skills. I manage to find time to go out every day and still participate on 2P2. Sometimes I actually do both at the same time. I think you are confusing living online with participating in a online forum. Given that we all share an activity that requires that we be online for a substantial amount of time I find it strange that you'd assume that also automatically means all of us must be nerds.

Again with the fake smugness. People who are actually intelligent can do both and still have time to spare. The people who lack social skills are not spending every waking hour pursuing grand intellectual activities. Your reasoning has very little to do with reality and seems mostly to be just a coping mechanism.