The mental effects of color?

Kuzja1·Jun 26, 2015·2 votes·562 views

So Game Theory has released a video about the effects and advantages between the colors red and blue. It's all based on the mentality of the player of how they see the colors. Like how red represents aggressiveness which gives the mental advantage to especially the fps players like Halo, Call of Duty, or Team Fortress 2.

Go ahead and take a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X31K6jammH0

So. . . based on the information about this theory. . . does the color of your champion and their skin affects the way you think? How does it affect mentally you?

8 Comments

StratJun 26, 20152 votes

I do tend to play more aggressively with Guardian of the Sands Kha'zix than I do with Mecha Kha'zix.

Also, I use f.lux (software that tints the screen orange after sundown) and I tend to play better when it's on than when it's off, but that could just be due to the time of day (I always work better in the night time than in the day time).

This is all anecdotal, of course, but I'm sure there's some truth to it all since there have been scientific journal articles that suggest that different colours make us behave differently.

Pew Pew LasersJun 26, 20151 votes

I could be pink for all I care. I'll still kill ya all the same.

Add note; 54/46 ratio is within margin of error for a 50/50 odds in probability. Considering you could just as easily have been 100/0 or 0/100 because what might happen can happen.

StratJun 26, 20151 votes

54/46 ratio is within margin of error for a 50/50 odds in probability

Maybe if you only take 300-400 samples but this was over the course of >1300 games. Also, it was 54.9%, not 54%. If you're going to round it, round up to 55%. In truth there's no reason to round it up or down, you only rounded down to support your shitty argument.

It's statistically extremely unlikely for such a difference to randomly occur. As in, it's possible for it to be out by up to 2.5-3%, but beyond that the chances of being randomly above 53% or below 47% is less than 5%. To be out by 4.9% randomly, well, I can't bother doing the math manually but I'm pretty sure the chances of that happening is <1 or 2%.

Pew Pew LasersJun 26, 20151 votes

Flip a coin 100 times. Count how many times it lands heads and tails bet it wont be 50/50. Now do it again, and then again. Now multiply that a thousand times. The more samples the more it can deviate.

You're also basing your 50/50 probability on something that is random. People are never predictable, skill is never even, no matter how 'close' you claim they are. People have good days and bad days. Walk around a corner and get a shotgun to the face one game, mow people down another. There is so much that can influence a game, you could be utterly behind, a t-bag sets you off and you make a stellar comeback. I've done it more than a few times, fueled by the pure rage of being mocked for how bad the game has gone.

Where samples taken again of the exact same teams in a second match immediately after where the colors where flipped? No, then your samples are biased, and your results are worthless.

StratJun 26, 20151 votes

Flip a coin 100 times

Except the coin has been flipped 1300 times here.

Now do it again, and then again. Now multiply that a thousand times. The more samples the more it can deviate.

I have nothing to say to this except that you need to take some basic statistics courses. These concepts are literally things you learn in the first weeks. In a random sample, deviation from the average tends to decrease the more samples you take.

Put simply, more often than not you'll be closer to 50/50 than you are further away from it. Some groups of 100 flips will be 49/51. As you do more groups of 100 flips, it's true you're more likely to get a 55/45 or more. It's also true that you're more likely to happen upon a perfect 50/50 result. Average the squared differences and you'll find that the more "groups" of 100 flips you take, the closer the average deviation is to 0.

Where samples taken again of the exact same teams in a second match immediately after where the colors where flipped? No, then your samples are biased, and your results are worthless.

Wow, the first valid point you've made in this entire argument. Yep, I can agree here, the bias introduced from this does invalidate the results. But this was never part of your initial argument, which was about 50/50 probabilities. I can agree that the results are invalid, but so was your initial argument.