Quote:
|
I think this is definitely where people are getting caught up. There is not a clearly standardized unit for measuring emotions.
|
A couple of things: first I want to point out that I don't believe that tilt fundamentally has anything to do with emotions (though it does correlate with strong emotions): it seems to be primarily about the discrepancy between the actual value you got (measured in $) and what your value would have been had you been playing as optimally as possible. I think Isura is thinking along the right lines in terms of ways to quantify that discrepancy. There are still counterfactual problems involved in predicting what the other players' responses would have been to the distanced, reflected upon play recommendations.
There seems to be a strong bias towards quantitative measurement being the only 'good' type of measurement. You're right that there is no standardized unit for measuring human emotions or motivations. Similarly, there is no standardized unit for measuring poetry. Nevertheless, there is a clear difference between good and bad poetry (at the very least, it's easy to tell what is terrible poetry).
I would assert that the response to this is not necessarily to search for quantification, but perhaps to find better qualification methods.
To use an analog to the Beaufort wind scale, check out the
Bristol Stool scale:
Disgusting though it may be, the measures in that scale are not quantified, but very useful. I think that it is probably a similarly useful task to try and categorize and describe the various types of tilt and how they manifest. Then you could come up with some sets of diagnostic questions to determine the type of tilt you had and how bad it was.
Thoughts?
Linear Mode
