Fighting with Science

I like to fight with Arust.

And by fight, I don’t mean the physical brawling kind (he’s an elf, what chance would he have) but the argument kind. Disagreeing with Arust is a delightful thing because we both believe in science, which settles all disagreements with either facts or logical, evidence-supported theories.

For example, when we were discussing the best MM talent build, I disagreed with a talent that Arust left out. Next time he was over at my place we talked about its relative merits with me taking the stance that it was better than any alternative, and him taking the stance that it sucked. We quickly determined what the best alternative talents were, how to measure the effects of each (via theorycrafting) and then what would be an effective way to test it in game.

We then each conducted the test under the same conditions, compared results, and agreed on which was best. Because science told us so. It didn’t matter what our original positions were, because we could use logic to determine which answer was right.

What a wonderful way to solve a disagreement!

If you think this is a valid way of settling a disagreement, you are by far in the minority of the world. For most people arguments are made emotionally, not with logic, reason, and rational thought. In fact, studies show that most people determine their conclusion first, and then find a reason to support their conclusion afterward. It’s the whole deceptive allure of “gut feeling” or instinct. I promise you that evolution did not select for instinct of highest dps talents. For most people, winning the argument is more important than actually being right.

I sometimes brush on this point with my non-WoW playing Roomate, who refers to me as a robot with no emotions. A common conversation will go something like this:

Roomate: “…and then she walked out of the theater and missed the show she had spent $150 to see.”

Frost: “That makes no sense. She made herself miserable and she ended up missing the show. That was stupid.”

Roomate: “You wouldn’t understand, honey. It has to do with feelings.”

Frost: “It was still illogical.”

Roomate: “Well most people have these things called emotions, and they can’t control what they feel.”

Frost: “Sure, you can’t control what you feel. But you can control what you do. You aren’t an idiot for feeling sad, but you sure as hell are an idiot if you smash up your $5k fancy vase because you’re sad. Do you see the difference?”

Roomate: (patting Frost’s arm gently, understandingly) “You’d understand if you had emotions.”

But the thing is, I really don’t understand. I don’t understand why someone would do something patently against their self interest just because they were angry, or sad, or happy, or anything. I don’t understand why someone would stick to an argument for which they have no supporting evidence (other than gut feeling) and ignore reason despite every bit of evidence you can muster.

A good WoW example of this is the pervasive rumor that there is a Hunter crit cap at 35%, or 42%, or 45%. It isn’t true, there’s no evidence for it, there’s tons of evidence against it (some of which I posted in the Crit Cap Guide) and yet people still want to argue. They suggest that the testing methodology that got a 96% crit chance might just be an exception, and the cap still exists in other scenarios – even though they have no evidence whatsoever that a crit cap exists. They just heard it someplace and won’t let it go.

Anyhow, I digress.

The point is that, elf or no, if Arust takes a stance he probably has science to back him up. And if science turns against his stance, then he is capable of acknowledging facts and changing his stance. After all, winning the argument is not important. The facts are important. Because facts and science are what lead us to the top of the dps meters