Hmmm, “… people who do poorly are more likely to do better the next time …” [2:46] Really? In a world where an event is reduced to your “ability” combined with a set of “chance events nobody can predict”, like flipping a coin, each iteration is an isolated event. Ergo, you are neither more nor less “likely to do better the next time”. For each event there is the same probability that you may or may not do better or worse than your “average”, irrespective of what the previous result was. And your “average” is only able to be determined after you have conducted X iterations, so you would not know the probability of doing better or worse on your next event until you gain enough data to be able to make a statistically significant claim about the ‘average’. And even then you may not have discovered your real ‘ability average’ it may be that you were measuring a set of outliers all along, and that you must repeat X more iterations before you can discover your actual ‘average ability’ and therefore the probability of doing better or worse against your average on the next iteration. Your true ‘average ability’ could be far worse that you realise or far better. But it could be that the “chance events nobody can predict” that are required for you to do ‘your best’ will never occur for you, and so, unluckily, you would never discover your true ‘average ability’. Or by that stage, maybe would you simply accept the conditions under which you have been performing iterations of the event as being as good as it gets and consider yourself lucky.
2 Likes
