- Dec 4, 2009
- 14,108
- 19,303
- Moderator
- #1
So here is why I am not a fan of comparative scoring.
Your working memory can only hold 5-9 objects. That means instance of things that you can remember is limited to 9. That isn't teams, that is objects. Stunting might be an object. But stunting sequence individual pieces and falls might be 2-3 objects spent on one team. If you are judging a team you could 'spend' 4-5 objects on just one team. When you are just comparing 2 teams this works well. You can accurately judge, to a point, those two teams and compare all those objects. But once you move onto the third team you could be talking about 15 objects. You are now having to work from notes and your short term memory. The most accurate memory you have is your working memory. Short term will be less accurate and subject to embellishment. This can be up or down in terms of what happened and how you felt about the routine. If you had a positive feeling the scores would be higher and negative feeling the scores would be lower. And this is only after THREE TEAMS. Now we add in the recency effect and the primacy effect. Recency means whatever were the last few teams you have watched will effect how the next team is scored. If you follow three bad performances you will get scored higher than you would have otherwise. Three good, lower than you would have otherwise. That doesn't mean you will score high or lower, it means your score will have a bump up or down depending. So where you go in a lineup has a huge factor on your scoring. Who you go after will pretty much determine what type of score your routine will get. And the more teams in your division the less accurate your score can be. For fun I spent an hour talking with a psychology major on why this is a bad set of scoring. She pretty much said it was awful.
Your working memory can only hold 5-9 objects. That means instance of things that you can remember is limited to 9. That isn't teams, that is objects. Stunting might be an object. But stunting sequence individual pieces and falls might be 2-3 objects spent on one team. If you are judging a team you could 'spend' 4-5 objects on just one team. When you are just comparing 2 teams this works well. You can accurately judge, to a point, those two teams and compare all those objects. But once you move onto the third team you could be talking about 15 objects. You are now having to work from notes and your short term memory. The most accurate memory you have is your working memory. Short term will be less accurate and subject to embellishment. This can be up or down in terms of what happened and how you felt about the routine. If you had a positive feeling the scores would be higher and negative feeling the scores would be lower. And this is only after THREE TEAMS. Now we add in the recency effect and the primacy effect. Recency means whatever were the last few teams you have watched will effect how the next team is scored. If you follow three bad performances you will get scored higher than you would have otherwise. Three good, lower than you would have otherwise. That doesn't mean you will score high or lower, it means your score will have a bump up or down depending. So where you go in a lineup has a huge factor on your scoring. Who you go after will pretty much determine what type of score your routine will get. And the more teams in your division the less accurate your score can be. For fun I spent an hour talking with a psychology major on why this is a bad set of scoring. She pretty much said it was awful.
. 
