Uploaded January 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 hours ago
The other day I saw a bad reddit post that got me thinking about something that's happened time and time again over the years in discussions about aim, which is how the aesthetic of science is used without actually engaging with any of the principles of science.
0:00 - Intro
1:35 - "A scientific analysis of FPS Aiming"
2:10 - The first blatant lie
3:16 - "The neuroscience foundation of aiming"
4:01 - How we should flick & the 'flaw' in microcorrections
4:52 - The optimal accuracy for clicking tasks
5:49 - did u know u have a cerebellum........
6:09 - Flick consciousness
7:12 - It isn't a 200 millisecond delay
8:06 - The purpose of microadjustments
9:18 - The problem with "hit confirmations"
10:41 - The missing rationalisation
11:48 - Why do I care?
12:53 - I am not anti science, this is just not science
13:46 - This has happened before
16:20 - How understanding the "why" helps you learn
The other day I saw a bad reddit post that got me thinking about something that's happened time and time again over the years in discussions about aim, which is how the aesthetic of science is used without actually engaging with any of the principles of science.
0:00 - Intro
1:35 - "A scientific analysis of FPS Aiming"
2:10 - The first blatant lie
3:16 - "The neuroscience foundation of aiming"
4:01 - How we should flick & the 'flaw' in microcorrections
4:52 - The optimal accuracy for clicking tasks
5:49 - did u know u have a cerebellum........
6:09 - Flick consciousness
7:12 - It isn't a 200 millisecond delay
8:06 - The purpose of microadjustments
9:18 - The problem with "hit confirmations"
10:41 - The missing rationalisation
11:48 - Why do I care?
12:53 - I am not anti science, this is just not science
13:46 - This has happened before
16:20 - How understanding the "why" helps you learn
