Not really.

You'd be going a N+5s, and you see the most likely outcomes. At N+t, with t being the smallest possible time lag between comprehension and reaction, you recalculate, and see the possible outcomes at N+t+5s. Over and over and over. You'd overload.

The human brain evolved to live in N-, due to that lag between sensing and reaction. Humans live in the past, literally. The future can't be accurately seen, and the present is an illusion.

And now I'm going to go take some aspirin. Ben, you made my brain hurt.

"Experience shows that if the young bucks are used to unload fragile materials they will damage a certain percentage. So when ordering it pays to order a few extra."

Overall, it would probably be cheaper to hire older people with a halfway decent work ethic.

Sue

Interesting subject.

I notice that some people are more intuitive than others, and they pick up patterns that lead them to anticipate events. Other people seem to be constantly unaware, and are always caught off guard. While I would not say that it could not be learned to some degree, I'm inclined to say that this intuition is innate. People who pick up on things are getting better at it because they're always doing it. People who rarely do so will get better at a much slower rate.

I can think of quite a few instances in my life where I had a strong sense that something was going to happen before it did. At the time, I could not tell you how I knew what I did, but the thought was still very clear. Looking back, I can identify clues that I must have picked up on that even without realizing it, I was able to piece together a predictable outcome. It's like my subconscious got it, even though my conscious mind didn't realize until afterward.

We are constantly discerning inputs from our environment. Somehow we have to decide which of our sensory inputs deserve our attention and which does not. Sometimes it's something obvious like a threatening sound, or seeing something moving toward us. Other times, it's more subtle, like a pattern that changed somewhat, and gave us a clue that something was up. It's these subtle inputs, and the way we process them, that seems so mysterious.

Majority older crews can often get more done by planning, tight cooperation and a superior knowledge of the job. But in a lot of cases there is a certain amount of grunt work that benefits from youthful strength, enthusiasm and endurance.

Generally the best crews are a mix.

When the allies were planning D-Day they purposely made sure the vast majority of the troops were young and had no previous combat experience. These are the guys who can be convinced that that it is entirely possible, even noble and heroic, to charge uphill across an open beach into a well entrenched enemy force.

Combat veterans and older men are far less enthusiastic about such propositions.

But to this inexperienced majority they added a leavening of older, experienced veterans. The guys who could pick up the pieces, organize and lead.

The young troops were there because they didn't know any better. The older troops went along because they knew that the young guys were babes in the wood and would need guidance once their illusions about war had been dashed.

It is a fair model for our crews.