That wasn't "wrong again" -- you just agreed with me (and ChicagoRJ, for that matter). This is not a software application where it runs on a device -- a computer -- that follows instructions precisely, based on choices that the human operator makes.
And we're getting a little pedantic here with the analogies. We're talking about how an inexact machine -- the human body -- can "perceive" a pool shot properly and execute it. Perception is the key operative word here -- everyone perceives things differently based on strengths he/she has, such as 3D spacial perception, imagination, lines/edges, what-have-you. Everyone is different in this regard.
Just because you think CTE/Pro-1 is the squirrel's nuts, doesn't mean others do. And before you reply with the "but how do you know unless you try it?" broccoli-serving-on-the-kid's-plate notion, please know that I have the DVD (had it since its inception) and have gone over it several times. I do agree that this first DVD is not complete, but I won't bash it, because I know sometimes "thoroughly documenting" something is a skill all in and of itself. (That's why the job of "technical writers" exists in the first place -- not many folks have that ability.) I will be ordering the second DVD soon, because I want to fill in those gaps, in the role of being a consummate cueing arts student.
-Sean
Of course some others don't think it's the nuts. You see saying it's the "nuts" is an opinion based on personal experience - saying it doesn't work is a fallacy based on either no experience or incorrect usage.
As for humans being inconsistent people can be remarkably consistent when given a task to do. It's called training and is the basis of mass production. People have capabilities that they rarely access because most people are not interested in accessing them.
Studies have shown that ANYONE can increase their abilities in just about any field by focused practice. And of course they have to have proper instruction. But with proper instruction most people can do things that they previously thought was not in the realm of possibility for them.
So it's not correct to simply lump all people together by saying everyone sees things differently. Actually we all see things pretty much the same but we only turn our intense gaze upon that which is really important to us. If we deem something to be too hard, or too difficult, or not interesting, or not the quick fix we hoped for then we discard it and move on to something else. The "we" here meaning the majority of people who don't excel in everything they try.
I know you have the DVD and what if I said to you that CTE does not work for you? You cannot learn CTE Sean Leinen. It's impossible for you to make it work.
Would you agree that you do not have the cognitive and spatial ability to understand and implement CTE/ProOne?
OR
Do you simply not like it enough to spend the time to learn it properly and use it?
OR
Did you learn it and know it works as advertised but still choose not to use it?
Because there is a big difference between each of these options.
I certainly don't think you are too stupid to learn to use CTE. I don't think anyone on this forum is too stupid to learn it. Not even Duckie. Certainly not Lou.
I do think that there are some people who are too stupid to admit that it's a damn fine tool whether they personally want to use that particular tool or not. And this stubborness leads them to make stupid remarks about CTE's effectiveness which are simply falsehoods.
That's the category that Lou is in.