Agreed. Honestly, my eyes glaze over when people start discussing overlaps or equal opposite and posting triangle diagrams of some obscure aiming method that might work. It's just boring. I find CTE psychology far more interesting. Except sometimes when I don't...
What I find interesting and positive is that people love pool enough to explore all the different ways to approach the fundamental task of sending a ball into another ball accurately and repeatedly for as long as they can without a misjudgement. I have never understood the bullying mentality of browbeating students of certain methods because those students don't have the diagramming skills or the math background or even the desire to argue about the connections between human perceptions and the physics of pool at academic levels.
Way back in the RSB days I will admit that I thought aiming was as simple as using ghost ball + brute force practice. Not that I dismissed any other methods of aiming that I saw mentioned here and there but I thought that for me at least aiming wasn't a problem. Aiming in pool has traditionally been treated quite lightly in instructional media and often, in my opinion, somewhat wrong or incomplete advice was often given.
But that aside I don't understand the mocking and the vitriol that people, who often themselves are not scientists or mathematicians, heap on those who register their delight with this or that, but in particular those developed/discovered/promoted by Hal Houle, method of aiming. Why do I have such an deep deep deep hatred for a few people on this forum? Because of how they bullied me on this subject when I reported my experience with Hal Houle and they called me "another indoctrinated cult member" when I couldn't answer the "how does this work" questions they were peppering me with. Questions that they used to bully many others before me as I found out.
The psychology that drives those who are learning CTE is simple. Humans like for things to work. They like to try out different methods when things are not working to their satisfaction. Humans also like to share their experiences, especially good ones. Storytelling is how knowledge was passed from generation to generation since we learned to communicate with each other. It is what separates us from the other animals on this planet. That knowledge and the subsequent invention of storage mediums to preserve knowledge in a codified fashion made it so that humans could acquire knowledge by other means than direct verbal communication from the source. We are a curious primate with big brains and we seek solutions using tools and methods of our own invention. All of us are makers and users on various levels. Makers, especially the really passionate ones, are explorers. They take time out of their lives to create solutions that benefit more than just themselves and their immediate tasks. They share what they have they have created for the users to use. They also share for the other makers to build on what they created and perhaps create even better solutions. So we are driven by our innate curiosity to try offered solutions.
And I agree that this leads to many "solutions" that are not effective but which are marketed as such. Holistic "medicine" for example. I agree that our curious nature and our basic trust in fellow humans leads to a certain amount of gullibility even for those who think themselves to immune to such bogus solutions. There are many people who are giants in their field who believe wacky things in other areas of life. I also agree that there are many people who take on the role of skeptic and in that role they ask hard questions of those making claims of efficacy that don't comport with known science or facts. These people serve a good role in society to act as somewhat of a check against the scammers who prey on our trust and gullibility.
What I don't understand is when we have aiming methods presented which have been discovered/created to help with a real-world physical task that is not life-threatening and really not wallet-draining. I mean even when people charge for their "aiming system knowledge" in the form of books, dvds, and lessons we aren't talking about amounts that put people on the verge of bankruptcy. Joey called himself a "former aiming system junky". The word junky implies an uncontrolled addiction that degrades the quality of life. He sees those who teach any form of aiming that he doesn't approve of as "pushers/dealers" akin to drug dealers. Others have labeled those promoting aiming systems as snake-oil salesmen, as cult leaders, as thieves and con-artists. Those same people have labeled aiming system users, particularly those who use Hal's methods, as religious zealots, as indoctrinated and ignorant, as stupid and dumb and similarly insulting labels. That is unconscionable to me and has been frustrating, hurtful, and hugely wasteful for both sides. And yes I understand that for there to be a fight that there has to be more than one combatant. I am fully aware that the vitriol has become two-sided and that a lot of really hateful things have been said about those on here who have been engaged in using those labels across this and many other forums. What I don't understand is WHY it had to be this way.
Dr. Dave published a video called center table paths. That video contained a method of fairly accurately predicting the path through the center area of the table using a simple technique of aiming/executing so that the cueball goes into the rail at about 45 degrees. This takes the cueball safely through the center area and greatly reduces the chance of scratching. It is actually a really really useful method for position play. I am certain that there is a math equation that factually describes the action in terms of movement within a perfect rectangle. But no one needs the math to see it working and to duplicate it. Imagine how I would feel if I shared this and said I tried it and it works great and someone said well good for you, tell us WHY it works and I said I don't know and they said well you're just indoctrinated and "making it work" through your subconscious. How could I not take a defensive position there?
On the pool table, unlike when someone is very ill, the results are not life and death and they are for entertainment purposes. So when something doesn't provide satisfactory results then it is evident quickly. And that doesn't mean that a particular method doesn't work. I could mean that the application of the method is flawed. Both sides need to recognize that when it comes to aiming all we have is anecdotal stories from people who are using whatever method they are sharing their experience with. And when that is all you have you can't say that something works or doesn't work with the type of confidence that comes from doing actual controlled testing. And if no skeptics are willing to participate in the design and execution of such tests then what's the point of even making claims that a method can't work or doesn't work and those who say it does are just indoctrinated ignorant bumpkins? Because let's be honest here and admit that any such testing done by a proponent of such a method is going to be dismissed for bias. And the same goes the other direction, any testing by skeptics that purports to show "doesn't work" is going to be dismissed for bias. So really the only way to find common ground outside of both sides being involved in the creation and execution of the testing is for both sides to simply say, we don't agree and move on.
cont.
