A real CTE shot for you to try.

[BC21]

Who asked about memory? You end with "for whatever reason".

The respect should not go to Ms. Crimi, but should go to from whatever source(s) she obtain her conclusion or theirs that she was relaying. I am rather she was not relying what some drunk on a street corner in NYC said.
The mind is more amazing than the brain.

Why is child like myself, who had a left handed Dad, so predominantly right handed, footed, eyed. etc. Well before doing tasks could ingrain any "most often preference"?

Props to Fran for looking beyond pool players here in the forum to find reasonable answers concerning how the mind operates. I don't know what she said or suggested about eye dominance, or what her sources were to arrive at that opinion. Regardless, you can't ignore the many books I've read and the seminars I've attended where the people who do the actual research on the mind are the source of my knowledge on the subject. In other words, I don't know where you get your ideas from that help you form your opinions, but I'm in the habit of seeking out people who know more than I do.

About 60 or 70 percent of people are right eye dominate. Everyone else either has no dominate eye or is left eye dominate. It all depends on which eye is more accurate at sending or relaying signals to the visual cortex. Eye dominance depends on whether or not one particular eye communicates better (not faster) with the mind.

About 90% of people are right-handed. I once read a research paper that described how 90% of babies still in the womb were observed sucking their right thumb. The research is ongoing concerning an exact reason for a particular handedness, but whatever it is, it seems to develop before we're born. Maybe it's got something to do with maneuvering our tiny baby hands around in the womb, and the right hand is typically easier to use. No one really knows if it's something this simple or if it's a genetic trait passed down from generations of right handed people.

 

[French Roots]

Props to Fran for looking beyond pool players here in the forum to find reasonable answers concerning how the mind operates. I don't know what she said or suggested about eye dominance, or what her sources were to arrive at that opinion. Regardless, you can't ignore the many books I've read and the seminars I've attended where the people who do the actual research on the mind are the source of my knowledge on the subject. In other words, I don't know where you get your ideas from that help you form your opinions, but I'm in the habit of seeking out people who know more than I do.

About 60 or 70 percent of people are right eye dominate. Everyone else either has no dominate eye or is left eye dominate. It all depends on which eye is more accurate at sending or relaying signals to the visual cortex. Eye dominance depends on whether or not one particular eye communicates better (not faster) with the mind.

About 90% of people are right-handed. I once read a research paper that described how 90% of babies still in the womb were observed sucking their right thumb. The research is ongoing concerning an exact reason for a particular handedness, but whatever it is, it seems to develop before we're born. Maybe it's got something to do with maneuvering our tiny baby hands around in the womb, and the right hand is typically easier to use. No one really knows if it's something this simple or if it's a genetic trait passed down from generations of right handed people.

Who in their right mind would look to and trust pool players here in the forums regarding how the mind operates, unless they were well versed in that field... if anyone really can be. I do not think Ms. Crimi was interested in how the mind works, but instead how the eyes work.
You talked about In the womb... & then said "typically easier". What happened to that built over time thing & how can one hand be typically easier to use for an individual in the womb? So... if one eye got a 'message' to the brain first... but the other eye communicated that 'message' more accurately(& the brain knows that how?), then the brain would override that 1st. message & go with the second one to arrive. Do I have that right? How long after birth does that happen? Again, How does the brain know which eye is sending a more accurate depiction? At my age I do not have the best of eyesight & my dominant eye is my worst, but it is still my dominant eye. How long will it take for my brain to realize that my non-dominant eye is sending more accurate pictures than my dominant eye & turn it into my dominant eye?

I think you accept while I ask questions. Just because something is in a book does NOT mean that it is factually truthful. Someone mentioned Darwin earlier. He wrote a book. Now his idea regarding Human Beings has been debunked by many means including what science now knows about DNA. Human Beings have not descended from Neanderthals.

I am not saying you are wrong nor your sources. I am just asking questions & realize that they do not have all of the answers.

 

[BC21]

Who in their right mind would look to and trust pool players here in the forums regarding how the mind operates, unless they were well versed in that field... if anyone really can be. I do not think Ms. Crimi was interested in how the mind works, but instead how the eyes work.
You talked about In the womb... & then said "typically easier". What happened to that built over time thing & how can one hand be typically easier to use for an individual in the womb? So... if one eye got a 'message' to the brain first... but the other eye communicated that 'message' more accurately(& the brain knows that how?), then the brain would override that 1st. message & go with the second one to arrive. Do I have that right? How long after birth does that happen? Again, How does the brain know which eye is sending a more accurate depiction? At my age I do not have the best of eyesight & my dominant eye is my worst, but it is still my dominant eye. How long will it take for my brain to realize that my non-dominant eye is sending more accurate pictures than my dominant eye & turn it into my dominant eye?

I think you accept while I ask questions. Just because something is in a book does NOT mean that it is factually truthful. Someone mentioned Darwin earlier. He wrote a book. Now his idea regarding Human Beings has been debunked by many means including what science know knows about DNA. Human Beings have not descended from Neanderthals.

I am not saying you are wrong nor your sources. I am just asking questions & realize that they do not have all of the answers.

You simply don't know what you don't know.

Yes, a study has shown that 90% of babies in the womb suck their right thumb instead of their left. What I said was that "maybe", due to the confined and position of a baby in the womb, it's typically easier to use the right hand. I have an excellent memory, but I don't remember being in the womb, that's why I said "maybe". Lol

And just because a person is wired to be right handed, it does not mean they can't train their mind to rely more on the left hand. This is what people do when they have to, due to losing an arm or a hand, either temporarily or permanently.

Concerning dominate eyes: The brain receives the signals simultaneously. One eye is not faster than the other at relaying information. However, one eye can be more accurate with its information, and therefore that eye becomes favored over the other one. And vision quality has nothing to do with it either. The dominate eye could very well be the eye with the poorest vision. The visual cortex has no clue what good vision is. It just knows which eye communicates visual information better.

But if you cover your dominate eye with a patch, the other eye will start to look like a great communicator all of a sudden. I'm not sure if it would build stronger communication skills (being the only eye providing pertinent information to the brain) or if it would stay the same as far as how it relays info to the brain. Like I said, it would be an interesting study. I have never read any research looking into that.

 

[BC21]

....

I think you accept while I ask questions. Just because something is in a book does NOT mean that it is factually truthful. Someone mentioned Darwin earlier. He wrote a book. Now his idea regarding Human Beings has been debunked by many means including what science now knows about DNA. Human Beings have not descended from Neanderthals.

I am not saying you are wrong nor your sources. I am just asking questions & realize that they do not have all of the answers.

Actually, Darwin was only wrong with a couple of things. Evolution is still considered true. It just didn't or doesn't happen exactly how Darwin thought. But in his defense, today's DNA technology was not available.

I have a wonderful home library and use it quite often, so I could go into details, but not going to because this is the aiming forum.

 

[Boxcar]

Actually, Darwin was only wrong with a couple of things. Evolution is still considered true. It just didn't or doesn't happen exactly how Darwin thought. But in his defense, today's DNA technology was not available.

I have a wonderful home library and use it quite often, so I could go into details, but not going to because this is the aiming forum.

Are you suggesting that DNA Technology in some way is unrelated to aiming?

 

[Boxcar]

Wait! Wait just a minute! The title of this thread is "A real CTE shot for you to try." Everybody knows that "cte" is not real.

[does this mean that 'real CTE' is an oxymoron?]

 

[French Roots]

You simply don't know what you don't know.

Yes, a study has shown that 90% of babies in the womb suck their right thumb instead of their left. What I said was that "maybe", due to the confined and position of a baby in the womb, it's typically easier to use the right hand. I have an excellent memory, but I don't remember being in the womb, that's why I said "maybe". Lol

And just because a person is wired to be right handed, it does not mean they can't train their mind to rely more on the left hand. This is what people do when they have to, due to losing an arm or a hand, either temporarily or permanently.

Concerning dominate eyes: The brain receives the signals simultaneously. One eye is faster than the other at relaying information. However, one eye can be more accurate with its information, and therefore that eye becomes favored over the other one. And vision quality has nothing to do with it either. The dominate eye could very well be the eye with the poorest vision. The visual cortex has no clue what good vision is. It just knows which eye communicates visual information better.

But if you cover your dominate eye with a patch, the other eye will start to look like a great communicator all of a sudden. I'm not sure if it would build stronger communication skills (being the only eye providing pertinent information to the brain) or if it would stay the same as far how it relays info to the brain. Like I said, it would be an interesting study. I have never read any research looking into that.

"You simply don't know what you don't know." No shit?
Neither do YOU "know" what you don't "know".
"A study was done..." Of how many? Keep studying & that 90% may fall to 50%. Was it ever at 50% & they kept studying till it went up to 90% & then they quit before it came back down to 50% or near 50%. That said there are more "naturally" right handed people in the world than left handed people in the world. But why?
Why would it be" typically easier" for one in the womb to put their right thumb in their mouth rather than their left thumb? Could it be that more are just "naturally" right thumbed?
We are not talking about adaptations due to loss of limbs or eye loss.
You said, "The brain receives the signals simultaneously" Then in the next sentence you said," One eye is faster than the the other at relaying information." Which is it?
How can one eye be more accurate with transmitting information & how does the brain know that? By what means is a comparison made by the brain... when it only has the info. from the eyes for a comparison? There is no "objective" outside info. as any standard.
If vison quality has nothing to do with it, then what exactly is the information that is more accurate from one eye over the other and how does the brain know that? Again, there is no outside "objective" standard.
What exactly is visual information & how does the brain know which transmission is better? Again, there is no "objective" outside standard.
If the dominant eye is covered, then how does that poor transmitting eye all of sudden become a better transmitter. How did it all of sudden improve? Is that better transmitting eye not still transmitting darkness if it is open & functional & only covered by an eye patch?

Ms. Crimi's conclusion sounds much more logical than what you are saying. That said, I do not "KNOW" if it was her conclusion or if she was relaying the conclusion of an expert.

Do you know what the percentage is for a cross dominant eye & why such exists?

Darwin said that the complexities of the Human Eye precludes it coming from natural selection.

In case you have not noticed, I am not arguing with you because I do not "know". I am just not in agreement without A LOT MORE information. I have unanswered questions.

 

[French Roots]

Actually, Darwin was only wrong with a couple of things. Evolution is still considered true. It just didn't or doesn't happen exactly how Darwin thought. But in his defense, today's DNA technology was not available.

I have a wonderful home library and use it quite often, so I could go into details, but not going to because this is the aiming forum.

I have watched Decorated Biologist after Decorated Biologist by many means completely debunk Darwin's idea that simply popped into Darwin's head with absolutely no scientific basis nor foundation. Darwin's idea of Human Evolution is not still considered true by any reputable Biologist who knows about the DNA. Human Beings have NOT descended from Neanderthals.

 

[Boxcar]

I've always wanted to know from whence descended the Dinosaur. They didn't just show up one day and start eating things. Imagine the evolutionary process necessary to have ended up with a living, breathing, eating and pooping T-Rex.

Darwin, bless his heart, was a piker. Most theorists are. Black holes? AYSM? Global warming? GTFO!

Pool is a simple game, played in large part by simple people. Monkeys don't play pool.

Prior to every shot, the cue ball is sitting very still. The object ball is sitting very still. Verrrrry still. All you gotta do is be a little bit smarter than a couple of balls.

 

[BC21]

"You simply don't know what you don't know." No shit?
Neither do YOU "know" what you don't "know".
"A study was done..." Of how many? Keep studying & that 90% may fall to 50%. Was it ever at 50% & they kept studying till it went up to 90% & then they quit before it came back down to 50% or near 50%. That said there are more "naturally" right handed people in the world than left handed people in the world. But why?
Why would it be" typically easier" for one in the womb to put their right thumb in their mouth rather than their left thumb? Could it be that more are just "naturally" right thumbed?
We are not talking about adaptations due to loss of limbs or eye loss.
You said, "The brain receives the signals simultaneously" Then in the next sentence you said," One eye is faster than the the other at relaying information." Which is it?
How can one eye be more accurate with transmitting information & how does the brain know that? By what means is a comparison made by the brain... when it only has the info. from the eyes for a comparison? There is no "objective" outside info. as any standard.
If vison quality has nothing to do with it, then what exactly is the information that is more accurate from one eye over the other and how does the brain know that? Again, there is no outside "objective" standard.
What exactly is visual information & how does the brain know which transmission is better? Again, there is no "objective" outside standard.
If the dominant eye is covered, then how does that poor transmitting eye all of sudden become a better transmitter. How did it all of sudden improve? Is that better transmitting eye not still transmitting darkness if it is open & functional & only covered by an eye patch?

Ms. Crimi's conclusion sounds much more logical than what you are saying. That said, I do not "KNOW" if it was her conclusion or if she was relaying the conclusion of an expert.

Do you know what the percentage is for a cross dominant eye & why such exists?

Darwin said that the complexities of the Human Eye precludes it coming from natural selection.

In case you have not noticed, I am not arguing with you because I do not "know". I am just not in agreement without A LOT MORE information. I have unanswered questions.

I edited my faster comment because I meant to say NOT faster.

And when I say "typically easier", which for some reason you keep getting hung up on, I simply mean that MAYBE (due to a baby being constrained a bit in the womb) the right hand or arm could have more freedom of movement. I really didn't think it was that difficult to comprehend. And besides, it's all speculation because there is no consensus on why 90% of people are right handed, or why some are ambidextrous or left handed.

But there is no mystery about the dominate eye. About 60 to 70% of people simply have one eye that commincates with the brain better than the other eye. NOT faster, but better. Lol. But hey, you can believe anything you want.

 

[BC21]

I have watched Decorated Biologist after Decorated Biologist by many means completely debunk Darwin's idea that simply popped into Darwin's head with absolutely no scientific basis nor foundation. Darwin's idea of Human Evolution is not still considered true by any reputable Biologist who knows about the DNA. Human Beings have NOT descended from Neanderthals.

Ok. And the earth is 10,000 years old. And just so you know....the idea of evolution was around way before Darwin. He was just the one who traveled the world and collected a ton of fossils, which, by the way, still fit and are accepted as proof of evolution. What DNA technology has done is show that Darwin was wrong about how we evolved, not that he was wrong about evolution itself.

Anyway, wrong forum. If you want to debate these things, take it somewhere else besides the aiming forum.

 

[BC21]

......
How does the brain know which eye is sending a more accurate depiction? At my age I do not have the best of eyesight & my dominant eye is my worst, but it is still my dominant eye. How long will it take for my brain to realize that my non-dominant eye is sending more accurate pictures than my dominant eye & turn it into my dominant eye?
.....

The visual cortex has no clue as to which eye is better, as far as quality of visual input. All the cortex knows is which one relays information better. In your case, your bad eye is dominate because it communicates with the visual cortex better than your good eye does.

 

[French Roots]

The visual cortex has no clue as to which eye is better, as far as quality of visual input. All the cortex knows is which one relays information better. In your case, your bad eye is dominate because it communicates with the visual cortex better than your good eye does.

If the visual cortex is incapable of determining which eye is "better", then how can it "know" which one relays "information"(?) BETTER?
My 'dominant' eye is "relaying" the "information" of a blurry skewed image because of astigmatism, cataracts, and farsightedness.
My other eye has those but to a much lesser degree.
Which of the two is relaying more TRUE & ACCURATE "information" and a "better" Picture of Reality? In other words, which is the "better" eye and which should dominantly be used to get the best picture of the world between the two? (The language you have used regarding this sort of reminds me of CTE speak )

Without glasses: If I close my none dominant eye, I see a very blurring image and can not read a license plate on the car in front of me. If I close my dominant eye, the image is not as bad, but I still can not read that same license plate. However, with both eyes open, I can read that license plate. The human brain and mind are amazing... and we do not even yet have a good understanding of its capabilities. The image in the retina is up side down and the brain or mind reverses our perception of that up side down image so we can function in a practical manner.

Like I said, I am not arguing with you because I do not know, as you said, and neither do you. You only "know" what you have read and what you believe. Hence your opinion. I "think" what Fran said makes more sense, which is that the brain 'prefers' to use the eye that is 'short wired' over the one that has to go the long way around. That is in layman's terms. Obviously, the brain is using BOTH eyes. Perhaps the brain has assigned different duties to different eyes. Perhaps with both eyes open & operational the brain has assigned one eye for "direct" sight & the other eye for determining depth. Why do we even have 2 eyes? one reason is because we must function in a 3 dimensional worlds.

So... my mind is open to either being correct because it would seem that we have different theories from different experts. I do not think that anyone really "knows" for sure. However, like Dennis Miller so often says, I could be wrong about that.

I can not agree with you because I do not "know". I only "know" about about my personal experience. Per Gene Albreicht's(spelling) tests, my dominant eye looking down over the table is my left eye. Then when down on the shot with a low head height looking more straight out my right is dominant. Is that because of my suggestion of different functions per eye. Gene has been studying how the eyes work in a practical application for playing pool for many years.

I would say that this is a subject for NPR, but not really because it does relate to playing pool because we do use our eyes for such & they can be an issue. We all have different eyesight & we all do not have objective 20/20 vision many not even with prescription glasses, old or new. Then there those who wear glasses but play pool without them.

It is an interesting subject. Oh.. and for that string bead thing, I do not see 2 beads & there is barely those convergent lines in the foreground & I can tell which of them is the real one because the other one is very faint. In pool, a CB is almost never close enough to our eye to get the to "cross".

 

[BC21]

If the visual cortex is incapable of determining which eye is "better", then how can it "know" which one relays "information"(?) BETTER?
My 'dominant' eye is "relaying" the "information" of a blurry skewed image because of astigmatism, cataracts, and farsightedness.
My other eye has those but to a much lesser degree.
Which of the two is relaying more TRUE & ACCURATE "information" and a "better" Picture of Reality? In other words, which is the "better" eye and which should dominantly be used to get the best picture of the world between the two? (The language you have used regarding this sort of reminds me of CTE speak )

Without glasses: If I close my none dominant eye, I see a very blurring image and can not read a license plate on the car in front of me. If I close my dominant eye, the image is not as bad, but I still can not read that same license plate. However, with both eyes open, I can read that license plate. The human brain and mind are amazing... and we do not even yet have a good understanding of its capabilities. The image in the retina is up side down and the brain or mind reverses our perception of that up side down image so we can function in a practical manner.

Like I said, I am not arguing with you because I do not know, as you said, and neither do you. You only "know" what you have read and what you believe. Hence your opinion. I "think" what Fran said makes more sense, which is that the brain 'prefers' to use the eye that is 'short wired' over the one that has to go the long way around. That is in layman's terms. Obviously, the brain is using BOTH eyes. Perhaps the brain has assigned different duties to different eyes. Perhaps with both eyes open & operational the brain has assigned one eye for "direct" sight & the other eye for determining depth. Why do we even have 2 eyes? one reason is because we must function in a 3 dimensional worlds.

So... my mind is open to either being correct because it would seem that we have different theories from different experts. I do not think that anyone really "knows" for sure. However, like Dennis Miller so often says, I could be wrong about that.

I can not agree with you because I do not "know". I only "know" about about my personal experience. Per Gene Albreicht's(spelling) tests, my dominant eye looking down over the table is my left eye. Then when down on the shot with a low head height looking more straight out my right is dominant. Is that because of my suggestion of different functions per eye. Gene has been studying how the eyes work in a practical application for playing pool for many years.

I would say that this is a subject for NPR, but not really because it does relate to playing pool because we do use our eyes for such & they can be an issue. We all have different eyesight & we all do not have objective 20/20 vision many not even with prescription glasses, old or new. Then there those who wear glasses but play pool without them.

It is an interesting subject. Oh.. and for that string bead thing, I do not see 2 beads & there is barely those convergent lines in the foreground & I can tell which of them is the real one because the other one is very faint. In pool, a CB is almost never close enough to our eye to get the to "cross".

Lol.....there is no such thing as one eye being short-wired and one taking the long way around. And that's not my opinion or interpretation of how the eyes function. It's a known fact.

The best way I can describe it is like this:

Let's say you start a new job working for a big advertising company. You have two helpers who go out every day and gather information about the local markets. They each gather information independently, one working the east side of town and the other working the west, and they present various reports throughout the day to your personal assistant/secretary, who brings the stacks of reports into your office.

Your job is to sort through the information, seperating east info from west info, and also relevent info from irrelevant info. You notice that that the east helper's information is presented very well, very professionally, much better than the helper working the west side. You have no idea which information is more accurate or more revealing about the local markets, because it's not your job to know these things. You simply sort the information according to east or west and what is relevent as it pertains to your bosses requirements. You sort it then pass it all up to the next department. They decide what's good or bad and what gets used and how it gets used.

Anyway, every single day you get these stacks of data to sort through, and you always notice how well prepared/presented the east information is when compared to the west.
And so you prefer or favor the east helper, simply because his/her information is easier to presented or communicated better.

That's it. That's why 60 to 70% of people have a dominate eye. And it's not uncommon for one eye to be dominant for one task while the other is dominate for another task. It's all about how well each eye communicates information to the brain for any given situation.

 

[Boxcar]

Lol.....there is no such thing as one eye being short-wired and one taking the long way around. And that's not my opinion or interpretation of how the eyes function. It's a known fact.

The best way I can describe it is like this:

Let's say you start a new job working for a big advertising company. You have two helpers who go out every day and gather information about the local markets. They each gather information independently, one working the east side of town and the other working the west, and they present various reports throughout the day to your personal assistant/secretary, who brings the stacks of reports into your office.

Your job is to sort through the information, seperating east info from west info, and also relevent info from irrelevant info. You notice that that the east helper's information is presented very well, very professionally, much better than the helper working the west side. You have no idea which information is more accurate or more revealing about the local markets, because it's not your job to know these things. You simply sort the information according to east or west and what is relevent as it pertains to your bosses requirements. You sort it then pass it all up to the next department. They decide what's good or bad and what gets used and how it gets used.

Anyway, every single day you get these stacks of data to sort through, and you always notice how well prepared/presented the east information is when compared to the west.
And so you prefer or favor the east helper, simply because his/her information is easier to presented or communicated better.

That's it. That's why 60 to 70% of people have a dominate eye. And it's not uncommon for one eye to be dominant for one task while the other is dominate for another task. It's all about how well each eye communicates information to the brain for any given situation.

What if all the REALLY GOOD accounts are on the west side of town? Are you suggesting that information which you assess as poorly presented is less important or less valuable?

 

[BC21]

What if all the REALLY GOOD accounts are on the west side of town? Are you suggesting that information which you assess as poorly presented is less important or less valuable?

Nope. The one doing the sorting has no knowledge of good or bad accounts, no knowledge of what's important or valuable. He simply sorts east from west and sends the info on up the ladder.

It would be like listening to two different lessons given by two different instructors -- one who can speak your language perfectly, and one who speaks in broken sentence fragments that are difficult to comprehend. You would probably prefer to listen to the one you can understand better, even though the other one might be giving you a more accutate and detailed lesson. All you're really looking for is a good presentation, good communication that you can easily understand.

 

[Boxcar]

Nope. The one doing the sorting has no knowledge of good or bad accounts, no knowledge of what's important or valuable. He simply sorts east from west and sends the info on up the ladder.

It would be like listening to two different lessons given by two different instructors -- one who can speak your language perfectly, and one who speaks in broken sentence fragments that are difficult to comprehend. You would probably prefer to listen to the one you can understand better, even though the other one might be giving you a more accutate and detailed lesson. All you're really looking for is a good presentation, good communication that you can easily understand.

"assistant/secretary, who brings the stacks of reports into your office."

It wouldn't make sense for her to shuffle the stacks, so I am guessing that she brings you one stack from the east and one stack from the west.

"You would probably prefer to listen to the one you can understand better,"

It seems like this is the point where you are beginning to qualify the data, and that qualification idetermines the importance or value of the product.

"And so you prefer or favor the east helper, simply because his/her information is easier to presented or communicated better."

At this point, is your favoritism beginning to color or at least shade your judgment, recognizing that your judgment is not part of your job description?

 

[BC21]

"assistant/secretary, who brings the stacks of reports into your office."

It wouldn't make sense for her to shuffle the stacks, so I am guessing that she brings you one stack from the east and one stack from the west.

"You would probably prefer to listen to the one you can understand better,"

It seems like this is the point where you are beginning to qualify the data, and that qualification idetermines the importance or value of the product.

"And so you prefer or favor the east helper, simply because his/her information is easier to presented or communicated better."

At this point, is your favoritism beginning to color or at least shade your judgment, recognizing that your judgment is not part of your job description?

That would be nice, but the assistant simply gathers up the stack of reports, which are not sorted because the east and west workers just bring in their paper work and place it on top of the existing stack. It's not the assistant's job to sort it.

And absolutely the sorter begins to favor the east helper simply because his/her reports are presented better. Is it right? Of course not.

The sorter should simply sort the reports without being judgmental or playing favorites. But the main department, upstairs from the sorter's office, wants good communication above all else. It wants a smooth flowing process to keep the information fresh and current and ongoing. It does not want to be slowed down by poor or inadequate communication, and every department knows this, including the sorter in his little office downstairs.

 

[Boxcar]

That would be nice, but the assistant simply gathers up the stack of reports, which are not sorted because the east and west workers just bring in their paper work and place it on top of the existing stack. It's not the assistant's job to sort it.

And absolutely the sorter begins to favor the east helper simply because his/her reports are presented better. Is it right? Of course not.

The sorter should simply sort the reports without being judgmental or playing favorites. But the main department, upstairs from the sorter's office, wants good communication above all else. It wants a smooth flowing process to keep the information fresh and current and ongoing. It does not want to be slowed down by poor or inadequate communication, and every department knows this, including the sorter in his little office downstairs.

OK, thanks! I wasn't understanding the analogous interrelationships with the flow of information to the brain (or whatever sensory channels are assessing the info) but I think I'm getting it now.

At what point is the information ready for distribution and use?

 

[BC21]

OK, thanks! I wasn't understanding the analogous interrelationships with the flow of information to the brain (or whatever sensory channels are assessing the info) but I think I'm getting it now.

At what point is the information ready for distribution and use?

You're funny, boxcar. Distribution and use occurs after the appropriate amount of beer or whiskey has entered the body.

Actually, vision processing utilizes about 60% of the brain. The visual cortex alone has several departments at work, each performing a different task to help with processing visual data. After the processing finishes, the data gets sent to the rest of the brain where our conscious and subconscious can use it to make associations or learn new stuff. lol