...to "try" a system that's transparent at first glance?
No good reason.
pj
chgo
Stan posted another youtube---Subjectivity, Objectivity, and a little CTE
- Thread starter JE54
- Start date
No good reason.
pj
chgo
You wouldn't happen to have a video with dialogue of you shooting and explaining why the methods taught produce negative results, do you? I didn't think so.
It's not too late to make one. If you prove it on the table with video, it will be the end of CTE and you'll be enshrined forever.
If it could be proved with video your many videos might be more than vapid vanity (although I doubt it).
pj
chgo
Action speaks louder than words, but you'd rather play word games since you neither have the knowledge or skill to prove it by video. Make the video to end this CTE debate once and for all, CHAMP.
A storm came through yesterday & I lost power so this is a bit late but perhaps the delay was a good thing.
Mista335 used the word 'estimate' in post #39. Estimates are not of an objective nature but are totally subjective to the individual making the estimate.
Does #4 of the numbered ball actually look like it devides the right half of the ball into equal quarter sections or does the inside section look & appear larger while the outside section looks & appears smaller. Is that objective reality vs. a visual perception from a particular vantage point or perspective? That picture of that numbered ball could lead to helping many in their estimation of the true quarter ball. That could help some with CTE, OR...it could hurt them with CTE. I don't know which
Is that a part of the 'visual intelligence' that Stan talks about or is that what is more commonly referred to as spatial awareness? Everyone does not have the same level of spatial awareness. Spatial awareness is an individual & subjective trait or ability. It too is not objective in its nature.
One cannot 'objectively' nor reasonably divide a circle from any orientation other than from head on & those divisions of a circle are made by its diameters through center & the radius from its center to different points along its circumference.
For the intended purpose, equal divisions must be made from above, from the center of the ball out to the proper points on the circumference /equator. The numbered ball does that. To pick points or picture vertical lines through those points that yield a visually equal proportion will not be accurate as the picture of the numbered ball should indicate.
Please note that my objection or displeasure with CTE is in how it is described. I would like very much to find a way to accurately explain the how & why it works well for some, but… 'total objectivity' is not the reason.
I totally agree with what Spidey Dave said, each individual can decide for themselves whether it is something that works enough to improve their game & whether or not they want to continue on with it. That is how it should be & actually is.
That said, I think it should be described properly so that one knows going in what they will or will not be getting so they do not expect something that is not there. That way they can make a well informed decision whether or not they want to give it a try.
I think it’s fair to say that it is only the description of what it is & how it is explained to supposedly work that is the issue.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Mista335 used the word 'estimate' in post #39. Estimates are not of an objective nature but are totally subjective to the individual making the estimate.
Does #4 of the numbered ball actually look like it devides the right half of the ball into equal quarter sections or does the inside section look & appear larger while the outside section looks & appears smaller. Is that objective reality vs. a visual perception from a particular vantage point or perspective? That picture of that numbered ball could lead to helping many in their estimation of the true quarter ball. That could help some with CTE, OR...it could hurt them with CTE. I don't know which
Is that a part of the 'visual intelligence' that Stan talks about or is that what is more commonly referred to as spatial awareness? Everyone does not have the same level of spatial awareness. Spatial awareness is an individual & subjective trait or ability. It too is not objective in its nature.
One cannot 'objectively' nor reasonably divide a circle from any orientation other than from head on & those divisions of a circle are made by its diameters through center & the radius from its center to different points along its circumference.
For the intended purpose, equal divisions must be made from above, from the center of the ball out to the proper points on the circumference /equator. The numbered ball does that. To pick points or picture vertical lines through those points that yield a visually equal proportion will not be accurate as the picture of the numbered ball should indicate.
Please note that my objection or displeasure with CTE is in how it is described. I would like very much to find a way to accurately explain the how & why it works well for some, but… 'total objectivity' is not the reason.
I totally agree with what Spidey Dave said, each individual can decide for themselves whether it is something that works enough to improve their game & whether or not they want to continue on with it. That is how it should be & actually is.
That said, I think it should be described properly so that one knows going in what they will or will not be getting so they do not expect something that is not there. That way they can make a well informed decision whether or not they want to give it a try.
I think it’s fair to say that it is only the description of what it is & how it is explained to supposedly work that is the issue.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Last edited:
The arguments that one must become proficient in the use of CTE or that one must have spent a certain amount of time trying to implement it in order to have an understanding as to its nature is completely invalid.
An impartial judge or a panel of individuals like a jury could hear a brief argument for & against the case regarding whether it is a totally objective method & make the proper determination without ever having held a cue in their hands or even ever having seen a pool table. All they would need is a true understanding of what objective truly means & what subjective means. In fact, they could all be paraplegics & make the proper determination as long as their mental intelligence faculties are well & not impaired.
Determining the nature of the process has nothing to do with whether or not one can use it proficiently or whether or not one has spent 6 months trying to use it to a satisfactory level. Determining its true nature is a mental intelligence exercise of critical cognitive thinking & not a physical one.
That said, if one implements it only objectively by utilizing the discernible visuals one should rather easily see & understand that the shot must fit the ‘objective’ visuals or it does not work unless one also employs one’s subjective intuition regarding the shot at hand.
That said, if it works for someone, it really should not matter what it's true nature is. But when it does not work for some, it seems only reasonable that they would want to understand & know why what is supposed to be an objective system is not working for them.
An impartial judge or a panel of individuals like a jury could hear a brief argument for & against the case regarding whether it is a totally objective method & make the proper determination without ever having held a cue in their hands or even ever having seen a pool table. All they would need is a true understanding of what objective truly means & what subjective means. In fact, they could all be paraplegics & make the proper determination as long as their mental intelligence faculties are well & not impaired.
Determining the nature of the process has nothing to do with whether or not one can use it proficiently or whether or not one has spent 6 months trying to use it to a satisfactory level. Determining its true nature is a mental intelligence exercise of critical cognitive thinking & not a physical one.
That said, if one implements it only objectively by utilizing the discernible visuals one should rather easily see & understand that the shot must fit the ‘objective’ visuals or it does not work unless one also employs one’s subjective intuition regarding the shot at hand.
That said, if it works for someone, it really should not matter what it's true nature is. But when it does not work for some, it seems only reasonable that they would want to understand & know why what is supposed to be an objective system is not working for them.
Last edited:
I wasted some time, before I came back to my senses & realized & concluded that CTE is not a totally objective method or 'system'.
To me, the 3 & 5 shot perception YouTube videos basically prove that it is not such & shows that it needs individual subjective intuition & input for it to work in order to fill the significant 'holes' that exist between the 'objective' shots of the reasonably discernible visual points.
Even though I completely understood the principles involved for TOI, I had a bit of trouble with actually executing it with any real consistent proficiency until CJ said something in just a bit of different way to me in a PM & then the means to the end regarding its consistent execution became clear.
I think that is the like of what Tom Ashworth & others are looking to get for CTE, instruction on how to objectively obtain a shot line other than moving from side to side until they have the proper perception, which is actually an individual subjective thing & no real instruction at all.
The instruction to move or 'rotate' around until one sees the proper perception for the shot is basically no instruction & it certainly is not any instruction with regards to anything objective in nature. All that is, is basically Stan speaking about himself moving until his subjective intuition tells him that that is the proper perception for the shot at hand & that is subjective not objective.
It is beyond rational reason, logic or science as we know it to expect the vision of the CTE & other lines to present themselves differently because they are on different parts of the table. The relationship of the lines is between the two(2) balls & the two balls only. Where they are on the table can not affect those lines to be or appear different from the one point where they are seen simultaneously. Is that not the whole point, for the simultaneous vision of those two(2) lines to fix one in that one specific position as it relates to the visual image of those lines, hence, the fixed cue ball? Also, how would it be reasonable to use say a 15* 'set up' for a shot that is greater than the next 'setup' which is that of the 30*? Why would one use a 15* for a shot of 40*.
Anyway, I wish full success to anyone that has already committed to investing their time in giving CTE a try. I think PJ, Satorie, 8Pack/Anthony, etc. would all wish the same to anyone that is trying to improve through using it.
I hope someone could come with something for those like Tom that CTE is not working.
Best 2 All,
Rick
To me, the 3 & 5 shot perception YouTube videos basically prove that it is not such & shows that it needs individual subjective intuition & input for it to work in order to fill the significant 'holes' that exist between the 'objective' shots of the reasonably discernible visual points.
Even though I completely understood the principles involved for TOI, I had a bit of trouble with actually executing it with any real consistent proficiency until CJ said something in just a bit of different way to me in a PM & then the means to the end regarding its consistent execution became clear.
I think that is the like of what Tom Ashworth & others are looking to get for CTE, instruction on how to objectively obtain a shot line other than moving from side to side until they have the proper perception, which is actually an individual subjective thing & no real instruction at all.
The instruction to move or 'rotate' around until one sees the proper perception for the shot is basically no instruction & it certainly is not any instruction with regards to anything objective in nature. All that is, is basically Stan speaking about himself moving until his subjective intuition tells him that that is the proper perception for the shot at hand & that is subjective not objective.
It is beyond rational reason, logic or science as we know it to expect the vision of the CTE & other lines to present themselves differently because they are on different parts of the table. The relationship of the lines is between the two(2) balls & the two balls only. Where they are on the table can not affect those lines to be or appear different from the one point where they are seen simultaneously. Is that not the whole point, for the simultaneous vision of those two(2) lines to fix one in that one specific position as it relates to the visual image of those lines, hence, the fixed cue ball? Also, how would it be reasonable to use say a 15* 'set up' for a shot that is greater than the next 'setup' which is that of the 30*? Why would one use a 15* for a shot of 40*.
Anyway, I wish full success to anyone that has already committed to investing their time in giving CTE a try. I think PJ, Satorie, 8Pack/Anthony, etc. would all wish the same to anyone that is trying to improve through using it.
I hope someone could come with something for those like Tom that CTE is not working.
Best 2 All,
Rick
Last edited:
Then you should be displeased with yourself. YOU are the ONLY one saying that CTE is totally objective. No one else, just you. What happened to you just letting people decide for themselves? Why are you still ranting about that which you know so little, and why do your statements about it contain so much nonsense that you make up? Why aren't you lambasting CJ for all of his false claims? Why did someone turn your power back on? Your posts raise so many questions.............
More people, those with common sense, will say it is objective. If you can't see a spot on the felt, a contact point on a ball then there is no way you can say you can see the point on an outer edge of a cue ball matching up with a an imaginary line on an object ball.
Try to explain how you could in a court of law and you would be laughed right out of a courtroom.
Why, or why must the CTE people contradict themselves so blatantly?
It doesn't take an educated man to know this
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Try to explain how you could in a court of law and you would be laughed right out of a courtroom.
Why, or why must the CTE people contradict themselves so blatantly?
It doesn't take an educated man to know this
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am not sure I follow what you've said here. Have you made a typographical error of some sort?
Cte
No, that is why I said I do not discount it. Just making a comment that their is no such thing as objectivity in the aiming process as round spheres have no edges so its still guesswork and feel.
No, that is why I said I do not discount it. Just making a comment that their is no such thing as objectivity in the aiming process as round spheres have no edges so its still guesswork and feel.
Then you understand. Congratulations, you see my point. Twisted isn't it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8.
of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Dictionary says you are wrong. I still say that if someone offered you a million dollars to point at the edge of the ball, you would have no problem at all doing it.
Also strange that you argue the use of a word with a man that was a teacher for 30 years. I think he knows the definition of it far better than you do.
Sorry, but I'm still not sure I get you.
Now if put the word 'not' in front of the word 'objective', it would make sense to me.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Some here either have no real understanding of what objectivity is or they are purposely distorting how the word was & is used
I think Stan may have used the word to contrast CTE with what he saw as the flaw of other systems & methods in that to him CTE uses markers that can be seen, like an object. I think it then somehow got off that track when used in the form of an adjective to describe the method & not the makers or the visuals.
It now seems that we have levels of objective & levels of subjective. How wonder how many levels of each that there are.:wink:
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Last edited:
Never admit you are proven wrong once again Rick. There has always been subjectivitiy in the system. It has been posted countless times, yet, here you are again you are doing nothing but mocking. Nothing at all to back up what you say, just gossip and falsehoods.
sad
Reread you definition..particularly number 8.
And him being a teacher means what? If he is in fact a teacher, he knows that there is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to aiming....
Unless the exact same "edge" can be precisely found by everyone, at any time, it cannot be objective.
Reread you definition..particularly number 8.
And him being a teacher means what? If he is in fact a teacher, he knows that there is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to aiming....
Unless the exact same "edge" can be precisely found by everyone, at any time, it cannot be objective.
I don't think it's as black and white as objective, versus subjective. If you want to be technically correct, CTE is not objective. But by that definition, you shouldn't let a surgeon perform heart surgery, because holding a scalpel, and making an incision is feel based. There are varying levels of precision, but because a human is performing it, it can never be truly objective. But on a scale of feel from open heart surgery, to pin the tail on the donkey...
Can you please show me where Stan has said that there is subjectivity involved in the CTE aiming system other than just in choosing what visual to use for each shot?
If so, then this discussion can end.
Last edited:
I know it doesn't sound good on a bumper sticker, but is it politically correct to say that CTE is possibly the closest system to being objective, before being rendered subjective by human error?
Edit: Nevermind, there's a hole in that statement. It would mean that it's okay to claim that CTE is objective, but people are not.
Edit: Nevermind, there's a hole in that statement. It would mean that it's okay to claim that CTE is objective, but people are not.
Last edited: