Why CTE is silly

[3kushn]

Several folks here are of the belief that the proponents of CTE are unconsciously making adjustments in order for this to work.

Just a couple of questions:

How do you unconsciously make a re-alignment?

If the re-alignment is so minute that our body doesn't notice what our brain is doing (or is it our brain/mind doesn't notice your body moved) isn't the initial line up already extremely close before such a miniscule adjustment??

If the initial alignment is that close, doesn't this indicate we ought to take a closer look?

Isn't this where the individual work comes into play?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

.....erased because i don't care

 

[GetMeThere]

Good post Lou!

I agree with that one!

My students are not allowed to share with anybody anything they learn. They are required to sign a special CTE nondisclosure agreement that binds them for life.

Yeah, and the HILARIOUS thing is that these students seem to actually KEEP THE PROMISE--something utterly UNHEARD OF IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!

The only thing I can figure: in the end, most of them just stop using it (or use it only "once in awhile" for a "really tough shot").

 

[GetMeThere]

You should take that stuff off your site. It doesn't educate your visitors, it creates division, it's not funny, and it takes away from the educational "feel" for the site.

You'd do well for yourself and improve the quality of your site if you just stuck with the educational tidbits and left out the "smart ass" stuff that some people take offense to.

Not true. It is a CHRONICLE of REAL events, and a real phenomenon in the pool world. The fact is that (and I wish it weren't true) a non-trivial number of people who seem to have "some" significance in the pool world believe in and wish to promote CTE. There's nothing wrong with recording and fairly characterizing that history.

ALL human endeavors contain similar stories and phenomena.

 

[GetMeThere]

Dr. Dave,

I appreciate the respect I get from you which is zero.

I despise some of your crap!

Had I only known.....but I was warned.

Have s great day,

Stan

And isn't it ALWAYS true that the "deluded" NEVER have a sense of humor?

The psychology of people has always fascinated me. Underlying the ENTIRE CTE phenomenon is a perceptible (but ABSOLUTELY unspoken) twinkling that SOME part of the minds of the believers KNOW that what they believe in isn't....at least...what they THINK it is.

IMO what's in the minds of believers is, foremost, that "this HELPS PEOPLE," and secondly "even IF it doesn't really 'work' in the way we make believe it does."

What gives it a tinge of sadness is that (I do believe) 99% of it DOES come from good will and wanting to contribute and wanting to help people.

 

[GetMeThere]

How do you unconsciously make a re-alignment?

We don't have to know. We only have to know that CTE believers BELIEVE they use the SAME SET UP to make the three DIFFERENT shots in Dr. Dave's 3-shot CTE test.

We KNOW, with absolute physical certainty, that the 3 shots MUST be hit in three different places to make the ball in each one--if CTE believers think they are setting up in the SAME way each time, then....

....they are making the adjustments necessary to make the shots...subconsciously.

 

[stan shuffett]

And isn't it ALWAYS true that the "deluded" NEVER have a sense of humor?

The psychology of people has always fascinated me. Underlying the ENTIRE CTE phenomenon is a perceptible (but ABSOLUTELY unspoken) twinkling that SOME part of the minds of the believers KNOW that what they believe in isn't....at least...what they THINK it is.

IMO what's in the minds of believers is, foremost, that "this HELPS PEOPLE," and secondly "even IF it doesn't really 'work' in the way we make believe it does."

What gives it a tinge of sadness is that (I do believe) 99% of it DOES come from good will and wanting to contribute and wanting to help people.

GMT,

Dr. Dave has poked and thumped at me enough. He is very well aware that I have had enough of his needling. So, I have been poked and thumped one too many times. I am sick of his Professor Crap stuff.

I have been very gentlemanly about this for a long time.......

I have a project that is going to be available for the public very soon and all he can do is make jokes.

Just the other he called for an end to all the foolishness.....


Stan

 

[GetMeThere]

PJ.

Dr. Dave has poked and thumped at me enough. He is very well aware that I have had enough of his needling. So, I have been poked and thumped one too many times. I am sick of his Professor Crap stuff.

I have been very gentlemanly about this for a long time.......

I have a project that is going to be available for the public very soon and all he can do is make jokes.

Just the other he called for an end to all the foolishness.....


Stan

Hi Stan, it's GMT, not PJ.

You guys deserve some needling just because you have seemed, for FIFTEEN YEARS, to be UNWILLING to seriously consider and discuss the legitimate and well explained and framed questions and challenges to CTE.

"Needling" ain't CRAP (and it's certainly not "unethical"). It's what people do when they think their points are being ignored, and others are just proceeding as though NO POINTS had ever been raised.

If you wish to MAKE BELIEVE that the SOLID POINTS raised by Dr. Dave and many others DON'T EXIST....then....you oughta expect to get needled a bit about it.

 

[justadub]

This thread could die it's loooong overdue death if folks would simply stop responding. Then GMT, Lou, PJ and Dr.Dave can delight each other with their amusing witticisms as long as they'd like.

Of course they wouldn't be aggravating anyone at that point, so their lives would no longer be complete. Since it seems that they wish to argue more than they wish to actually accomplish anything. Arguing for arguments sake. Yay.

Carry on.

 

[Mikjary]

LOL. Exhibit A in the case for "CTE users don't even understand the questions".

pj
chgo

Just driving by, PJ? No time to chat? This is actually humorous. You must have read at least halfway through the "Book Of Wit", to come up with this. Are all of us on trial in your world? I know...this is too easy! Troll away!

Call your doctor and tell him you're talking to crazy people with tinfoil hats on and see if you need to adjust the meds, again. :indecisive:

I understood the question. You still don't know enough, by your own choosing, to understand the answer. What is a pivot, PJ?

Best,
Mike

 

[dr_dave]

All of these recent CTE threads have provided many more ridiculously interesting sentences for my marketing introduction for DAM.

You should take that stuff off your site. It doesn't educate your visitors, it creates division, it's not funny, and it takes away from the educational "feel" for the site.

Spidey,

Thank you for the advice, but I think the humorous italicized paragraphs on my DAM page are appropriate for my site. I do make it clear on the site that the intro is not educational. It's purpose is to mock many of the outrageous claims made about "aiming systems" (not just CTE) over the years. In a way, this is educational because it provides a sort of "history" of how aiming systems have been marketed in the past. It also warns people that they should be skeptical when they hear claims about aiming systems that seem too good to be true. They usually are.

I stand by all of the pages on my aiming resources page. Not everybody agrees with everything, but I think all of the information is appropriate. After all, it's my site, so I should be the judge of what is appropriate and what's not. And if I want to include a little historical humor, I have that right.

Concerning the illustrations, articles, and explanations on my CTE resource page, I think those are very education. They point out many of the challenges faced by any align-and-pivot aiming system. The purpose for this isn't to show how CTE can't work. On the contrary, the purpose is to show how and why it does work. I think this is useful for people who are interested in this sort of thing. I can appreciate that some people don't care about how or why something works, but nobody is forcing them to look at my site.

Regards,
Dave

 

[stan shuffett]

Hi Stan, it's GMT, not PJ.

You guys deserve some needling just because you have seemed, for FIFTEEN YEARS, to be UNWILLING to seriously consider the legitimate and well explained and framed questions and challenges to CTE.

"Needling" ain't CRAP (and it's certainly not "unethical"). It's what people do when they think their points are being ignored, and others are just proceeding as though NO POINTS had ever been raised.

If you wish to MAKE BELIEVE that the SOLID POINTS raised by Dr. Dave and many others DON'T EXIST....then....you oughta expect to get needled a bit about it.

Corrected,

There is no make believe to CTE. I have been on the move since June to get this out.....but that's not good enough is it?

I offered to wager $5000 a few months ago that CTE is a viable system and I had no takers. My bet was not make believe.......Stan

 

[GetMeThere]

Corrected,

There is no make believe to CTE. I have been on the move since June to get this out.....but that's not good enough is it?

I offered to wager $5000 a few months ago that CTE is a viable system and I had no takers. My bet was not make believe.......Stan

Stan, if you think people are AGAINST YOU, you are wrong (from what I can tell--and I can certainly speak for myself).

The problem is (and is exemplified by your very post) that you WILL NOT ENGAGE with the sensible CHALLENGES that have been raised.

I don't know the details of your 5K bet....but I have a feeling it wouldn't be too different from Spidey's video challenges: demonstrations of POCKETING BALLS. But seeing someone pocket balls does not and cannot tell us what is in someone's MIND when they're pocketing balls.

A "system" is something, by definition, which is EXTERNAL to one individual's mind. Therefore, it is something that one can LAY OUT for objective examination.

When CTE as it is understood is laid out for examination, serious QUESTIONS are raised--and those QUESTIONS just never seem to get adequately addressed by those who want to defend CTE.

THAT is what the problem is, and THAT is the source of the needling. And no "bet" is sufficient to address that.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Spidey,

Thank you for the advice, but I think the humorous italicized paragraphs on my DAM page are appropriate for my site. I do make it clear on the site that the intro is not educational. It's purpose is to mock many of the outrageous claims made about "aiming systems" (not just CTE) over the years. In a way, this is educational because it provides a sort of "history" of how aiming systems have been marketed in the past. It also warns people that they should be skeptical when they hear claims about aiming systems that seem too good to be true. They usually are.

I stand by all of the pages on my aiming resources page. Not everybody agrees with everything, but I think all of the information is appropriate. After all, it's my site, so I should be the judge of what is appropriate and what's not. And if I want to include a little historical humor, I have that right.

Concerning the illustrations, articles, and explanations on my CTE resource page, I think those are very education. They point out many of the challenges faced by any align-and-pivot aiming system. The purpose for this isn't to show how CTE can't work. On the contrary, the purpose is to show how and why it does work. I think this is useful for people who are interested in this sort of thing. I can appreciate that some people don't care about how or why something works, but nobody is forcing them to look at my site.

Regards,
Dave

You're right - it's your site. I was just giving advice. Choosing to mock isn't the smartest move, but it's your sandbox.

Dave

 

[3kushn]

We don't have to know. We only have to know that CTE believers BELIEVE they use the SAME SET UP to make the three DIFFERENT shots in Dr. Dave's 3-shot CTE test.

We KNOW, with absolute physical certainty, that the 3 shots MUST be hit in three different places to make the ball in each one--if CTE believers think they are setting up in the SAME way each time, then....

....they are making the adjustments necessary to make the shots...subconsciously.

I'll just make one last comment on this.

First of all I've mentioned many times on AZ that I'm absolutely terrible at pocketing balls. A decent shortstop could probably give me the 5 and out. I simply don't play pocket games. If you saw me try you could only think of one of two things. I'm laying down since my stroke aint too bad or somehow I'm have a born natural stroke but don't have a clue about the game.

Now if you believe I'm not lying to you on this. Can you explain how I can hit an OB at warp speed right into the crotch of the corner on a 10'table with that OB sitting in the middle of the table and CB about 3' away.

All this discussion about making adjusting without realizing it got me second guessing. So I just went to my table and made sure I didn't look at the corner just the balls. And bingo 5 shots in a row dead on.

Here's the shot. Not terribly difficult but not a duck either particularly how hard I was shooting.

CueTable Help

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave,

I appreciate the respect I get from you which is zero.

I despise some of your crap!

Had I only known.....but I was warned.

Have s great day,

Stan

Stan,

I am genuinely sorry you feel personally disrespected by me. That certainly was never my intent. I have challenged (and sometimes mocked) many of the outrageous and unsubstantiated claims made by proponents of "aiming systems" over the years, but I never meant this to be taken personally by any individual. Although, I can see how people who make "claims" can feel disrespected when I and others challenge those claims. I think you have been careful to not make any ridiculous claims over the years. The unsubstantiated claims have mostly come from your "supporters" and other "CTE proponents."

I'm sure you are an excellent instructor, and I do really look forward to watching and studying your DVD. Over these 15 or so years, we still don't have an authoritative reference that accurately and completely defines and demonstrates CTE (or its latest version: Pro-One). I think something like your DVD has been long overdue. It will be nice to actually have something concrete to discuss for a change.

Even if some people might disagree with some of your information or how it is presented, that should in no way diminish your stature as a well-respected instructor. If all an instructor provided was "information," then I don't think the instructor would be very good. People can get "information" from books, DVDs, and the Internet. IMO, the value a good instructor offers is not information ... it is the ability to work one-on-one with an individual to help that individual identify and learn things that can help that individual improve. I'm sure you are great at that, based on what I have heard.

Regards with respect,
Dave

 

[GetMeThere]

3kushn,

Examples of "it works!" simply do not void serious questions showing that it CANNOT work.

If I see you running around pointing your FINGER at people, and saying "POW!," and seeing people FALL whenever you do that....

....should I just then ACCEPT that, for my entire life, I've MISUNDERSTOOD what guns are, and that they're something more than just fingers? Just like that?

....or maybe I should think some goofy movie is being filmed and I'm not aware of it.

Grown up adults don't just naively accept "what they see" (or what they THINK they see). For any adult, the information of what they see is only USEFUL if they can FORMULATE it in their mind and INTEGRATE it with what they already know.

CTE doesn't make SENSE, so "seeing someone pocket balls" is not enough to have any evident MEANING to me as a WAY to pocket balls.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Hi Stan, it's GMT, not PJ.

You guys deserve some needling just because you have seemed, for FIFTEEN YEARS, to be UNWILLING to seriously consider and discuss the legitimate and well explained and framed questions and challenges to CTE.

"Needling" ain't CRAP (and it's certainly not "unethical"). It's what people do when they think their points are being ignored, and others are just proceeding as though NO POINTS had ever been raised.

If you wish to MAKE BELIEVE that the SOLID POINTS raised by Dr. Dave and many others DON'T EXIST....then....you oughta expect to get needled a bit about it.

Earth to Capt. Invisible--- he doesn't owe you sh&t, doesn't owe you responses to crap, doesn't owe you detailed explanations for crap, doesn't owe you a response (or anyone else on here) a response to anything.

Most HIGHLY respected ELITE instructors on here don't post anything because:

1) It's their living, ya know... CHARGING for lessons and DVDs
2) If you want to know the micro versus the macro -- pay for a lesson or a DVD
3) If you don't like 1 or 2, figure it out on your own

Nobody owes you a thing.

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave has poked and thumped at me enough. He is very well aware that I have had enough of his needling. So, I have been poked and thumped one too many times. I am sick of his Professor Crap stuff.

I have been very gentlemanly about this for a long time.......

I have a project that is going to be available for the public very soon and all he can do is make jokes.

Just the other he called for an end to all the foolishness.....

Stan,

The claims, challenges, and "jokes" concerning "align-and-pivot aiming systems" like CTE have been around a long time ... long before you came on the scene with Pro-One. Honestly, I still don't know what Pro-One is, so I'm not sure if the information on my CTE resource page applies to Pro-One or not. Even if it does, it still wouldn't diminish the value the system offers to people who can use it effectively.

BTW, the "foolishness" I was referring to was: the discussions and debates that have occurred over 15 years or so concerning unsubstantiated claims about systems that have not even been adequately defined. After all of these years, we still don't have a consistent, substantive, or accepted description of CTE. Nor does anyone seem to understand how or why CTE works, whatever it might be (although, I think my CTE resource page does a decent job at illustrating and explaining this for the incomplete versions we have seen described to date.)

Regards,
Dave

 

[stan shuffett]

Stan,

I am genuinely sorry you feel personally disrespected by me. That certainly was never my intent. I have challenged (and sometimes mocked) many of the outrageous and unsubstantiated claims made by proponents of "aiming systems" over the years, but I never meant this to be taken personally by any individual. Although, I can see how people who make "claims" can feel disrespected when I and others challenge those claims. I think you have been careful to not make any ridiculous claims over the years. The unsubstantiated claims have mostly come from your "supporters" and other "CTE proponents."

I'm sure you are an excellent instructor, and I do really look forward to watching and studying your DVD. Over these 15 or so years, we still don't have an authoritative reference that accurately and completely defines and demonstrates CTE (or its latest version: Pro-One). I think something like your DVD has been long overdue. It will be nice to actually have something concrete to discuss for a change.

Even if some people might disagree with some of your information or how it is presented, that should in no way diminish your stature as a well-respected instructor. If all an instructor provided was "information," then I don't think the instructor would be very good. People can get "information" from books, DVDs, and the Internet. IMO, the value a good instructor offers is not information ... it is the ability to work one-on-one with an individual to help that individual identify and learn things that can help that individual improve. I'm sure you are great at that, based on what I have heard.

Regards with respect,
Dave

Dr. Dave, I need to go no further than to a recent post of yours or to your website to see mockery that is directed at me or my project.......

It's hard to have it both ways.........you either respect me or you do not.
The proof is in the pudding.

Stan