Re: Aiming Theory Questions

Shem:

If you study the adult learning literature (e.g Kolb, Mezirow, and, yes,
even Myers-Briggs), you will find that there are many different "learning"
styles among people of this universe.  A select few of the most common
polarities are often referred to as:  feeling vs. thinking;  experience vs.
conceptualization; experimentation vs. observation, et al.

The plain truth is that there is no one single universally appropriate
learning style that is exclusively "true" for everyone.  Not incidentally,
no one actually thrives at any extreme position.  People have tendencies,
that is, they prefer or migrate to one particular style vs. others; but,
these predilections are more than sufficient to foster type-casting.  The
current theory suggests that these tendencies come from our native gifts
(e.g. emotional/intellectual) together with the socialization process (i.e.
the +/- feedback we receive from significant others).  It may very well be
that, for you, the conceptualization/ observation/thinking polarity makes
more "sense" to you than the "try it, do it, fix it" approach.  Both have
their advantages and disadvantages.  Individuals who are particularly suited
to one polarity or another will, of course, advocate that approach to the
exclusion of all others.  That is a condition we commonly refer to as
"prejudice."   As I grow older, I become more and more persuaded that a
centrist position is the most advantageous for learning -- but that is a
hypothesis only.  Still and all, I would advocate that you stay with your
strength.  You have been learning in a certain way, quite successfully,
since you were about seven.  While it might be a productive idea to
incorporate any/all learning methods you can access, there is no reason at
all to abandon what has worked well for you in the past.  Others' inability
to perceive the advantages of foreign learning styles is a weakness and
should be understood in that context.

Ken Bour



"Shem" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yes, Pat, that's completely true.  It's honestly not a matter of "suit
> myself", its just how I think I guess.
>
> Take a look at the diagram I posted on my other post on this thread
> showing a half ball hit.  I'm curious what you think.  By what you are
> saying, its isnt really a half ball hit.  I guess I was just thinking
> about it the wrong way.  In either case, the system really doesnt work
> for me, and I'll take a look at some of the ones you suggested.
>
> Again, thanks for the feedback.  I've trolled this board for awhile,
> and always enjoy the Johnson/Jewett/Shepard posts.
>
> Patrick Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Shem wrote:
> >
> > > I think about the cut angle in the following way: Draw a line between
> > > the cue ball and the object ball centers (before the shot), extending
> > > the line beyond the OB.  The cut angle, at least the way I think of
> > > it, is the deviation of the OB from that line.
> >
> > Suit yourself, but it's much more useful and common to think of it as
> > the angle from the CB's path (or the "aim line"), since that produces
> > constant, predictable angles.  In fact, it's the only way your
> > instructor's system (a very common one) makes any sense.
> >
> > Pat Johnson
> > Chicago