PDA

View Full Version : Eye dominance....



Yuppie
04-10-2003, 02:28 PM
I've read about this before and have figured out which is my dominant eye. What do others do to overcome this handicap? Tilt head? Go with it and learn to compensate for it? Close one eye for a second? What do you do?

It's surprising to me when I see players who are phenomenal but their cue is not directly beneath both eyes. Instead, it's off to the side. How do they do it?

Tom_In_Cincy
04-10-2003, 02:47 PM
Yuppie,

Here is a link to an article about the "dominent eye" in pool thougths.

http://www.azbilliards.com/poolshrink/column9.cfm

L.S. Dennis
04-10-2003, 02:50 PM
This is a subject that has sparked tons of controversy. Ever since I saw that Jim Rempe/Lori Jon instructional tape where they said that the cue needs to be under your dominant eye have I had so much trouble with sighting. Robert Byrne concurrs by the way in his first instructional text.

Now I have read articles by doctors saying that this was all BUNK because studies have shown that you natually compensate for your dominant eye even if you sight with the cue between both eyes.

Conclusion, do what ever feels right to you.

Rod
04-10-2003, 03:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Yuppie:</font><hr> I've read about this before and have figured out which is my dominant eye. What do others do to overcome this handicap? Tilt head? Go with it and learn to compensate for it? Close one eye for a second? What do you do?

It's surprising to me when I see players who are phenomenal but their cue is not directly beneath both eyes. Instead, it's off to the side. How do they do it? <hr /></blockquote>

It's just they way they learned to aim. It doesn't make it right or wrong. I think teaching aiming under the dominant eye is wrong. Rather than basing the stance around 1 eye why not use the stance to incorparate equal use of both eyes? Sometimes a slight head cock is needed but you will learn to use both eyes. Insert disclamer, people may have poor sight in one eye. You don't have to think which eye is domanant putting and X in a box, hitting a tennis ball or any host of other activities they adjust. One eye IMO cuts down on the field and maybe depth of vision, I think that carries a little weight playing pool. Even good players may not be aligned correct. Their stance or alignment may be a little off and cause a missed shot. That's why it's important to have the same basic routine every time you approach the table. Your head position and eyes will adapt to the same view each time. I'm no expert here when it comes to eyes, I can't see what you see but that is my opinion.

Rod

Fran Crimi
04-10-2003, 05:28 PM
Here's where I have a problem with Fancher's experiment: I don't think that putting an eye patch over his dominant eye necessarily accomplished anything with regards to shooting pool. We shoot pool with both eyes open and I think that pool players experience their visual issues in pool, good or bad, when they're viewing something with both eyes open.

While I agree that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that says we actually see more accurately from our dominant eye, it just so happens that every pool player I've come across with a severely dominant eye (including myself, btw), unquestionably feels more comfortable when the cue is under that eye when both eyes are open. The key words here are "severely dominant".

I'll even go as far to say that it may not even be a matter of seeing the shot better but the dominant eye may be sending the information to the brain quicker than the recessive eye. Can you imagine what it must be like inside your brain when some information is lagging behind other information?

So should putting the cue under the dominant eye be encouraged? Sure, if the eye is severely dominant, because you may as well build your stance around it before you wind up making compensations.

If a player has a slightly dominant eye, then they may feel comfortable placing the cue under the center of their chin. That's the mistake I think some instructors make regarding dominant eye. Some players can still see fine with the cue directly under their chin.

But I don't see the benefits in trying to force a player to put the cue in the middle of their chin when they have a severely dominant eye, and they can't see a thing with the cue in the middle of their chin, because their eyes may be in severe conflict in the timing of sending information to the brain.

Fran

L.S. Dennis
04-10-2003, 07:56 PM
Fran,

Is it my immagination or do the women players tend as a rule to put the cue directly under the chin more so than the men pros do? Most of the women I've watched that would be Allison or Jeanette or even Lori Jon all seem to have the cue rubbing the middle of their chin.

On the other hand the men pros really seem to go to the other extreme. Look at the way Earl lines up, not only is he under his dominat eye but actually on the outside portion of his dominant eye. Shannon Dalton is anther one who immediately come to mind in this regard.

Just some observations,

Sid_Vicious
04-10-2003, 08:03 PM
I'll wager Earl is using both eyes, which is what I suggest as best...sid

socrates
04-10-2003, 08:12 PM
Fran - Interesting observations.

Curious how you might define SEVERE eye dominance?

And then how would one test to tell if they were severly eye dominant?

I may be wrong as I often am but I do not place as much emphasis on eye dominance as I do the consistency of where the cue is placed in relationship to the chin and dominant eye. Having said that, I think most people will either fall into the cue directly under the chin or the cue directly under the dominant eye as these two positions can be observed and repeated. For some their best sight perspective will be cue under the chin and for others it will be cue under the dominant eye. Perhaps this is where your observation of the SEVERELY dominant eye comes into play.

It appears to me that having the eyes LEVEL is equally as important as to the consistency of where the cue is in relationship to the chin or the dominant eye.

Chin Lock

Without a doubt there are more qualified people and stronger players that could offer a point of view on this than myself.

However, since until recently stance and alignment were a constant personal challenge I wanted to share some observations that have been of benefit in my game.

I could never get the chin lock concept as discussed in the BCA instructional video to work for me. Standing with my chin behind the line of the shot and the cue ball and then moving to assume my stance changed my sight perspective and view of the shot too much. It just did not look the same over the cue as it did in the port arms position before the shot.

I modified the chin lock concept into something I refer to as EYE LOCK. In the port arms position my right eye (which happens to be my dominant eye) is directly on the line of the shot behind the cue ball. My stance is assumed with little to no foot movement and I merely bend at the waist into the shooting position. In my shooting position and in my natural stance and alignment the cue happens to fall directly under my chin. Using this approach my sight perspective over the cue feels more consistent with the sight picture I am getting looking down the line of the shot in the port arms position before I assume my shooting position.

As a result of this approach I feel more relaxed and comfortable over the ball than I ever have and my ball pocketing has improved as well.

Fran, have you had any similar experiences in working with your students?

Tom_In_Cincy
04-10-2003, 08:46 PM
Fran,

I just posted this as a reference.

I have heard and seen a lot of instructors include the 'dominent eye' adjustments in their setup over the cue. Personally I think that if it helps your game, then, by all means make the adjustment and keep doing it.

I just thought it was interesting that this long time 'dominent eye' theroy was explained from a different viewpoint.

Fran Crimi
04-10-2003, 09:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> Fran,

I just posted this as a reference.

I have heard and seen a lot of instructors include the 'dominent eye' adjustments in their setup over the cue. Personally I think that if it helps your game, then, by all means make the adjustment and keep doing it.

I just thought it was interesting that this long time 'dominent eye' theroy was explained from a different viewpoint.

<hr /></blockquote>

Oops. I realized that you meant it as a reference, Tom. Didn't mean it to sound like I assumed you were in total agreement with the article. It is an interesting and different perspective and I think that there's a compromise that lies somewhere in between.

Thanks for pointing out the reference.

Fran

Fran Crimi
04-10-2003, 09:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote L.S. Dennis:</font><hr> Fran,

Is it my immagination or do the women players tend as a rule to put the cue directly under the chin more so than the men pros do? Most of the women I've watched that would be Allison or Jeanette or even Lori Jon all seem to have the cue rubbing the middle of their chin.

On the other hand the men pros really seem to go to the other extreme. Look at the way Earl lines up, not only is he under his dominat eye but actually on the outside portion of his dominant eye. Shannon Dalton is anther one who immediately come to mind in this regard.

Just some observations, <hr /></blockquote>

Interesting observations, Dennis. I'm not sure what the answer is other than you're just seeing a few players out of the bunch. I'll have to look at the other women and see where their cues are. I've had the dominant eye conversation with Loree Jon and she claims she has a dominant right eye. I don't know how severe it is, however. If you look closely, you'll see the cue very slightly more under the right side of her chin. Hard to see unless you're close.

Earl's really way out there, isn't he? LOL! I bet he's very severely right eye dominant. I'm that way too. I remember when I was a kid, watching TV at home with my family, and my mother asking me why I had my head tilted and looking at the TV out of my right eye. I didn't even realize I was doing it.

Fran

Tom_In_Cincy
04-10-2003, 09:20 PM
Fran... funny story..

Pros tend to copy each other for no other reason than if it works for the top pros.. it must work for them..

Once a pro golfer was asked why he removes his glove while putting.. the glove is always used for all the other clubs... His reply was "Arnie removes his glove when he putts... that's why"

Arnie replied when asked why... "to get an even tan on both hands"

Rod
04-10-2003, 10:01 PM
Interesting about domanant eyes Fran. So when you watched tv your right eye was towards or farther forward than your left eye? I tend to watch tv like I play pool, my right dominant eye is farther back. Like Steve I'm curious how you tell how severe it actually is. If I do any number of those finger eye tests etc the object moves pretty good when I close my right eye. Playing pool I've managed to balance them well, cue centered under chin and with my right eye farther back as mentioned.

Rod

Fran Crimi
04-10-2003, 10:40 PM
Whew...this is complicated stuff. I'm not sure if I even know what a severely dominant eye means. I will share with you my experiences in certain correlations that led me to my hypothesis about severely dominant eyes. It's purely unscientific but the correlations are definitely there.

I've given hundreds of students the test we call "dominant eye test" (I'm not even sure it's an accurate test) by having them make a circle with both hands at arms length, picking an object on the wall and putting it in the middle of the circle of their hands. I found that players who do well with the cue directly under both eyes tend to see little or no movement from the center of the circle when they view the object with one eye and then the other eye. Those that prefer the cue under their dominant eye usually see a much greater discrepancy, as with myself, where the object jumps substantially away from the center of the circle or even completely out of the circle when viewed with just the recessive eye. But when viewed with the dominant eye, the object remains closer to center.

As for eye lock, that sounds interesting, and I'd have to see your approach because I came to the conclusion for myself that you will have to give up your sighting on the shot during your approach in order to properly position yourself, particularly if you want to be balanced over the cue. I attacked this culprit by a method of planting your foot in the line of the shot and then allowing yourself to lose sight of it and then regain sight as you place your cue over your foot. Would that be called "foot-lock?" Haha!

Hopefully, someday we'll meet and compare methodologies.

Fran

Fran Crimi
04-10-2003, 10:47 PM
I used to throw my right eye right at the TV, Rod. If you were sitting to my left, you'd swear I was looking at you. Ha! My right eye was definitely more forward. I think answered your question on my theory of severe eye dominance in my post to socrates.

Fran

bluewolf
04-10-2003, 11:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote socrates:</font><hr> Fran - Interesting observations.

Curious how you might define SEVERE eye dominance?

And then how would one test to tell if they were severly eye dominant?

<hr /></blockquote> I dont get the 'sever ' part either either. However, my husband is strongly right eyed dominant. this is not the case for me. Sometimes one seems slightly more dominant, sometimes the other does and sometimes they seems equal. At one point I thought I was right handed and left eyed. A could shoot okay with either hand. As I improved, my shooting on my right got better and my left shooting is not very good on long shots, but okay on short ones and holding acue in the left feels pretty natural and the stroke has improved in my left hand. I came to the conclusion that I have 'incomplete' dominance, what some would call ambidextrous. Part of this may be due to particupation in karate and swimming where one has to learn to use both sides for all techniques.

So, I put the cue under my chin .

Laura

Fran Crimi
04-10-2003, 11:26 PM
Ha! That's funny, Tom. Well, I started taking my glove off because Nicklaus used to take his glove off. I bet he did it because Hogan did it, and I bet Hogan did it because Jones did it. Jones probably did it because it made him itchy. LOL

Fran

Rod
04-10-2003, 11:52 PM
Um Fran, the tv is "over there" LOL I wonder how many people are aware of how they aim? From my end it's not all that many. BTW if I look at the thermostat, about 15' away that sucker moves about 18". Now at 9' Im sure it's a lot less. Ok I just tried at 7 feet, it moves 7".

When I play pool my head position is such that the ball is inbetween that range. If I get my left eye a little to forwards it can become the domanant eye per-say. At any rate the image isn't correct and it's something that's changed a little over the years. So has my alignment to accommodate the vision change.

Rod

Fran Crimi
04-11-2003, 12:09 AM
That sounds pretty severe to me, Rod. Hey, we should go see a movie together sometime. People around us would think we're watching the wall. LMAO!

Fran

socrates
04-11-2003, 10:02 AM
Foot-lock. Very funny.

Perhaps what we are touching on is the importance of having a base point that we can anchor to when performing our pre-shot routine and visualizing the shot. That anchor point perhaps allows us to transition to our shooting position consistently.

So there you go. We now have chin-lock, eye-lock and foot-lock.

04-19-2003, 09:49 AM
Contrary to Fran's assertion, there is nothing wrong with the design of the experiment she criticizes.

In an experiment, we need (among others)three things: a hypothesis to be tested, an independent variable, and a dependent variable.

My hypothesis was that shooting accuracy is a function of a complex of brain/body/memory–I don’t remember exactly what words I used when I wrote the articles years ago–in which direction of ocular input is not determinative, since the complex can compensate for ocular variations.

The dependent variable is shooting accuracy, and the independent variable is eye input.

There are three values of the independent variable relevant to the hypothesis: dominant eye in association with the non-dominant eye (both eyes open), dominant eye alone, and non-dominant eye alone. If my hypothesis is wrong, changing the value of the independent variable must entail changes in the value of the dependent variable.

My little experiment, within the I confines accurately reported, confirmed that the dependent variable (shooting accuracy) is not determined by the value of the independent variable. This supports my hypothesis. Replication, of course, is key to the value of any finite set of instances of executing the experiment. That is an issue distinct from probity of design, however.

When we manipulate the value of the independent variable, it is always to find out what the normal value does and does not entail.

Research on the work done by the respective hemispheres of the brain, for instance, always either prevents input to one side, or it uses subjects whose hemispheres do not communicate because of surgical alteration. Obviously, these experimental conditions do not resemble normal conditions. That is why they can tell us what the normal conditions do--when we remove the normal conditions, we see what, if any, changes are entailed.

Similarly, that people do not play pool with one eye covered is irrelevant to the value of this experiment. We can only understand the value of the normal variable by comparing it with contrasting values for the same variable.

bluewolf
04-19-2003, 10:05 AM
Some people think that this is a non-issue. I think that it is an issue, just not a handicap. It can be a strength.
If left eyed dominant and right handed, lots of people shoot with the cue under their chin. When shooting off handed, varies with the person. I could only say what I do but their are people here like Leonard who shoot extremely well with both hands. A definate strength. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Laura

TomBrooklyn
04-19-2003, 10:08 AM
My instructor tested me for my dominant eye in our first lesson, and determined that I held the cue stick under it and therefore didn't have to make any adjustment there. I was glad because I didn't want to have to get into changing such a fundamental aspect as which eye I used to look at the ball. In all of the many hours and years I've spent playing various sports that require hand-eye coordination with considerable success, I've never once thought about which eye I was using.

He said that he has instructed some people that held the cue under the wrong eye for them and he was able to extract an immediate improvement by having them change the eye they use. I noted that and then relegated it to the interesting things to know that don't apply to me file drawer of my brain. I don't even want to think about my dominant eye. I have enough other things to think about to shoot properly.

04-19-2003, 10:53 AM
Tom,

I never gave much thought, either, to which eye I was using in various other sports -- baseball and tennis in particular.

But I did have a strange experience that should have told me something. I was playing a tennis tournament and had just one contact lens (had no glasses at the time, was living totally hand to mouth). Anyway, I could wear it in either eye, so I'd go back and forth trying to figure what gave me the best chance and finally settled on the right eye. At the time I based the decision mainly on the fact that the right eye was the lead eye on my backhand side. I couldn't hit a decent shot with the lens in my left eye, which is further from the stroke, but could hit a passable forehand because I hit that with an open stance, facing the net.

But I noticed a similar compensating effect recently when I started fooling around with cashpoolcomps -- would end up craning my head around to the right to line up shots.

Guess I'm right-eyed?

Anyway, that tournament was about 20 years ago, and I won it with one eye and one racquet. Now I've got stacks of lenses and racquets ... and lots of empty space on the trophy shelf. And another thing in my head to mess up my aim, along with deflection, throw, lack of confidence, overconfidence, gutlessness ...

L.S. Dennis
04-19-2003, 01:44 PM
There has been nothing in my almost 40 years of playing pool that has me more grief than trying to figure out which eye to put over the cue. Ever since I watched the Jim Rempe/ Lori Jon instructional video in which they say that you need to have the cue directly under the dominant eye did this become an issue for me. They even showed the little test how to determine which is your dominant eye.

Nothing more in pool has ever given me more problems than this question for which I still don't have an answer. Sometimes I seem to shoot better under my right eye and other times I shoot better with the cue directly under my chin, and just this morning I was shooting better with the cue under my left eye. Go figure!

04-19-2003, 01:54 PM
Jeez, sounds like it makes sense to look the other way on this one.

I've been taking it on the chin, so to speak, but will at least be listening more to the right eye and see if it helps any. For sure, I notice that if I start consciously adjusting my aim (aside from the usual, instinctual lining up of a shot) when I'm at the table, that I end up sitting down real soon.

Alfie
04-19-2003, 04:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BobFancher from his AZBilliards article:</font><hr> [...] Having thought about all this, I tried an experiment. I know I'm right-eye dominant, so I went to the pool table and blindfolded my right eye. Instinctively, I lined up differently over my stick-moving my chin farther to the right-and amazed myself by shooting quite well immediately. I was stunned. I tried this for several days running, with the same results each time. <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi criticism:</font><hr> Here's where I have a problem with Fancher's experiment: I don't think that putting an eye patch over his dominant eye necessarily accomplished anything with regards to shooting pool. We shoot pool with both eyes open and I think that pool players experience their visual issues in pool, good or bad, when they're viewing something with both eyes open. <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BobFancher:</font><hr> There are three values of the independent variable relevant to the hypothesis: dominant eye in association with the non-dominant eye (both eyes open), dominant eye alone, and non-dominant eye alone. If my hypothesis is wrong, changing the value of the independent variable must entail changes in the value of the dependent variable.

My little experiment, within the I confines accurately reported, confirmed that the dependent variable (shooting accuracy) is not determined by the value of the independent variable. This supports my hypothesis. Replication, of course, is key to the value of any finite set of instances of executing the experiment. That is an issue distinct from probity of design, however.

When we manipulate the value of the independent variable, it is always to find out what the normal value does and does not entail.

[...] that people do not play pool with one eye covered is irrelevant to the value of this experiment. We can only understand the value of the normal variable by comparing it with contrasting values for the same variable. <hr /></blockquote>Even if we were to accept the anecdotal evidence from this too small, biased sample, it seems like a more obvious conclusion would be that there is no difference between monocular and binocular billiard play, an idea that a huge majority of us reject.

Would a cue's position relative to the two opened eyes be a valid independent variable? Would that combined with a larger sample and a more accurately measured dependent variable be a better test?

wolfdancer
04-19-2003, 04:11 PM
Has anybody given credence to the idea that Cyclops, must have been some kinda pool player?? probably only me, and I'm only on my 3rd, gin &amp; tonic...he could put the cue under his chin, AND his dominant eye would line up automatically...i wonder if Homer played..maybe that's where he got the idea for the "monster"

04-19-2003, 04:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr> Would a cue's position relative to the two opened eyes be a valid independent variable? Would that combined with a larger sample and a more accurately measured dependent variable be a better test? <hr /></blockquote>

Of course, and of course. My only point in my comment on Fran was simply that her criticism of the experimental design was off, since she was, in essence, complaining about manipulating the independent variable.

04-19-2003, 04:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr> Even if we were to accept the anecdotal evidence from this too small, biased sample, it seems like a more obvious conclusion would be that there is no difference between monocular and binocular billiard play,<hr /></blockquote>

Actually, that's not true. As I reported, closing an eye (either eye) does make a difference--namely, that one instinctively changes stick position. I didn't point that out becausew it just wasn't the topic of the article. One cannot conclude there is no difference where an alteration makes a difference.

Look, I just offered that little experiment in service to the larger point of the article, to give the piece a little color.

I don't have any big investment in the question of cue position; as I stated in the article, I suspect--that's *suspect*--there is signifcance to the facts (a) though the phenomenon has been known for several hundred years, scientists do not, so far as I can find--as detailed in the article--accord it any place in accounts of how normal vision works, and (b) the only report I could find of a controlled study in sports showed that there is no causal significance to eye dominance.

Nonetheless, instinctive change of the cue stick position is consistent with my hypothesis, and would in fact be predicted by it, as is not the case with the alternate conclusion you offer.

L.S. Dennis
04-19-2003, 04:55 PM
Dr. Francher,
Thank you for chiming in on this thing. With all the emphasis given to mechanics it seems like this is the one thing that is most over looked. Mike Sigel said in an article he wrote that the one main reason more than anything else for people missing balls is bad 'head position'(or at least inconsistent head position) over the cue while shooting. As I said earlier this whole thing has done more to ruin my game than any other thing that I can think of. Thanks again for bringing this up, it helps just to know other people have these same concerns.

Fred Agnir
04-20-2003, 06:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote L.S. Dennis:</font><hr> Dr. Francher,
Thank you for chiming in on this thing. With all the emphasis given to mechanics it seems like this is the one thing that is most over looked. Mike Sigel said in an article he wrote that the one main reason more than anything else for people missing balls is bad 'head position'(or at least inconsistent head position) over the cue while shooting. <hr /></blockquote>Both 'eye dominance' and 'head position'are topics discussed ad nauseum on these boards. And of course, most instructors will discuss eye dominance and head position. IMO, these two aren't overlooked.

Fred &lt;~~~ thinks eye dominance is different than head position

bluewolf
04-20-2003, 07:29 AM
We figured that I was born left. I am slightly left eyed dominant, not severly. I shoot fine with the cue under my chin when shooting right. Since I was brought up right handed, I do have slight more coordination with the right.

My left shooting is getting better though.When I shoot leftie, my left eye is right over the cue. I can make all the short shots with my left that I can make with my right. Just weaker on the long ones.

I think that with experience, the time will come that they will be equal. It must be a hereditary thing. Myself, my sister, brother and son are all ambi.

Laura

Hopster
04-20-2003, 02:30 PM
Ive tried to keep the cue under the dominant eye and it hasnt made much difference. What i have found the last 5-6 times ive played is i put an immense amount of concentration on the exact aim point of the OB. Way more than ive ever done before and i am making cut shots and tough shots that ive never been able to make with this sort of consistency before.
I was going to post this sooner but i was waiting to see if i was just running "hot" for a short period of time or not. The thing is i make sure my stroke is relaxed and i stay down on the shot but more than anything i have found i am literally staring a hole in the Ob and never taking my eye off it. The table length cut shots i ive been making i have never made with this sort of consistency before. My wife and a few other people have taken note of it also so there must be something to it.
Im also finding its hard to keep this sort of concentration going for more than an hour or two. After that if im tired i find myself slipping a little and have to bear down again.
Anyone have any comments on this ? Have i discovered the holy grail ? lol

bluewolf
04-20-2003, 05:03 PM
Well I have FINALLY realized I am more left eye dominant than I thought. I have been shooting righty although my left shooting keeps getting better.

I shoot with the cue under my chin, but have realized that I cock my head to look with my left eye. It is a wonder I get any balls in.

So after this session, I am switching. I may play like a REAL two for awhile but what the hey. And I think in the end it will be good as I will always have my right to fall back on but it is going to be odd.

I can make most short shots with my left and not too difficult side pocket shots but as of yet cannot make any long shots. hehehe

Laura

bluewolf
04-20-2003, 05:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BobFancher:</font><hr> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three values of the independent variable relevant to the hypothesis: dominant eye in association with the non-dominant eye (both eyes open), dominant eye alone, and non-dominant eye alone. If my hypothesis is wrong, changing the value of the independent variable must entail changes in the value of the dependent variable.

My little experiment, within the I confines accurately reported, confirmed that the dependent variable (shooting accuracy) is not determined by the value of the independent variable. This supports my hypothesis. Replication, of course, is key to the value of any finite set of instances of executing the experiment. That is an issue distinct from probity of design, however.

<hr /></blockquote>

My point is this. What a horsesh*t of psychobable. Why not just talk plain english!!!!

Laura

Alfie
04-21-2003, 06:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BobFancher:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr> it seems like a more obvious conclusion would be that there is no difference between monocular and binocular billiard play,<hr /></blockquote>Actually, that's not true. As I reported, closing an eye (either eye) does make a difference--namely, that one instinctively changes stick position. I didn't point that out becausew it just wasn't the topic of the article. One cannot conclude there is no difference where an alteration makes a difference.

[...], instinctive change of the cue stick position is consistent with my hypothesis, and would in fact be predicted by it, as is not the case with the alternate conclusion you offer. <hr /></blockquote>It looks to me like-
Independent variable = shooting with either one or two eyes opened.
Dependent variable = how well you pocketed balls each way (not whether you move the cue under the lone opened eye (??)).
When you covered one eye you reported that "[I] amazed myself by shooting quite well immediately." I just assumed you shot quite well with both eyes opened.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BobFancher:</font><hr> I don't have any big investment in the question of cue position; as I stated in the article, I suspect--that's *suspect*--there is signifcance to the facts (a) though the phenomenon has been known for several hundred years, scientists do not, so far as I can find--as detailed in the article--accord it any place in accounts of how normal vision works, and (b) the only report I could find of a controlled study in sports showed that there is no causal significance to eye dominance. <hr /></blockquote> The criteria for cue alignment wrt/the eyes should have nothing to do with eye dominancy but rather whether the cue points to where you think it points. (a) and (b) notwithstanding, others disagree, and we will be stuck with this split in thinking until a rigorous test is done specifically for pool. IMO

Alfie
04-21-2003, 06:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> My point is this. What a horsesh*t of psychobable. Why not just talk plain english!!!! <hr /></blockquote> Yeah! Or a few growls, yips, and howls would do.

04-21-2003, 02:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote BobFancher:</font><hr> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three values of the independent variable relevant to the hypothesis: dominant eye in association with the non-dominant eye (both eyes open), dominant eye alone, and non-dominant eye alone. If my hypothesis is wrong, changing the value of the independent variable must entail changes in the value of the dependent variable.

My little experiment, within the I confines accurately reported, confirmed that the dependent variable (shooting accuracy) is not determined by the value of the independent variable. This supports my hypothesis. Replication, of course, is key to the value of any finite set of instances of executing the experiment. That is an issue distinct from probity of design, however.

<hr /></blockquote>

My point is this. What a horsesh*t of psychobable. Why not just talk plain english!!!!

Laura <hr /></blockquote>

I find this attack very puzzling:
(1) There is not a single psychological term in the passage quoted, so I cannot imagine what set bluewolf to howling about "psychobabble."
(2). The only word in the passage that isn't an ordinary English word is "probity." I guess I could have said, "logic sufficient to distinguish what is being tested for from what isn't," and perhaps I should have done that. 'Sorry.
(3) I don't understand the reason for the profane, insulting language. I certainly did not attack or speak to anyone in such a manner.

Fran Crimi, of whom I think and have written many good things, said she did not think my little experiment applied to pool. I explained why the design of the experiment was correct. Nothing personal, no attacks, just straightforward decription of the logic of the experiment.

I don't know what's inappropriate in responding to criticism of an experimental design by speaking in the terms normally used to evaluate experimental design.

04-21-2003, 02:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr> notwithstanding, others disagree, and we will be stuck with this split in thinking until a rigorous test is done specifically for pool. IMO <hr /></blockquote>

I do not disagree with you on that point at all. That is why I have never taken a public position on the question--just reported what a literature search of the scientific literature showed and the *suspicions* it provokes for me, with a little concrete example thrown in for color.

Nor do I claim my little experiment is the best possible one, nor that it should be the one funded, nor that several different experimental designs could be considered if ever anyone were to fund serious research.

If anyone ever came up with the money to do rigorous testing for pool, that would be great. One of the many reasons I quit writing about pool was that I decided there was no point proceeding further without such funding. On some things, the current state of psychological knowledge is sufficient to provide grounds for extrapolating. On others, it isn't. And nobody seems interested in spending money on serious research into pool.

Anyway, I just jumped into this thread to respond to Fran on the issue of my experiment's relevance. I tried to state clearly and objectively why I did the little experiment the way I did it and why that design makes sense. That's all I had an investment in addressing.

bluewolf
04-21-2003, 04:06 PM
Terms used which were used predominately taughtin "Experimental Psychology".

Get out of your psychology box.
"You are inside your own head and behind enemy lines"

Laura

04-21-2003, 05:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> Terms used which were used predominately taughtin "Experimental Psychology".

Get out of your psychology box.
"You are inside your own head and behind enemy lines"

Laura <hr /></blockquote>

Well, it is certainly true that experimental psychology, like all scientific fields, uses basic scientific method. That does not make the basic terms of experimentation--terms that predate the field of psychology by a few hundred years--psychobabble.

I still do not understand why discussing an experiment in the basic terms used to describe experiments is inappropriate.

In any case, it was certainly not my intent to insult anyone.

My intent, as I've made clear, was to explain why the method I used was relevant, contrary to Fran's assertion.

bluewolf
04-21-2003, 06:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BobFancher:</font><hr>Well, it is certainly true that experimental psychology, like all scientific fields, uses basic scientific method. That does not make the basic terms of experimentation--terms that predate the field of psychology by a few hundred years--psychobabble.

I still do not understand why discussing an experiment in the basic terms used to describe experiments is inappropriate.

In any case, it was certainly not my intent to insult anyone.

My intent, as I've made clear, was to explain why the method I used was relevant, contrary to Fran's assertion. <hr /></blockquote>

Well i am sorry I was rude. In addition to the statistics courses required of psychology majors, I spent a good deal of time studying statistics in the math department in my advanced degree training. It really opened my eyes as to the fact that most experiments are based on bogus statistical methods. For that reason, I am also a skeptic.

Laura

04-21-2003, 07:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr>

Well i am sorry I was rude. In addition to the statistics courses required of psychology majors, I spent a good deal of time studying statistics in the math department in my advanced degree training. It really opened my eyes as to the fact that most experiments are based on bogus statistical methods. For that reason, I am also a skeptic.

Laura <hr /></blockquote>

Thank you.

I share your skepticism about statistically-based studies, though apparently my skepticism doesn't take me as far down the road toward disbelief as yours takes you.

Again, thanks.

bluewolf
04-21-2003, 10:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BobFancher:</font><hr> Laura <hr /></blockquote>

Thank you.

I share your skepticism about statistically-based studies, though apparently my skepticism doesn't take me as far down the road toward disbelief as yours takes you.

Again, thanks.

<hr /></blockquote>

My road took me into an awakening of nonparametric vs paramethric stats and how parametric stats were used on non parametric data. Sorry for the jargon folks.

It is so bad, that I am very sorry to say that IQ tests are based on incorrect statistics and there of course are other problems with IQ tests such as inadequate basils and ceilings , for example.

When I hear about an experiemnt I want to know about the data, how it was chosen,what kind of data it is, is it representative of the population and then what stat method was chosen and if parametric, does the data have discrete intervals and is it normally distributed. Of course there is the issue of whether it was representative of the population it purported to sample, and what of the experimetor, blind, double blind etc, and is it valid, that is does is measure what it puports to measure.

sorry folks, I am talking to Bob here and I think that he knows what I am talking about.

Laura

04-21-2003, 10:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr>
My road took me into an awakening of nonparametric vs paramethric stats and how parametric stats were used on non parametric data. Sorry for the jargon folks. . . . When I hear about an experiemnt I want to know about the data, how it was chosen,what kind of data it is, is it representative of the population and then what stat method was chosen and if parametric, does the data have discrete intervals and is it normally distributed. Of course there is the issue of whether it was representative of the population it purported to sample, and what of the experimetor, blind, double blind etc, and is it valid, that is does is measure what it puports to measure.

sorry folks, I am talking to Bob here and I think that he knows what I am talking about.

Laura <hr /></blockquote>

To continue Laura's apology: If you don't like jargon please skip this altogether.

I agree completely, but I'd even argue that the problems with statistical methods start at a more basic level--with some of the fundamental theorems. I have never seen an argument for the central limit theorem, for instance, that seemed persuasive to me.

I'm sure you'd find it interesting--you probably already know this, so forgive me if I'm repeating old knowledge--that in the "hard sciences" the statistical methods of the behavioral and social sciences are generally looked upon with disdain. Some of the reasons are precisely the ones you mentioned.

Let me offer a thought, based on my own experience: I think that within social and behavioral science, the science is much worse in the clinical fields than in other areas. For instance, as you probably know, almost all data on treatment outcomes is, in reality, nonparametric--but researchers slap numbers on it, pretend the intervals are discrete, and use parametric methods. The research on depression, using Beck's Inventory, makes me apoplectic doing that. I mean, give me a break--they ask someone to number from one to seven how strongly they agree with a given statement, then treat that as statistically meaningful? Please.

BUT when I moved beyond the clinical fields, I found that there are people who do a much better job of trying to keep their methods straight, relying less--sometimes not at all--on statistical paradigms. It may be--and I could be wrong; I don't know your history, so it may be that your experience wouldn't parallel mine--that outside the clinical areas in which you were trained, you might find more folks whose work is worthy of respect. That's been my experience, anyway. That's why I generally find neurology more helpful than psychiatric research, cognitive science more helpful than clinical psychology. There really are some conscientious researchers out there, even if they are the minority. That's how it seems to me, anyway.

You may have absolutely no interest in this, but insofar as I am "known" for anything in the world of professional psychology and psychiatry, it is for my arguments on the limits of current scientific knowledge, the falsehood of the central claims of the mental health disciplines' claims about themselves, and the importance of non-scientific disciplines for understanding human life. I am not by any means one of those idiots who thinks that most of what psychologists have to say is worth listening to, even though I think some of it is very important. (I even argue in my professional writings that in the better areas of social and behavioral science, we already know that most research in clinical fields in wrong. Anthony Storr, writing in "Nature," said he couldn't understand how I could stay in the field since I am so critical of it.)

Thanks for persevering in this discussion. I think we understand each other better now, right? I hope so.

bluewolf
04-22-2003, 06:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BobFancher:</font><hr> Thanks for persevering in this discussion. I think we understand each other better now, right? I hope so.

<hr /></blockquote>

Yes and you probably know the strange looks I got from my colleages when I mentioned certain methods as being bogus.I felt like a fish out of water and have recently left the field. It is nice that someone understands what I am saying. Thanks.

OTOH. I recognize that some things are more woowoo;things that cannot be validated because they are experiencial. Some things that occur are not even repeatable in a scientific way. This drives some scientists bonkers. They often desparately seek an explanation within science when there is none. In these cases, all a person can say to the scientists is ,'I believe'.

Is it possible for a person to know what eye is dominant? Most of the time, no. Is it important? Most of the time no.

How did I know? I just knew.
How did I know I would be getting a wolf a year before I got him? I just knew.

I think that some things may fit better in the realm of the paranormal.[scientists have even tried to quantify that, most often to their frustration] Some of us just 'know' things. These things cannot be scientifically proven but they do happen to some people.

Certain religions refer to things of this nature as 'mysteries'. Perhaps that is as good of an explanation as any.

Have a good day.

btw, I do like your book, even though I had to go back and read the later chapters. Ah the pleasures of small motions. Sometimes, I just want to emmerse myself in the feel of the stroke, the click of the balls, etc... I got this from your book.

Am currently writing two books, but they are a bit woowoo.

Laura

cycopath
04-22-2003, 02:16 PM
"Mrs. Krabappel may I be excused, my brain is full."
(Ralph Wiggum)