|
|
Truespace 7.6 price?
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Truespace 7.6 price? // Roundtable
Post by nowherebrain // Jul 11, 2008, 1:57pm
|
nowherebrain
Total Posts: 1062
|
I am in Amarillo(Texas), and it does get hot, not Iraq hot, but hot none the less. |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 11, 2008, 7:55pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Very good point Tom, and that's the reason why I purchased trueSpace. I needed a non-educational software license that I could sell my work from. I think what a lot of people don't realize is that the education licenses are very limited in what you are allowed to use content produced for.
As to the whether here in Maryland, the occasional rain has been nice, but I'm enjoying nice comfortable air conditioning and contributing to CO2 emmissions. :p |
Post by prodigy // Jul 12, 2008, 7:58am
|
prodigy
Total Posts: 3029
|
Here is winter -1° ~ 10° but for some strage reason today we are on tShirts
Who sais Global warming isn't Cool! :p |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 12, 2008, 9:12am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
LOL, Prodigy. ;)
Turning Canadians into farmers one degree at a time! :D |
Post by SteveBe // Jul 12, 2008, 10:59am
|
SteveBe
Total Posts: 282
|
There's aready plenty of farmers up here, but soon they'll be growing oranges.:) |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 13, 2008, 5:37am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Mid winter here - cold, frosty the snow has all melted and the river is no longer running over the road - warmish day today, bulbs in the garden think it's spring, but they'll learn - plenty more cold to come.
Re 'Industry Standard' conversations - I've said it before and will probably say it again but the distinction between 3d stuff used by the industry and 3d stuff that isn't, is really limiting. I mean REALLY, really limiting. I'm in regular contact with many people who make some income from 3d in one sense or another - none of those people are making movies or working at Weta or Pixar.
In fact I suggest that if you totaled up the number of people who are making some sort of income from 3D Computer generated imagery you would find that only a comparatively small percentage of those people work in "the Industry" (Assuming we define "The Industry" as meaning Films and Big Studio games). My basis for making this statement is as follows - there are far more people driving cheap and effective cars like Honda Civics than there are driving highly expensive and specialised Lexus's and so on.
The perception that the 3d industry is just big name movie and game companies is inaccurate and dangerously misleading. I groan inwardly everytime I see those words "Industry Standard" because they are based on a faulty premise.
I learned the fundamentals of 3d work - building meshes, texturing them rigging them for various types of deformation and animating or producing a detailed still image, from using a very simple program called Anim8or.
Learning to build a house you learn to build the foundation before you build the walls - ditto with 3d. You learn the foundation, building and texturing meshes and producing a finalised graphic image file - this is the same from any level and with any software at any level of the so-called 3d industry.
tS makes an excellent software package for the person wanting to learn how to do 3d - regardless of which area of the 3d world he hopes to finally make his living in. Why? Because tS as it is has a range (actually two ranges) of PE tools, it has animation tools it has a State-of-the-art Link Editor and integration with a wide range of very different renderers and so on.
Now, if I imagine I'm looking for a competent 3d worker to do a complex 3d job for me and I think: do I want to employ the person with a good understanding of 3d from using tS for a couple of years and then spending say a year on a more complex application (no names here) OR do I want to employ a person who has spent 3 years learning the complex tool and quite possible NOT having a good basic understanding .....?
Anyone can argue that point - it's full of holes but, so is the suggestion that tS is not a good tool for someone starting out in 3d Work.
The key, as has been said, is knowing where you want to end up. At the end of the day you could have 3 years experience with tS and another (so called) Industry Standard Application or you could have 3 years experience with just that Industry Standard app and neither of those education pathways can indicate who will be the better artist, or the better co-worker.
Time and time again Employers consistently look for the same single attribute above all else when looking at prospective employees - attitude. Someone with a great attitude and a mediocre education will get more job offers than someone with a great education and a mediocre attitude. Why? Because no-one wants to work with someone with an attitude problem.
Finally, I never forget that 80% of the people who see my art have no idea how it's made, let alone the names and comparative merits of the software used. They just want to see more pictures and to know what happens next.
I don't care who made the hammer that my builder uses as long as he uses it well enough that my roof neither leaks nor blows away. |
Post by Steinie // Jul 13, 2008, 8:20am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
I've read tons of Hog Wash in this thread. Companies are looking for TALENTED people not Software gurus.
Straight from Pixar's Site...
Pixar uses its own proprietary software built and maintained in-house. In general, we look for broad artistic and technical skills, rather than the ability to run one package over another. We concentrate on finding people with breadth, depth, communication skills and the ability to collaborate. If you have those attributes, we can teach you the specific tools.
Everyone has specific talents in certain fields. You could spend Years trying to teach me to sing but my vocal cords still would sound like a strangled cat. (Not that I would know what that would sound like...)
I disagree totally on the idea it is not genetic. You can teach color theory, perspective, human anatomy and each person would be "educated" but now ask them to "create". That can't be taught.
We all have special talents and TS makes the job of 3D easier but the talented gifted 3D artist can be seen a mile away. |
Post by brotherx // Jul 13, 2008, 8:23am
|
brotherx
Total Posts: 538
|
I was down in this town called Lehinch yesterday...it was about 15C and went bodyboarding - I have a wet suit so not so bad in the water. However, my head, and the lack of hair, has left me with a real bad case of sunburn - almost glow-in-the-dark....
Was fun. |
Post by noko // Jul 13, 2008, 11:21am
|
noko
Total Posts: 684
|
. . .
Also, is TS 7.5 already being used by big movie studios/game companies (Just like Maya, and 3ds Max)?
Something I didn't read in this thread. One can open one own movie/game studio and tS I think would do rather well in making good content. What gets the job done the fastest, cheapest and maybe beyond what your competitors can match sounds like a winner to me, no matter what software packages one uses. One own standards can be higher then the industry standards ;). |
Post by rjeff // Jul 13, 2008, 1:02pm
|
rjeff
Total Posts: 1260
|
I would love to see a Kerythea (sp) plug in like dribble does for Render Man...one more tool can't hurt. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 13, 2008, 9:40pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
I've read tons of Hog Wash in this thread. Companies are looking for TALENTED people not Software gurus.
Straight from Pixar's Site...
Pixar uses its own proprietary software built and maintained in-house. In general, we look for broad artistic and technical skills, rather than the ability to run one package over another. We concentrate on finding people with breadth, depth, communication skills and the ability to collaborate. If you have those attributes, we can teach you the specific tools.
Everyone has specific talents in certain fields. You could spend Years trying to teach me to sing but my vocal cords still would sound like a strangled cat. (Not that I would know what that would sound like...)
I disagree totally on the idea it is not genetic. You can teach color theory, perspective, human anatomy and each person would be "educated" but now ask them to "create". That can't be taught.
We all have special talents and TS makes the job of 3D easier but the talented gifted 3D artist can be seen a mile away.
Yours is a common perception Steinie (one I used to share) but commonality doesn't necessarily make it true. What is commonly labeled as 'talent' covers a wide range of things including physical ability (which must be learned, usually by repetition), theory (as in an intellectual understanding of underlying principles) and usually an ability to synthesize the principles of one field with another in new ways. Added to this is a positive can-do attitude.
There is a vast body of work which falls under the general title of NLP - Neuro-Linguistic Programming - which is based on the ability to essentially quantify the so-called 'Talents' of any expert in any field. By eliciting the specific strategies that a 'talented' person uses to do... well, whatever they do, and teaching those strategies to someone else then that someone else can produce the same results - ie, appear to have 'talent' particularly to those who are not aware of those strategies.
For example; some people are better at spelling than others - according to the theory of talent this would suggest that good spellers have a 'Talent' or natural affinity for spelling that poor spellers lack. But NLP studies have shown definitively that the only real difference between those who spell well and those who don't is the internal strategy they use when spelling. Turns out that all good spellers use the same strategy - that is, they mentally visualise the letter symbols that make up the word. Poor spellers also use a common but not as effective strategy in that they hear the sounds that make up the word and try to base it's correct spelling on the sounds - which does not work as well as seeing the words.
It's been effectively demonstrated that poor spellers who are taught to use the same visual strategy employed by good spellers experience a rapid improvement in spelling ability that soon matches that of good spellers - which means that folk with no 'talent' for spelling can be taught 'talent' - meaning it's not genetic, or Karmic or preordained in any way - All you need to display 'Talent' is a desire to learn to master your given field.
Singing is a prime example - actually music in general. Effective musicians (or those commonly called 'talented') are effective because they utilise effective internal strategies. It was once commonly held that perfect pitch was something your were either born with or you weren't. Turns out this is wrong because if you teach a 'tone-deaf' person to do exactly the same thing that a Pitch Perfect person does (and again it involves utilising the visual cortex - literally 'seeing' the notes) then they can rapidly aquire the ability to sing in pitch.
We use the word 'Talent' as a sort of shorthand term for great ability - but if one person is able to do something then another person, who does the same thing, can also do it. 'Talent' is a useful shorthand term but also has the draw back of implying that some people are naturally better at some things than other people when in fact the folk who are better simply use better strategies - strategies that must be learned.
In closing Steinie I note with interest that your quote from Pixar specifically does NOT use the word talent.
You say "You can teach color theory, perspective, human anatomy and each person would be "educated" but now ask them to "create". That can't be taught." This begs the question; how did the supposedly talented 'creative' person acquire the talent? There are specific internal strategies that promote creativity - these strategies are very learnable and usually involve blending different disciplines (ie learned skills) in unique ways. There is a whole industry out there specialising in optimising human ability - or talent if you prefer - and what I'm saying here is well documented. Anyone who studies this will soon find that the idea of 'inborn talent' simply does not match known facts.
Furthermore, the concept of talent (specifically the belief that a person has none) works to prevent many people from trying and learning new skills and disciplines which otherwise they are perfectly capable of learning given an effective understanding of the strategies involved. |
Post by jamesmc // Jul 13, 2008, 9:49pm
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
Buying skills - Will pay in talents (about 1500 dollars in current silver value) |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 13, 2008, 10:16pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Sorry Wizard, I'm not buying the we're all born equal stuff. Gotta agree with Steinie on this one.
Some people's brains are wired differently. That gives each person different advantages and disadvantages. It's the same with our bodies. Some people are taller/shorter, have natural athleticism and coordination, etc. A 6' linebacker isn't going to be a good gymnast, lol!
It's the same thing with the "created equal" bullshit in the U.S. constitution. God may love all of us, but he certainly didn't create us all equal. So unless I'm missing some key passage of scripture, that's something made up out of whole cloth. Rather, I think the intent of the author was to indicate that the new government would not give favor to position of birth and that the country would not have a caste system which conferred privilege or lack there of based on what family a person was born to.
Yes techniques can be taught to make one with lesser talent competitive, but that doesn't make him Da'Vinci or Einstien!
You're theory makes two flawed assumption: That the guy with talent won't continue to improve as well! And that his innate physical (genetic) advantages doesn't matter.
This is a common tactic used by communist thought: No one is special. Removing a person's individuality makes it much easier to bend them to the will of the collective. It promotes a culture of mindless sheep.
That said, just because some one has more talent doesn't mean that someone with less talent can't become better than them through hard work. But it does require that the guy with talent not put in the hard work. ;)
This is why competition works! It helps push people to strive for new heights, when they would normally be complacent. It's good for both those of lesser talent to exceed expectations, as well as keeping those with greater talent on their toes.
You can see that effect right here on this forum. It's clear that the SMC and MMC events we've been running here have helped push many of us to achieve and improve.
My talent lays more in technical and teaching. "Art" is something that I've generally always struggled with. I understand the theory on the technical level and that helps me to make adequate works, but I'll never be able to compete on the level with someone that has similar technical skills and an innate ability to create things of beauty. That's just the way it is. But that doesn't stop me from taking up the challenge! :p |
Post by transient // Jul 13, 2008, 10:23pm
|
transient
Total Posts: 977
|
I haven't read some of these posts in depth, as anything longer than a couple of paragraphs tends to make me nod off, but one thing that I can pretty much guarantee is that Pixar will hire people who are talented enough, regardless of their background.
There was one guy who famously went from doing Animation Master character animation and now works there. I'm pretty sure it was also Pixar that bragged about taking traditional animators, sitting them cold in front of maya rigs, and saying "go for it" (this was back when they were still dreaming of greatness).
If for some reason you've just woken up from a coma and have never seen a pc, but you possess uber animation skills, I'm sure Pixar would still consider hiring you.
Other companies, maybe not, but I would bet my house that Pixar would. That's why they're the best............ |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 14, 2008, 12:00am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Sorry Wizard, I'm not buying the we're all born equal stuff. Gotta agree with Steinie on this one.LOL - Fair enough Jack - don't take my word for it but when you've spent some time studying Neuro-linguistics get back to me.
Note also that I am NOT saying we are all born equal - we all have genetic and physical differences that impact our ability to do physical things - like your linebacker and gymnast. But I'm not really talking about physiological differences I'm talking about strategic differences. Lets take your linebacker and your gymnast and assume no computer experience between then. Lets teach them both to use trueSpace using the same teaching strategies. Lets also teach one of them a series of specific and known strategies for enhancing creativity - which one will end up looking more talented?
Some people's brains are wired differently. That gives each person different advantages and disadvantages. It's the same with our bodies. Some people are taller/shorter, have natural athleticism and coordination, etc. A 6' linebacker isn't going to be a good gymnast, lol! You can say that some peoples brains are wired differently but you can also say that everyones brain is wired differently.
Suppose we have a test group of people with a task - lets say to grab a ladder and use it to climb a tree. Each person in that test group will approach this task in their own unique way, using their own unique strategy to the best of their ability. Eventually (barring injurious falls) everyone will succeed in getting up the ladder - but some will do it with far greater efficiency than others. Does this mean they have a natural talent for climbing ladders that others don't have or does it mean they simply used more efficient methods, better strategies for climbing the ladder?
Lets postulate a second group and before getting them to do the ladder exercise we'll give them some specialised training from a fireman and a power utility worker - both experts at using ladders. These experts can demonstrate effective strategies for ladder use which the second test group can learn.
To an uniformed observer the second group would appear to be more talented at ladders than the first group. They're not better talented at all they are simply using better strategies.
It's the same thing with the "created equal" bullshit in the U.S. constitution. God may love all of us, but he certainly didn't create us all equal. So unless I'm missing some key passage of scripture, that's something made up out of whole cloth. Rather, I think the intent of the author was to indicate that the new government would not give favor to position of birth and that the country would not have a caste system which conferred privilege or lack there of based on what family a person was born to. If you don't mind I'll refrain from commenting on Politics or Religion otherwise I'll be typing all night:D. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 14, 2008, 12:09am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Yes techniques can be taught to make one with lesser talent competitive, but that doesn't make him Da'Vinci or Einstien!
You're theory makes two flawed assumption: That the guy with talent won't continue to improve as well! And that his innate physical (genetic) advantages doesn't matter.Firstly, not my theory - I'm just passing it on. Secondly what I'm saying is based on the comparative merits of specific successful strategies not the comparison of physiologies. The linebackers broad shoulders obviously advantage him over the gymnasts slim shoulders - but only on the playing field. In a gymnastic competition the physical advantage goes to the gymnast. And in situations where shoulder size is irrelevant - say doing crossword puzzles or using trueSpace or spelling a series of uncommon words or singing a harmonious note... then the person who appears most 'talented' is the person with the most successful and efficient strategies.
In fact, a gymnast with excellent strategies for avoiding the lumbering tackles of big shouldered linebackers could conceivably do better on the playing field than a linebacker with poor strategies for tackling gymnasts.
This is a common tactic used by communist thought: No one is special. Removing a person's individuality makes it much easier to bend them to the will of the collective. It promotes a culture of mindless sheep.Ooh Politics again! :D There may be a very superficial appearance of similarity but this is illusionary. Communism of the type you describe is designed for the benefit of the state as a whole at the expense of the individual. Neuro Linguistic Programming is about the study of Human Excellence and is focussed totally on the empowerment and betterment of the individual - it's about teaching all the mindless sheep to think like Einsteins, a very different thing to communism.
That said, just because some one has more talent doesn't mean that someone with less talent can't become better than them through hard work. But it does require that the guy with talent not put in the hard work. ;)This is only true if it is assumed that those with talent don't need to work hard. I've been called talented on many occasions. Amongst other things, for my music, for my painting, for my carpentry, for my photography, for my 3d work, for my ability to write really long posts but never for my cooking :D. But the reality is that at 6 years old I could not play an instrument, paint, cut wood or even turn on a PC (which I only learned to do at the age of 46).
I am happy to tell you that I have no talent whatsoever in any of those fields - what I have is a desire to learn, an understanding of effective learning strategies and the drive to find - not just methods that work, but methods that work effectively.
There is nothing special about me or my brain - I succeed at what I do because I understand effective learning strategies. Anyone learning these strategies also can become as 'talented' as I am.
Going back to Tiger Woods - I can learn to do everything the way Tiger does and, all things being equal I can become extremely good at Golf. Tiger Woods however cannot learn much more than he already knows about Golf - he's the best in the world - the most talented - so who can he learn from? |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 14, 2008, 12:10am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
This is why competition works! It helps push people to strive for new heights, when they would normally be complacent. It's good for both those of lesser talent to exceed expectations, as well as keeping those with greater talent on their toes. I'm glad you raised the subject of competition. Think of any skill you are good at - you have a strategy, a method of action that allows you to exercise that skill. Now imagine someone shows you a strategy that works far more efficiently. What are you going to do? Continue to use your old method which works pretty good or switch to the new easier method that works brilliantly? Most people will switch to the newer better method. In the competition between strategies a more effective strategy will always beat a less effective strategy.
The key to understanding my point is to realise that it is not about comparing what one person does to what some other person does - it's about comparing methodologies that everyone can utilise.
You can see that effect right here on this forum. It's clear that the SMC and MMC events we've been running here have helped push many of us to achieve and improve.Absolutely! We can say that the person has become better (at modeling etc thanks to the MMC and SMC) and this is true. But it is probably a more effective statement to say that the skills and strategies used have improved and become more efficient (I know for sure my workspace modeling skills are way more efficient thanks to your course than they were before hand - I've not suddenly become more talented at Workspace modeling, I've just learned more effective methods - thanks Jack!))
My talent lays more in technical and teaching. "Art" is something that I've generally always struggled with. I understand the theory on the technical level and that helps me to make adequate works, but I'll never be able to compete on the level with someone that has similar technical skills and an innate ability to create things of beauty. That's just the way it is. But that doesn't stop me from taking up the challenge! :pSo does this mean that if you spent some time learning from someone very accomplished at creating beauty you could not learn from them? Beauty is definable. Humans recognise certain things - symmetry, harmony, sympathy and various proportional ratios as beautiful - this is common to all humans regardless of race or culture but it is also definable and understandable. An artist who has learnt about composition will produce more efficiently composed art than an artist who hasn't yet learnt about composition and will so appear more 'talented'.
You can say your talents lie toward technical and teaching - but it can be interesting and informative to say that you have already mastered certain effective strategies for understanding technical and teaching matters and you have not yet learned a similar degree of understanding of art.
Try this for a week - every time the word talent pops up over the next week or so, try rephrasing the words it appears with to draw attention to the effectiveness of the strategies used to express that so called 'talent'. Try it for a week - you may find it's a better way to think about human potential than the theory of 'talent' or you may not - you have nothing to lose and can always go back to the idea of talent if you want to. |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jul 14, 2008, 1:11am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
No problem about the avoiding religion. It wasn't the focus of my point, rather that this concept of "everyone is created equal" or "everyone has equal potential", etc., it sounds all great at first but it's simply not true.
Also I think to separate mental capabilities from physical capabilities, like mental is software that can be reprogrammed is not a good model. Mental capabilities (physical structural advantages in the brain) vary just like body builds do.
If the guy who figures out the best way to climb up the ladder figured it out because he had an advantage in spacial reasoning due to differences in brain structure, then even if you teach the others his method of ladder climbing, when the next challenge that comes that plays to his better spacial reasoning, he's still going to have an advantage that the others don't.
Also taking your ladder climbing example, it's entirely likely that the best performing techniques take specific advantage of the physical attributes of the person. That's not something that can be taught if the attributes don't match. So rather than having each person excel at the method that is best for them, you'd have to find a generally well performing generic method that would work for the majority of people but would only be slightly above average performance. Again I'm getting creepy visions of borg assimilation and mediocre sameness.
Now I agree with passing on and learning improved strategies, but someone still has to come up with those strategies. ;)
The problem here is that the generic "oh you're so talented" expression is more a case of a person who is not skilled in a particular subject encountering someone who is. That doesn't mean that innate talent doesn't exist, just that skill is readily confused for talent and natural ability.
It is often the case that a skilled person will perform far more effectively than a talented person. This is due to the fact that the skilled person has the drive to achieve, the experience, and has put in hard work. Where as the talented person is often lazy and doesn't need to apply himself to achieve adequate results. But if the talented person also has the skill, drive, and experience, he will readily outperform.
Where the advantage of the talented person shows the most is when encountering new situations that play to the strengths of his inherent abilities. You can train a chimp to do the same task over and over, but that doesn't mean he's going to be able to devise a new solution when confronted with a new task.
Innate capability can be demonstrated very simply: there are concepts and strategies that one person will readily understand, but it takes another years to grasp. And some things are simply beyond the capability of others. We can't all be Olympic athletes, world champion chess players, or great thinkers. Not to mention, there's a limited amount of time in this thing called life and we have to pick and choose where it's most efficient or rewarding to invest our time towards achieving the goals that we set for ourselves.
Of course, all that so far has to do with the physical. Somethings are just not quantifiable. Can a person use science or technique to create beauty? Sure. But only in a cold, sterile, and technical way. Science and technique cannot give that beauty heart or spirit. They cannot give an art piece the ability to convey the human experience or the suffering or joy of the soul. |
Post by Burnart // Jul 14, 2008, 1:37pm
|
Burnart
Total Posts: 839
|
So does anyone know what tS7.6 is gonna cost? Do politics, neuro-linguistics, the US constitution, philosophy or religion provide any answers? :p |
Post by jamesmc // Jul 14, 2008, 2:23pm
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
We can't all be Olympic athletes, world champion chess players, or great thinkers.
Yes we can, I was all of those just last year, until I retired from the endeavors and applied my efforts to 'tom foolery' and 'wicked chicken endowments'.
Next year I may advance my quest to 'iron pyrite' sifting in the deserts of Nevada. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 14, 2008, 9:43pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
You make some valid points Jack but the thrust of your discussion suggests you haven't fully grasped the central themes behind NLP - which is not surprising given that it is an enormous subject.
The two gentleman responsible for starting the NLP school of thought were both from a computing background. Apparently they both won scholarships to a University which (in those days - the mid 70's) had no computer science department so they signed on for Psych degrees thinking that because both Brains and Computers process information according to programs there would be direct correlations.
The interesting thing is they started from the assumption that Computer Processing problems are caused by programming errors as all PC's are made (very basically) the same way.
Human processing problems, at least according to conventional psychology, are assumed to stem from physiological differences based on the assumption that all brains are intrinsically different. This lead these guys to start thinking about human mentation in a totally new way.
Their work (along with others) has become the modern school of Neuro Linguistic Programming which can be summed up as the study of human excellence. I strongly recommend that all people everywhere should be made aware of this school of thought - not so that they will all think and act the same but so that they will all think and act at their individual best.
You say "Also I think to separate mental capabilities from physical capabilities, like mental is software that can be reprogrammed is not a good model. Mental capabilities (physical structural advantages in the brain) vary just like body builds do." Why is it not a good model? (see below about your course). In many cases it has been shown that it is an excellent model and it's widely used in business, science, teaching, art and indeed can be apllied with good results to any area of human endeavour. There is a famous story from the early days of NLP. The US Army wanted to improve the shooting ability of it's top marksman so they called in an NLP expert. This gentleman had never fired a gun in his life and knew very little about guns. He did however know about the way the human mind runs "programs' and internally processes information. The net result was this NLP guy was able to improve the shooting accuracy of the US Armies top Marksman by a staggering 30% simply by streamlining the mental strategies the marksman already used. These same strategies can now be taught to anyone capable of aiming a gun and pulling the trigger.
You say "there are concepts and strategies that one person will readily understand, but it takes another years to grasp.". I agree to a certain point. This is exactly the issue that NLP addresses. It must be remembered that the human brain excels at learning, at recognizing patterns and so on. The vast majority of us can do hugely complex tasks without actively thinking about it - walking, talking, driving a car, the list is pretty much endless.
With this in mind I suggest that if a concept or strategy is a good and effective one and that one person can readily understand it then that concept can be easily be understood by anyone else. If another person takes years to grasp the concept then either he is poorly taught or the concept is NOT good by definition.
You've demonstrated this very thing with your excellent modeling course. You have studied the art and process of organic modeling in trueSpace, distilled the essential characteristics and efficient methodologies and transmitted them to the entire trueSpace community. The skills and strategies used by a master modeler have been codified and shared with others. This is precisely what NLP does. Anyone who diligently studies your course can learn the skills and techniques of modeling the way that you do without needing to reproduce all thre trial and error and other learning practices you went through to get to your level of mastery.
Modeling the best behaviour of the best people and teaching those models to everyone else does not turn us all in to communist drones it equips us all with the best possible skillsets.
You say "Of course, all that so far has to do with the physical. Some things are just not quantifiable. Can a person use science or technique to create beauty? Sure. But only in a cold, sterile, and technical way. Science and technique cannot give that beauty heart or spirit. They cannot give an art piece the ability to convey the human experience or the suffering or joy of the soul." Hmm - I must take a contrary stance on this one Jack - I can't think of anything that is not quantifiable in some way - if it can't be measured than how can it exist?
Science and technique alone will, as you say, often lead to cold, sterile beauty. But think of a fine piece of classical art like the Mona Lisa. This is widely recognised as a piece which conveys human experience and emotion and many would say that as an artwork it also has soul. Da Vinci painted the
Mona Lisa in oils on a poplar panel using new artistic methods that had come into human knowledge as a result of the renaissance.
Suppose a master forger painted a highly accurate forgery of the Mona Lisa using the same oils, brushes and techniques for illustrating light shade, and most of all human experience. Suppose this forgery is virtually identical to Leonardos version. What would be the experience of someone viewing the forgery - or the original - and could they tell the difference without recourse to an art expert?
No they could not. The Mona Lisa is a pattern of pigments on a board and an identical pattern of pigments will illicit an identical response in the viewer.
Thus a student of Leonardo Da Vinci will have an understanding of the techniques used by Leornardo much as a student of Salvador Dali will understand and reproduce the techniques that make Dali unique.
An artist understanding both Leonardo's technique and Dali's technique will be able to produce a unique synthesis that neither original artist could achieve by themselves.
The Laws of beauty, of composition and of form are all very well known - it is through the exercise of those laws that an artist produces art - and the better the artists understanding of the skills and mechanics involved the better the art they will produce. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 14, 2008, 9:58pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
No problem about the avoiding religion. It wasn't the focus of my point, rather that this concept of "everyone is created equal" or "everyone has equal potential", etc., it sounds all great at first but it's simply not true.Sorry to wah on about this Jack but I did want to acknowledge the validity of this point - you are right, we are not all created equal - this assertion is not true.
However asking if it is true or false will result in certain types of answers. Asking if it is a useful idea will produce a whole lot of different answers - (This type of questioning is what successful innovators do and what those who are unable to innovate fail to do).
We all know the Earth revolves around the sun but it is very useful to ignore the truth and work with what is useful - thus the world operates for the most part as if the sun goes around the Earth.
If we assume that not everyone is the same but ask what results do we get if we assume everyone is the same anyway we discover that we can gain a far better understanding of ourselves.
From a genetic perspective the differences between one persons genes and another are 99.9 percent the same. What do people do when they think of someone they love? Most of us smile. Most of us have a response to a fond memory that is essentially identical - pupils dilate, blood flow to the capillaries increases production of serotonin and other 'feel good' hormones increase in the brain. By studying the way that Humans do things like this we can find out how the best people do it and teach that to everyone else.
Don't take my word for it - google NLP, google Tony Robbins (his work is directly taken from NLP). |
Post by splinters // Jul 14, 2008, 10:47pm
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
So does anyone know what tS7.6 is gonna cost? Do politics, neuro-linguistics, the US constitution, philosophy or religion provide any answers? :p
Patience Burnart...patience....;) |
Post by brotherx // Jul 14, 2008, 11:15pm
|
brotherx
Total Posts: 538
|
We can't all be Olympic athletes, world champion chess players, or great thinkers..
Ok, this is actually very true. Not everyone can be or some people are more genetically disposed to be athletes. I saw this program about this 14/15 year old girl, Ukrainian I think, whose muscles were abnormally dense and formed in a different way such that they attached to the ligaments differently and gave them more surface area to attach thus giving more strength. She was this amazing weight lifter. This had nothing to do with the fact that she had been doing it from a young age - her body was better designed to do this than most others.
I think it must be a series as there was another show on about this 12 year old who now lives in the US and he can leg press 540lb - they showed it. poor kid had no friends as he trained all day and was home-schooled.
Maybe you can try anything but some are just always going to have a genetic advantage.
The same applies to intelligence. Everyone at school gets taught at the same pace but some learn faster than others - if we were all equal then why?
I personally am good at maths and bad at english. I left school with a good maths qualification and no english one yet I have spoken english all my life and enjoy reading. If everyone was equal, we would all be good at both. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jul 14, 2008, 11:37pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Ok, this is actually very true. Not everyone can be or some people are more genetically disposed to be athletes. I saw this program about this 14/15 year old girl, Ukrainian I think, whose muscles were abnormally dense and formed in a different way such that they attached to the ligaments differently and gave them more surface area to attach thus giving more strength. She was this amazing weight lifter. This had nothing to do with the fact that she had been doing it from a young age - her body was better designed to do this than most others.
I think it must be a series as there was another show on about this 12 year old who now lives in the US and he can leg press 540lb - they showed it. poor kid had no friends as he trained all day and was home-schooled.
Maybe you can try anything but some are just always going to have a genetic advantage.
The same applies to intelligence. Everyone at school gets taught at the same pace but some learn faster than others - if we were all equal then why?
I personally am good at maths and bad at english. I left school with a good maths qualification and no english one yet I have spoken english all my life and enjoy reading. If everyone was equal, we would all be good at both.
I am not saying that everyone is equal - I'm saying that if you take the same ingredients, follow the same recipe and do everything the exact way that a master chef does you will produce a meal that is indistinguishable from that made by a master chef.
This question of people being equal is missing the point - it focuses on the mechanics through which a process is performed rtather than the process itself.
You are good at maths for the same reason everyone else who is good at maths is good at maths - it's because you internally represent mathematical concepts in a way that is more efficient than I do (maths is not my strong point). If you teach me to do maths exactly the way that you do - including describing accurately how you visualise and conceptualise the maths then I will be equally as good at maths as you are - and so would your Ukrainian weightlifter. |
Post by brotherx // Jul 15, 2008, 12:59am
|
brotherx
Total Posts: 538
|
You are good at maths for the same reason everyone else who is good at maths is good at maths - it's because you internally represent mathematical concepts in a way that is more efficient than I do (maths is not my strong point). If you teach me to do maths exactly the way that you do - including describing accurately how you visualise and conceptualise the maths then I will be equally as good at maths as you are - and so would your Ukrainian weightlifter.
Ah, see, now there is this difference. I just do it - no special way. It just makes sense and I can't tell you why. Both my brothers are poor at maths and they were educated in exactly the same way in the same school.
Another example of this is my boss. He can read mathematical equations like a musician can read music. He takes one look and knows exactly what it says.
Some people are just naturally gifted in this respect and it's not something that can really be taught. |
Post by marcel // Jul 15, 2008, 1:02am
|
marcel
Total Posts: 569
|
If you work on a big company, i understand TS is not adapted to work with your team. But it is not important if you work at your home. the most important is to know your soft and your job. Technology change each year but a really good idea today will be a good idea tomorrow, it is not true for the soft. I work with computers since 1974. I know TS since the first version. I hope TS will not be like the bigs standards in the future (stop to compare). TS is interesting because the soft is different. My opinion is TS need less bugs for the future. Keep the originality.
I do design for big company without problem. I do animation for tv. i use stl conversion or iges converted from nurbs to create models for the industry.
The important peoples of the big company don't know my soft. They are only interesting by the results. Industry for the cinema is different because they need to work with some company at the same time and need standards. It is a problem of time, money and traditions.
My softs are TrueSpace (80%), Particules illusion(10%) and wirefusion(10%) for the web.
Before choose a soft, know what you want and what you can. |
Post by splinters // Jul 15, 2008, 1:05am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
I am not saying that everyone is equal - I'm saying that if you take the same ingredients, follow the same recipe and do everything the exact way that a master chef does you will produce a meal that is indistinguishable from that made by a master chef.
I was almost buying your argument there Wizard, but that line there is terrible. I have tried what you suggest, as closely as human possible and it tasted OK at best...:D
Or do you mean if I did it 100 times+ I would get that good? Isn't that what practice is all about? Some people are simply not practically minded (the hand equivalent of two left feet!) while they many excel in academic areas.
This argument really has gotten too deep for me and there is a sense here that one person is right in their answers. We can only speculate and hold a certain opinion or belief...no one can prove either way for sure.
I know that I can train a student to be a better carpenter but they may always lack that eye for detail that defines a true craftsman. |
Post by brotherx // Jul 15, 2008, 1:16am
|
brotherx
Total Posts: 538
|
ok. another example. My wife is/was an SEN teacher. She had this kid who couldn't count higher than the number of fingers they had (10 in case you wondered) except when it came to money.
She would say, what is 50+50 and they would be 'dunno' but then she would say, if you had 50p and someone gave you another 50p how much would you have? they would be like 'a pound.' When asked how much pence that was, they would be like 'Dunno.'
They used to cover stuff like this for a whole year and they could never understand the stuff. |
Post by splinters // Jul 15, 2008, 1:29am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
If you work on a big company, i understand TS is not adapted to work with your team. But it is not important if you work at your home. the most important is to know your soft and your job. Technology change each year but a really good idea today will be a good idea tomorrow, it is not true for the soft. I work with computers since 1974. I know TS since the first version. I hope TS will not be like the bigs standards in the future (stop to compare). TS is interesting because the soft is different. My opinion is TS need less bugs for the future. Keep the originality.
I do design for big company without problem. I do animation for tv. i use stl conversion or iges converted from nurbs to create models for the industry.
The important peoples of the big company don't know my soft. They are only interesting by the results. Industry for the cinema is different because they need to work with some company at the same time and need standards. It is a problem of time, money and traditions.
My softs are TrueSpace (80%), Particules illusion(10%) and wirefusion(10%) for the web.
Before choose a soft, know what you want and what you can.
Well put Marcel, that puts my argument about industry use to shame, but if a student asked me for a list of software to learn for 'industry' (starting from a blank canvas) I would supply them a list that included Maya, softimage, Modo etc. trueSpace would be on there simply because that is what I would have taught them on in their formative years.
I am glad to be proven wrong about making a movie or commercial with tS, especially as I got to see such quality work...:D
Could we please get back to the price of eggs (or tS7.6 in this case)! |
|
