Silk wrote:Gareth wrote:Silk wrote:You lot keep banging on about outputs but fail miserably when it comes to explaining what it is you mean exactly.
It seems to me that your preference is to help others improve their driving by telling them
how they should do something, with what they are trying to achieve being secondary.
Is it so difficult to elevate
what they are trying to achieve to primary importance? And let how they do it be secondary?
If, for example, you are concerned that an associate is using a sub-optimal technique to achieve their ends it's up to you, as observer, to find situations where the technique(s) they use don't produce the desired result, as that brings the conversation to the point where you can ask how they could do it differently.
The problem I have with all of this is that people seem to be equating driving with baking a cake. In the cake scenario, it doesn't matter how it's made, it's all about the end result. Driving, IMO, is fundamentally different. On the one hand the car is following a set course and, on the surface, it matters very little how this is achieved but, on the other hand, there are the bits that can't be seen, such as how it the driver going to react to situations. A certain amount of this is going to be down to observation and planning, but there is also an element of how good they are at operating the controls and choosing a method that has an element of safety built in. With regards to steering, few people would argue that choosing a method that defaults to safety as well as being accurate and smooth is not a good idea. What we seem to have is a growing and very vocal sub-group who see to have a problem with pull/push steering for reasons unknown. For me to be convinced it should be dropped, they have to come up with a better alternative. Dropping it because it's hard to teach or Jeremy Clarkson makes fun of it are not good enough reasons.
I'm just glad I joined up when I did.
I think that you are saying exactly the same though...
Silk wrote:...on the other hand, there are the bits that can't be seen, such as how it the driver going to react to situations.
that is output based thinking
Silk wrote:With regards to steering, few people would argue that choosing a method that defaults to safety as well as being accurate and smooth is not a good idea.
Totally agree - and that is again output based thinking - safety / accurate / smooth - all outputs
However it doesn't have to be the exclusive methodology...
Silk wrote:For me to be convinced it should be dropped, they have to come up with a better alternative.
better or equivalent - certainly not worse - but you judge better / equivalence on what it produces - that is output based thinking...
and better or equivalent doesn't mean only one method for all uses - it can mean a toolbox of methods to pick from...
Silk wrote:What we seem to have is a growing and very vocal sub-group who see to have a problem with pull/push steering for reasons unknown. For me to be convinced it should be dropped, they have to come up with a better alternative. Dropping it because it's hard to teach or Jeremy Clarkson makes fun of it are not good enough reasons.
no - that is not what people are saying - no issues with pull/push steering from an output perspective - simply an acknowledgement that there are lots of inputs which can acheive the output we desire and pull/push is one of them - at times it will be the more appropriate choice - at times, less appropriate - but no-one is saying you should never use it... Quite agree you should never drop something just because it is hard to teach / someone makes fun of it...
The big difference between input / output based teaching and their proponents is:
- input based teaching says there is xyz way of doing it - it works for me, it has always worked, we shouldn't be considering anything else, I am not interested in whether it is outdated / mistakenly taught / good for some people and bad for others / etc. etc. - it is a very closed and stubborn way of thinking
- output based teaching alternatively is open minded and says - okay we know that xyz is one way of teaching - but lets consider other methods, do they have value - could we tweak xyz, could we supplement it, are there times when zyx instead of xyz might be better - lets teach a variety of methods, an understanding of what we are trying to acheive (output) and the flexibility, intelligence and skill to pick from our toolbox of methods to use the best for any scenario
okay, there are some people who in battling the frustrating stubborn nature of the traditionalist suggest throwing the baby out with the bath water as a means of belittling those people - but that is equally wrong...
the problem we have here might be seen by comparing artists & pencil v pen - the input based proponents say that they ahve always used a pencil - it does everything they need, so why change / and to change to a pen makes no sense because I can show you some scenarios where a pencil is better - therefore a pen as the only tool is not a replacement for a pencil... However the output supporters are saying actually we are happy to have a pen and a pencil and use both when they are the best tool for the job - we are not saying always use a pen - but just think how much more exciting your artwork would be if you had access to pens / pencils / crayons / pastels / oils / watercolours / etc. - yes you might as an individual specialise in pencil but that doesn't mean it is the only medium...
so I think that if you look carefully you will find that you are arguing an output based message as well - unless you can prove that only pull-push works and that in every scenario it is the best option, then it can not stand alone as the only tool for steering - and we all know that there are a number of approaches...
Alasdair