pjrv : Messages : 3836-3836 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3836?)

 16:14:47

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3836
 	From: "Glyn" 
Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:44 am
Subject: Scoring our Sessions 	glynis5799
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hello all,

Whether it is by way of natural talent, or honed and fine-tuned by practice, the
ability to 'bring back' impressions of the *intended* target (which will be
associated in the viewer's mind with the task via the coords or some
tag).....with little or no additional baggage, is probably what makes the
difference between the great viewers and the 'also-rans'. OK, and with being
able to keep the conscious mind from attempting to analyse.......which is quite
a feat too ;-).

I don't think people do enough practice with the object of improving focus. We
are just not fussy enough with ourselves when scoring. Well I know I am not
anyway. We are often so happy to see some congruency that we do not provide our
subs with that other form of feedback that is so vital to our
progress.........about how we think we did! If our conscious mind is happy with
so-so results and vague congruency then maybe that's what we'll continue to
get....

Both Liz and I have come to the conclusion that a lot of what we think may be
congruency in our sessions can sometimes be very vague. We think a way forward
is to be more 'ruthless' with ourselves :-).

There are some things I can think of that may help in a photo practice
situation. Shorter sessions, more memorable targets (cute, fascinating or high
impact targets), and targets with strong gestalts so 'likeness' can be
determined more exactly, and maybe using a 'personal' (never shared) tag, in
addition to that given by a tasker.

Above all, we need adopt that 'ruthlessness' with ourselves when scoring our own
sessions...differentiating between direct congruency and indirect congruency,
and throwing out the just plain too vague, or the sort of thing which could be
applied to almost any target in the known universe :-).

Scoring is a very difficult thing to address though, and can be very
subjective...and never seems to be discussed adequately. Some report hits where
others may not think so, and vice versa. For example out of a list of 25
impressions I may initially spot 7 or 8 that I thought had high congruency to my
feedback and I would get all excited..........but if I am extremely ruthless I
may end up with only two or three.

I am starting to differentiate between direct congruency...for example, in a
session where the target was an aeroplane then 'motor' and 'propeller' and
'flying' would be direct (whether the first two are labels or not..it sometimes
happens ;-), and 'height', 'transport', 'movement', 'sky',  would be indirect.
Later on, over the session as a whole I can then make an end judgement as to how
much my impressions were aeroplane 'like'..whether the concept was coming
through to a greater or lesser degree.

I would also take into overall AOLs and what they may be trying to tell
me.........but again I would be completely 'ruthless' about throwing out
rubbish, like 'people'. OK, it could be assumed people were in the plane, unless
it was one of these new-fangled UAVs, but that is what I do not want when trying
to view the contents of a photo where people are are not apparent. Never assume,
I say to myself now. I would also discount anything I found when subsequently
scanning the net for more info about a target. If it is not in the first
feedback, then I do not want it. Some would disagree with that...OK wider
scanning would be absolutely necessary in operational targets, but maybe we
should develop focus first so that when we do deliberately open up the
parameters of our focus.....we have a far better chance of being right.

IMO of course.
Comments?
Kind regards,
Glyn

pjrv : Messages : 3849-3849 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3849?)

 16:15:06

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3849
 	From: Timelord2029...
Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: Scoring our Sessions *short sessions* 	psitrooper24
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> There are some things I can think of that may help in a photo practice
> situation. Shorter sessions,

Absolutely!! I agree 100% Of late my sessions have been quite short
and iam pretty hard on myself if no major target data has been gained
within the initial scans. the downside to this however is that when you
are on target you end up kicking yourself for not going the whole way
once feedback is presented and you know you could have done
much more.

Peace,
Tunde