StevenSeagal
Par Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 194
I mean no offense by this, but no… that's not what's happening. I've stated my opinion pretty clearly. Your disagreement has nothing to do with me not getting my head around something.
I have a problem seeing how you could have such a hard time processing what I'm saying while at the same time defending a truth claim that is WAY more complex than anything I've said. How in the world are you making incredibly detailed observations about the fundamental nature of skill and the magnitude of those skills in relation to others if that term is throwing you for a loop? The concept alone should be instantly recognizable to you even if you've never heard it framed that way.
Then again you did put yourself in the same company with someone that actually complained about having to read four paragraphs on a message board...
No, that's not my argument, and you're doing yourself no favors by trying to force this bizarre nature/nurture thing in there.
How is nature vs Nurture bizarre? It's one of the most debated subjects of our generation. They teach this stuff to middle school students! It also works as an analogy because the debate features many of the same aspects as this one.
The interconnected qualities of this issue and the concept of variables instead of constants are completely relevant to that discussion and this one.
I feel that a disc limit of 10-15 or so would increase strategy and shift the balance more toward skill - making a smaller set of discs hit the lines and shapes needed - over just pulling out a different disc.
As my math teacher used to say, "you need to show your work." At the very least you should be able to articulate why limiting disc limit is a separator, how you quantify skill and why its more accurate than the way we do it now, and how this new way of calculating skill would ACTUALLY express itself on the scoreboard.