1st, I must say, I have never in the 13+ years of flying with / against / and talking on any Forum , had any problems, confrontations, arguments, fusses etc..with Zazen, and have only good memories of interacting with him in-game or on forums throughout the years....and I do not ever think that to change for the future....
You've got it I think.
Zazen, 2Bighorn has had it! understood it, and explained it as most all long time properly taught/trained Game Players understand it..... he just does it in laymen's terminology ( ie...is best to walk across the bridge, instead of walking around a lake, to get to the other side )
I have worked in the field for years. I can promise you the scientific process of dissecting concepts and putting aspects of it into little compartmentalized jars is not for the purpose of creating a symbolic facsimile of the actual thing to be considered one in the same. It is done purely to achieve a more easily observable and less abstract representation of something to facilitate the discrimination of cause and effect relationships of aspects presented artificially in isolation from the whole naturally occurring process, for the purpose of making data easier to collect, quantify and manage.
I am trying to figure out how Biology plays into a discussion on SA.........and how SA is applied?
Here is an actual example of this intrinsic flaw of scientific dissection and observation. A physics research lab was doing work with subatomic particles. The work was producing strange results that could not be accounted for by any known theory of quantum mechanics. Serendipitously one scientist produced some data that was generated accidentally during some equipment calibration tests. That data was very different than the data produced during the controlled experiments. They quickly surmised that the simple act of observing something scientifically actually changed the behavior and properties of that which is observed. In its natural, unobserved state, it would not manifest those anomalous properties. So, just the presence of an observer distorts or even invalidates the results to a degree. It doesn't make results obtained in this way useless so long as the data and conclusions derived from them are understood to be an artifact of the real, natural thing, altered and contorted by the mere act of being observed and scientifically scrutinized.
how can one compare Physics(Chemistry?) with something that is a total different environment/subject?
Example: in a flying F14 you have your RIO and the Pilot, is the RIO not an observer? would the Pilot perform differently if the RIO was not there?
Example: If you was to have an A6-E flying , you have 2 in the cockpit, ( pardon me for not remembering the "title" of the 2nd guy ), would he not be an observer of the pilot, again would the pilot perform or act in any different way if he did not have his partner?
Example: you have 4 Fighter Planes flying, as they fly regardless of being in combat or are winchester. Are these other 3 ( any 3 vs the 1 ) not observers of the 1?
I do not logically see how you can compare the above quoted example in regards as to how a person acts when they are observed verses unobserved........
So, looking at Endsley's flow chart and saying this must be a precise template of human brain function as it relates to the process is not only not the intention of it, but it's a complete and utter impossibility. Neuroscience is no where even close to that kind of simplistic symbolic representation of real time brain function.
Every single thing, chart, picture, book, Speech, etc.ad infinium is open to one's own interpretation , a Chart , in this case Endsley's Chart is just a "Teaching Aid" in a way to help the people looking at it and studying, researching, learning SA...to visualize and interpet what the subject "SA" is about .........it is nothing more and it is nothing less...
EDIT: dang I type to slow......2 post made before I could type my reply out
