Saying Hello!

[southlight]

Originally Posted by chitown08

south, I bet you are thinking: "but I'm not super 'proud' of manual therefore, this does not apply to me. I just think manuals are 'fun'."

If anyone thinks that. Go back and read #2. I believe you think its fun because its a challenge and it makes you proud to conquer. If you refuse to accept that, then please explain why manuals are fun? Seriously. Tell my why its fun. Inherently fun. I'm truly curious to know what makes it fun if its not the challenge.(again, controlling shift points is not a valid reason, because DCT will allow that as well)

If no one can explain why manuals are inherently fun, then it must just be the challenge that is fun for you. And if that is the case then- will the challenge still be 'fun' to you when you have intentionally imposed it upon yourself? I say no. Once I have to intentionally challenge myself with a manual (instead of DCT paddle), then it will no longer be fun, because it is no longer a legitimate challenge, and therefore I cannot allow myself to feel pride. And no pride = no fun.

This is a hilarious post if anyone actually reads it. I'm sure no more than like 2 ppl will read it. But I hope they enjoy it and can tell me why a manual is inherently fun, if its not for the challenge.

Till you came up with that I indeed just thought it's fun. Nothing more, nothing less. Never considered what's exactly the fun part about. So you are kinda forcing me to think about it....Hmm.......unless I succeed to take advantage of a point you made. You were saying that the manual mode of DCT was still necessary since the ECU can't know what you're preferring at the specific moment (early shift, late shift). But: It doesn't know how quick you're willing to shift, either. These modes are connected anyway (late shift means quick shift = high auto mode, early shift means slower shift/clutch time = lower auto mode). So not even in DCT's manual mode you're able to fully control how fast the clutches are engaged and disengaged (there are different manual modes available also, but the "resolution" may be not fine enough and yeah, can't switch the modes at every stoplight. BMW's DCT software will provide a really reasonable solution though, meaning late shifts should be quick most of the time, but we're talking about one's intention, no matter if that makes sense all the time). So this limitation leads to the fact that MT isn't really a self-imposed challenge since DCT is not able to replace it in every sense. Arguing that would mean you'd have to stay in DCT's auto mode, if you're rebuttle on that point is right however it also means that DCT isn't able to do what can be done on a MT. This again meant that MT stays a genuine challenge.

Due to this I'm still able to have fun with my MT, not being forced to think about the possibility of tricking myself. (following your somewhat conclusive reasoning I'd tend to agree, then. Yeah, it may be the challenge that causes the fun, but I wouldn't have a problem that it's self-inflicted nor feeling silly. Oh, am I glad that I could escape agreeing on that. )


Best regards, south

[southlight]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Chitown keep writting and articulating your points! I don't care if anyone else appreciates or reads them. Sometimes an audience of one is all that matters...

Tres faciunt collegium


Best regards, south

[paulyd]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Chitown keep writting and articulating your points! I don't care if anyone else appreciates or reads them. Sometimes an audience of one is all that matters and I find your insight into the psychology of driving thourough and genuinely novel, insightful and accurate. Did you say your background is economics? Folks in this area often have to deeply ponder reward of all types as it is a key part of behaviors responsible for economics.

My only very minor criticism is that you get so excited you sometimes repeat the same point over and over (we all do sometimes). Although that is part of effective communication, open with your point, repeat it as you build your case and then close with your point again. In shorter texts it can be fairly distracting. I think you could turn this into a great academic topic. You could even do something totally wacky like monitor folks brains with fMRI (maybe in a driving simulator or game) to try to determine if MT use is exciting the fun/reward or pride/reward brain centers (or both). I know getting waaaay OT but crazy, insightful and passionate can posts get others excited as well.

I have given up on this discussion. An M3 forum is not the place for philosophical questioning. I think maybe 2-3 people truly understand what I have been arguing, including myself. But I'm glad at least someone enjoyed it a bit. I personally enjoy these types of questions, but I am a rare minority. Most people would rather watch monday night football, not that there is anything wrong with that- whatever makes a person happy.

As far as repeating myself over and over or getting 'excited' as you say, I agree, I have repeated myself over and over. Thats what happens when nobody understands what I'm saying. And that is why I stopped posting. 99% of the responses in this thread are either straight insults, wisecracks, or attempted responses that demonstrate a lack of understanding of my point.

Anyway, my most recent long response to South pretty much sums up my argument. The question still remains as to why a manual is fun if it isn't the challenge and resultant pride.

later

[Big Windy]

manual FTW. give up.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by chitown08

2) Fun
Seems like some people are saying manuals are just straight 'fun.' However, if you don't expect any pride, then I really don't know why it would be fun. This bothers people, but for the thousandth time, there is nothing inherently fun about pushing your leg and moving your arm. Its the challenge that is fun. I think 'Involvement' is just another way to explain "you challenging yourself." And it is the pride you feel for doing it that makes you call it 'fun.' Remember, it is, indeed, TRUE fun up until now because it is a TRUE challenge. The problem is that DCT will cause it to no longer be a TRUE challenge. So when you think about manual being fun, and you think its legitimately fun, you're right because DCT doesn't exist yet, so a manual is a legitimate challenge right now. But, and this is the big butt, once DCT hits, however, it is no longer a legitimate challenge. It is a fake challenge, therefore you shouldn't be proud, therefore it ceases to be fun. How do you justify rowing and stomping instead of finger pushing? Its not inherently more 'fun' to push your leg and move your arm that it is to move your finger.

Actually, although I prefer DCT, "pushing your legs and moving your arms" is indeed inherently fun. Have you ever not ever shot some hoops by yourself? Getting physically involved is a simply more fun. That's what many games are based on. That's how most people are wired. Managing several physical tasks simultaneously is also simply fun--the way juggling balls is. We are kinesthetic animals. There is a whole body of literature on the subject. Do you think driving a car would be just as fun if you were to control it through some kind of neuro-interface to your brain, without your arms and legs?

[Big Windy]

Originally Posted by lucid

Managing several physical tasks simultaneously is also simply fun--the way juggling balls is.

do you have a secret you want to share??? sorry, couldn't resist

[EnzoB]

Originally Posted by UltimateBMW

Wow this thread became like a battle royal. I can't even tell who is on what side anymore.

I guess kudos to EnzoB for having the largest Intro post ever.

LOL...never expected this at all

[paulyd]

Originally Posted by lucid

Actually, although I prefer DCT, "pushing your legs and moving your arms" is indeed inherently fun. Have you ever not ever shot some hoops by yourself? Getting physically involved is a simply more fun. That's what many games are based on. That's how most people are wired. Managing several physical tasks simultaneously is also simply fun--the way juggling balls is. We are kinesthetic animals. There is a whole body of literature on the subject. Do you think driving a car would be just as fun if you were to control it through some kind of neuro-interface to your brain, without your arms and legs?

valid point. I thought about this.

I'm not familiar with any empirical research but I would guess that you like to move in the ways you are talking about for 2 reasons:
1) survival (hunt, or escape)
2) artificial exercise (in todays society, ppl workout for the sole purpose of looking good or staying in shape)
3) Dance. I don't know why we want to dance. toe tapping just happens.
4) CHALLENGE (sports, etc .... manual transmission?)

Since I don't believe a manual transmission is necessary for survival, that is out. I also don't believe anyone gets a manual to pump up their left quad, and right bicept/tricep (aka exercise). Third, I don't believe shifting a manual is like dance.

That leaves the challenge which is what I have been arguing the whole time. You're saying we like to move. I agree. But you have to ask WHY do we like to move? I say we like to move our arms and legs in order to shift a manual for the 'challenge.'

So I guess you're concluding manual is fun because it involves movement and humans like movement. I'm then saying that the only reason we like this movement is for the challenge.

If I could control the car with my brain, yes I would do it, btw. Why? Because I don't believe a manual is inherently 'fun.' And I don't need the exercise.

I'd consider a more fully developed argument tho regarding an inherent human desire to move which isn't motivated by survival, exercise, or challenge.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by chitown08

valid point. I thought about this.

I'm not familiar with any empirical research but I would guess that you like to move in the ways you are talking about for 2 reasons:
1) survival (hunt, or escape)
2) artificial exercise (in todays society, ppl workout for the sole purpose of looking good or staying in shape)
3) Dance. I don't know why we want to dance. toe tapping just happens.
4) CHALLENGE (sports, etc .... manual transmission?)

Since I don't believe a manual transmission is necessary for survival, that is out. I also don't believe anyone gets a manual to pump up their left quad, and right bicept/tricep (aka exercise). Third, I don't believe shifting a manual is like dance.

That leaves the challenge which is what I have been arguing the whole time. You're saying we like to move. I agree. But you have to ask WHY do we like to move? I say we like to move our arms and legs in order to shift a manual for the 'challenge.'

So I guess you're concluding manual is fun because it involves movement and humans like movement. I'm then saying that the only reason we like this movement is for the challenge.

If I could control the car with my brain, yes I would do it, btw. Why? Because I don't believe a manual is inherently 'fun.' And I don't need the exercise.

I'd consider a more fully developed argument tho regarding an inherent human desire to move which isn't motivated by survival, exercise, or challenge.

This is not merely a matter of "exercise". One theory is that human cognition does not simply reside in the brain but is in fact distributed in the body in some way. Obviously, we know that the central nervous system--brain and spinal cord--does the "processing", and that the peripheral nervous system is mainly responsible for sensing and relaying the information, so you are not necessarily "processing" better or more when using your arms and feet in that sense, but the sensing and feedback component is essential. Also, going through a certain motion with your hands and feet while shifting might cause your brain to process the whole event differently than simply pushing a button. That is called "kinesthetic thinking". One can argue if that results in better processing or not in this particular scenario (in dance it does), but it might indeed result in fun if not better processing. As to the causes of that, I think that is mainly irrelevant to this discussion. If we are indeed wired that way because that is simply how we ended up evolving, so be it.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by redmtclimber

do you have a secret you want to share??? sorry, couldn't resist

Sorry, can't help you there. I wish I could juggle.

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by lucid

Sorry, can't help you there. I wish I could juggle.

Uhhhh, I believe the joke was of the dirty nature...

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Uhhhh, I believe the joke was of the dirty nature...

Yeah, I practice juggling my balls in my free time, and that's the secret I wanted to share. Now everybody knows. Redmtclimber wishes he could do the same.

[paulyd]

Originally Posted by lucid

This is not merely a matter of "exercise". One theory is that human cognition does not simply reside in the brain but is in fact distributed in the body in some way. Obviously, we know that the central nervous system--brain and spinal cord--does the "processing", and that the peripheral nervous system is mainly responsible for sensing and relaying the information, so you are not necessarily "processing" better or more when using your arms and feet in that sense, but the sensing and feedback component is essential. Also, going through a certain motion with your hands and feet while shifting might cause your brain to process the whole event differently than simply pushing a button. That is called "kinesthetic thinking". One can argue if that results in better processing or not in this particular scenario (in dance it does), but it might indeed result in fun if not better processing. As to the causes of that, I think that is mainly irrelevant to this discussion. If we are indeed wired that way because that is simply how we ended up evolving, so be it.

This is interesting. I read what you wrote very carefully and thought about the implications. Then I read about kinesthetic thinking for my own pleasure.

From what I read, it sounds like 'kinesthetic thinking' is simply remembering how to do something, some movement- like rowing gears. It really isn't anything unbelievable, its just a word used to describe our brains ability to control our bodily movements thru repetition.

I think you are misusing the idea. You say kinesthetic thinking can result in better processing. All that means is that showing someone how to dance will not be as effective as if they actually practice dancing themselves. Or like Michael Jordan: There is no substitute for practicing his jump shot. If he just watched videos all day (visual learning) he wouldn't develop a good, consistent jumper. He has to go thru the motions, over and over, so that when he is in a game, his brain is trained kinesthetically to replicate the motion accurately, so he can make the shot without having to recall the video.

So my problem is how you relate this to a manual. The relation is only that you can't learn how to drive a manual by reading a book, or watching someone else do it. You need to actually do it, kinesthetically. You shift over and over until your brain 'just does it automatically.' And when your brain begins to be able to do it automatically, it is 'kinesthetically thinking'.

Again, this sounds all super sophistocated, but its really not a big deal, IMO. All it means is that your brain remembers how to move muscles. And it does so without having to think about some book you read, or visualizing the shift. It can directly perform the motion (without visualization, etc) because you have physically performed the motion before.

So back to the manual. I don't see the significance to this debate I guess. Kinesthetic thinking only relates to our ability to 'shift automatically.' The easy rebuttal would be to say that moving your finger (paddle shifting) would be a kinesthetic movement as well once you are in the habit (you memorize the movement of your finger). So for one, with either DCT or manual, you will be kinesthetically thinking each time you shift. The only difference is that you move larger limbs with a manual, but I see no significance in that.

Second, what does kinesthetic thinking have to do with 'fun' in the first place? Even if you could get past the problem that both DCT and manual both involve kinesthetic thinking anyway, you'd have to explain how it has anything to do with fun. I can't imagine thinking kinesthetically is somehow the pleasurable method of thinking. And again, even if you did, it wouldn't make manual more fun that DCT, because they both involve kinesthetic processing.

I think this is your best argument: That the act of thinking kinesthetically (and telling your arm to shift) is somehow innately 'fun.' I don't think there is any merit in that. Whether you recall how to shift by visualizing it, remembering a lecture, or by doing it in the past, its all the same shit in the end: Your brain tells your arm to shift. The way in which it does this seems rather irrelevant. The question is still what is fun about completing that motion NOT which method your brain uses to make your arm move.

Kinesthetic thinking really has more to do with how you can best learn something(visually, verbally, or kinesthetically). And we're not debating how we can best learn how to perform a manual shift.

When you say it relates to 'better processing' you are misusing the idea of kinesthetic thinking. It relates to better processing of how to move your arm and leg. It does not improve processing of the road or track or whatever. Kinesthetically learning how to shift (by practicing) allows the brain to more easily execute the shift (by thinking kinesthetically). Just the shift. I think this is irrelevant.

Anyway, I enjoyed learning about kinesthetic thinking so gracias. Let me know if i'm missing something regarding your application of the idea.

[DarkstarZero]

I'm sorry, I came into this thread late, but someone here's 19 and buying a $70,000 car? What are you doing that I wasn't at 19? I'm 22 and just now am able to get my hands on my dream car... well... more like get my name on the waiting list. But even still, I'm working OT now just to be financially comfortable when I finally pick it up next year.

Grats to us young guys on starting the game of life out pretty good though

[DarkstarZero]

Also, I've owned a manual e36 M3 and a SMG e46 M3... The SMG is fun and very fast but after about a year I got in my gf's manual Mini S and all I could say was damn, I miss having a manual.

To each his own but I'm thinking about going manual this time around.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by chitown08

This is interesting. I read what you wrote very carefully and thought about the implications. Then I read about kinesthetic thinking for my own pleasure.

From what I read, it sounds like 'kinesthetic thinking' is simply remembering how to do something, some movement- like rowing gears. It really isn't anything unbelievable, its just a word used to describe our brains ability to control our bodily movements thru repetition.

I think you are misusing the idea. You say kinesthetic thinking can result in better processing. All that means is that showing someone how to dance will not be as effective as if they actually practice dancing themselves. Or like Michael Jordan: There is no substitute for practicing his jump shot. If he just watched videos all day (visual learning) he wouldn't develop a good, consistent jumper. He has to go thru the motions, over and over, so that when he is in a game, his brain is trained kinesthetically to replicate the motion accurately, so he can make the shot without having to recall the video.

So my problem is how you relate this to a manual. The relation is only that you can't learn how to drive a manual by reading a book, or watching someone else do it. You need to actually do it, kinesthetically. You shift over and over until your brain 'just does it automatically.' And when your brain begins to be able to do it automatically, it is 'kinesthetically thinking'.

Again, this sounds all super sophistocated, but its really not a big deal, IMO. All it means is that your brain remembers how to move muscles. And it does so without having to think about some book you read, or visualizing the shift. It can directly perform the motion (without visualization, etc) because you have physically performed the motion before.

So back to the manual. I don't see the significance to this debate I guess. Kinesthetic thinking only relates to our ability to 'shift automatically.' The easy rebuttal would be to say that moving your finger (paddle shifting) would be a kinesthetic movement as well once you are in the habit (you memorize the movement of your finger). So for one, with either DCT or manual, you will be kinesthetically thinking each time you shift. The only difference is that you move larger limbs with a manual, but I see no significance in that.

Second, what does kinesthetic thinking have to do with 'fun' in the first place? Even if you could get past the problem that both DCT and manual both involve kinesthetic thinking anyway, you'd have to explain how it has anything to do with fun. I can't imagine thinking kinesthetically is somehow the pleasurable method of thinking. And again, even if you did, it wouldn't make manual more fun that DCT, because they both involve kinesthetic processing.

I think this is your best argument: That the act of thinking kinesthetically (and telling your arm to shift) is somehow innately 'fun.' I don't think there is any merit in that. Whether you recall how to shift by visualizing it, remembering a lecture, or by doing it in the past, its all the same shit in the end: Your brain tells your arm to shift. The way in which it does this seems rather irrelevant. The question is still what is fun about completing that motion NOT which method your brain uses to make your arm move.

Kinesthetic thinking really has more to do with how you can best learn something(visually, verbally, or kinesthetically). And we're not debating how we can best learn how to perform a manual shift.

When you say it relates to 'better processing' you are misusing the idea of kinesthetic thinking. It relates to better processing of how to move your arm and leg. It does not improve processing of the road or track or whatever. Kinesthetically learning how to shift (by practicing) allows the brain to more easily execute the shift (by thinking kinesthetically). Just the shift. I think this is irrelevant.

Anyway, I enjoyed learning about kinesthetic thinking so gracias. Let me know if i'm missing something regarding your application of the idea.

Training muscle memory is not the only context the term kinesthetic thinking is discussed. Look into the creativity literature, and how kinesthetic thinking is applied in problem solving and scenario creation and enactment.

As to driving, thinking kinesthetically could mean that you are attempting to interface with the behavior of the car as much as possible by involving parts of your body during critical events. So, it could be argued, from that perspective, that by actively getting involved in the motions of changing the gears, you are more aware not only of the shifting process, but perhaps the broader context in which one shifts such as the input variables and so on. This could conceivably lead to better processing in terms of decision making (but it won’t make you act/shift faster than DCT). In those lines, shifting could be seen as a problem solving process, which requires a certain degree of creativity, which is usually associated with fun.

The relationship I postulated above between kinesthetic thinking and driving is just something I came up with and is a bit of a stretch, but you can see my point. But the general application of kinesthetic thinking to creative problem solving is a well-respected and utilized approach in design education and practice. The idea is that the more of your body you can get involved in acting a motion out, the more effective your "thinking" becomes around the context in which that motion takes place.

Even if we were talking about a simple muscle memory training/machine learning application, manual shifting can be more fun than pressing a button in the same way shooting hoops by yourself can be fun. You go through a motion to achieve a desired outcome, and you vary the conditions slightly and do it all over again and again. Mundane but fun. Well, maybe you don't like shooting hoops by yourself, but many others--I bet even Jordan--clearly like it as they shoot hoops by themselves for no other reason than shooting hoops by themselves. (I am not talking about competition. I am talking about deriving pleasure from shooting hoops.)

As a side note, I commend you for taking the time to research something you weren't aware of, but don't mislead yourself by thinking you can do a quick reading on the topic and understand it well enough to tell others that they are misusing the idea. Not the best way to have a constructive discussion.

[paulyd]

Originally Posted by lucid

Training muscle memory is not the only context the term kinesthetic thinking is discussed. Look into the creativity literature, and how kinesthetic thinking is applied in problem solving and scenario creation and enactment.

As to driving, thinking kinesthetically could mean that you are attempting to interface with the behavior of the car as much as possible by involving parts of your body during critical events. So, it could be argued, from that perspective, that by actively getting involved in the motions of changing the gears, you are more aware not only of the shifting process, but perhaps the broader context in which one shifts such as the input variables and so on. This could conceivably lead to better processing in terms of decision making (but it won’t make you act/shift faster than DCT). In those lines, shifting could be seen as a problem solving process, which requires a certain degree of creativity, which is usually associated with fun.

The relationship I postulated above between kinesthetic thinking and driving is just something I came up with and is a bit of a stretch, but you can see my point. But the general application of kinesthetic thinking to creative problem solving is a well-respected and utilized approach in design education and practice. The idea is that the more of your body you can get involved in acting a motion out, the more effective your "thinking" becomes around the context in which that motion takes place.

Even if we were talking about a simple muscle memory training/machine learning application, manual shifting can be more fun than pressing a button in the same way shooting hoops by yourself can be fun. You go through a motion to achieve a desired outcome, and you vary the conditions slightly and do it all over again and again. Mundane but fun. Well, maybe you don't like shooting hoops by yourself, but many others--I bet even Jordan--clearly like it as they shoot hoops by themselves for no other reason than shooting hoops by themselves. (I am not talking about competition. I am talking about deriving pleasure from shooting hoops.)

As a side note, I commend you for taking the time to research something you weren't aware of, but don't mislead yourself by thinking you can do a quick reading on the topic and understand it well enough to tell others that they are misusing the idea. Not the best way to have a constructive discussion.

I highlighted your conclusion. Your 'problem solving' is what I have been calling the 'challenge' throughout this thread, IMO. So are you agreeing with me? I don't get it.

Anyway, you say shifting is a problem, and manuals require some creative 'kinesthetic thinking' to solve. So manuals are better than DCT because they require more thinking. And why do you like extra thinking? I say for the 'challenge' and the resultant satisfaction when accomplished.

I feel like your argument funnelled right down to my fundamental premise. That manuals are more 'fun' because they require more thinking. What you have added to the discussion is that the type of thinking involved is indeed kinesthetic thinking, but it makes no difference. What does it matter what type of thinking is involved? All that matters is that manuals require more thinking than DCT, and people seem to like it for some unknown reason which I believe is the 'challenge.'

And I'm sorry you got offended that I said I think you are misusing kinesthetic thinking. I was just being honest, its not my intent to offend. What I meant by your 'kinesthetic misuse' is that it doesn't matter in regard to this debate. You're basically just saying that you are more 'one' with the shift with a manual. That your movement is directly changing the gear. So you feel that you are 'doing something.' And that is always where my point pops up. It all boils down to the pleasant feeling that you're accomplishing something which DCT deprives you of.

This next section will probably be the most convincing in rebuttal to what you have posted:
Your hoop shooting analogy.
You claim it is 'fun' to shoot hoops repeatedly. I AGREE. I believe the good majority of the world finds such behavior 'fun.'
BUT this is the exact 'fun' that I am questioning. Shooting hoops is artificially challenging oneself to throw a ball thru a hoop. Accomplishment serves no purpose other than to give him/her pride. It is exactly the type of artificial challenge I am claiming a manual is as well. And it is only fun because it makes us feel good to overcome the challenge (shift or hoop). I believe manuals and hoops are just two examples of the many ways humans artificially challenge themselves to feel pride.

That section should be enough to demonstrate my response.


But I'm going to go a step further. Unlike you, I don't think shooting hoops by oneself is enough to be satisfied and 'fun.' I believe the majority of the world realizes that shooting hoops over and over is rather pointless because it is an artificial challenge. I don't know a single person who would shoot hoops forever and never compete. Hilariously, those who aren't exposed to competition in their driveway invent competition. These people invent time expiration ("3, 2, 1, buzzzz") or they practice crossing over imaginary defenders, etc. I know I do when I shoot hoops solo. People realize that there is no point in throwing a ball thru a hoop. It is pointless. They stop gettin high off of pride when this hits them. So they make up competition to give them a 'legitimate' reason to feel pride. They imagine buzzerbeaters, and crossover defenders over. They know there needs to be a 'real' challenge in order to deserve the pride.

My point is that deep down we know(well, some know) shooting hoops is an artificial challenge and we need something more to feel pride and consider it 'fun.' And THAT is what I am claiming should happen to manual drivers. Once they realize it is an artificial challenge, it SHOULD cease to incite pride and cease to be 'fun.'

You are saying that kinesthetic thinking is enjoyable for the very reason that it requires thought, creativity, or the proud feeling that you are 'one with the car.' It all boils down to intentionally doing something the hard way, which requires more thinking, which is a challenge, which causes us to feel proud when accomplished. That is why I dismissed the importance of 'kinesthetic thinking'. Because it just plays right into my theory.

If you are thinking: but if that is just how we are 'wired', then we should just do these mundane, repetitive, unnecessarily hard challenges and satisfy our brains requirement for pride/satisfaction.

I would not be asking this question if I was 'wired' in that way. I would just go shoot some hoops and drive my manny and feel superduperpride. I have hope that others are also not just victims of their 'wiring' because of how people invent competition when shooting hoops solo. They know. They know there must be more in order to deserve the pride.

The entire point of this thread hijacking is to see if manual owners could see this as well. That the manual is just satisfying humans desire to set and defeat goals. It is our wiring, you're right. And we may not be able to escape it. But we don't have to. We can set TRUE challenges to satisfy this craving. A manual is a fake challenge as of the year DCT.

Hopefully that long (sorry again) post clarifies my dismissal of kinesthetic thinking. I think you are right in that it is the reason manuals are fun. BUT the reason kinesthetic thinking is fun is because it is a challenge for us to overcome.

To be honest, I think you actually just explained the cognition behind my theory.

goodnight

[Big Windy]

i thought that both sides had surrendered and that this was over...???? can we throw the white flags already?

[lucid]

Originally Posted by chitown08

I highlighted your conclusion. Your 'problem solving' is what I have been calling the 'challenge' throughout this thread, IMO. So are you agreeing with me? I don't get it.

Anyway, you say shifting is a problem, and manuals require some creative 'kinesthetic thinking' to solve. So manuals are better than DCT because they require more thinking. And why do you like extra thinking? I say for the 'challenge' and the resultant satisfaction when accomplished.

I feel like your argument funnelled right down to my fundamental premise. That manuals are more 'fun' because they require more thinking. What you have added to the discussion is that the type of thinking involved is indeed kinesthetic thinking, but it makes no difference. What does it matter what type of thinking is involved? All that matters is that manuals require more thinking than DCT, and people seem to like it for some unknown reason which I believe is the 'challenge.'

And I'm sorry you got offended that I said I think you are misusing kinesthetic thinking. I was just being honest, its not my intent to offend. What I meant by your 'kinesthetic misuse' is that it doesn't matter in regard to this debate. You're basically just saying that you are more 'one' with the shift with a manual. That your movement is directly changing the gear. So you feel that you are 'doing something.' And that is always where my point pops up. It all boils down to the pleasant feeling that you're accomplishing something which DCT deprives you of.

This next section will probably be the most convincing in rebuttal to what you have posted:
Your hoop shooting analogy.
You claim it is 'fun' to shoot hoops repeatedly. I AGREE. I believe the good majority of the world finds such behavior 'fun.'
BUT this is the exact 'fun' that I am questioning. Shooting hoops is artificially challenging oneself to throw a ball thru a hoop. Accomplishment serves no purpose other than to give him/her pride. It is exactly the type of artificial challenge I am claiming a manual is as well. And it is only fun because it makes us feel good to overcome the challenge (shift or hoop). I believe manuals and hoops are just two examples of the many ways humans artificially challenge themselves to feel pride.

That section should be enough to demonstrate my response.


But I'm going to go a step further. Unlike you, I don't think shooting hoops by oneself is enough to be satisfied and 'fun.' I believe the majority of the world realizes that shooting hoops over and over is rather pointless because it is an artificial challenge. I don't know a single person who would shoot hoops forever and never compete. Hilariously, those who aren't exposed to competition in their driveway invent competition. These people invent time expiration ("3, 2, 1, buzzzz") or they practice crossing over imaginary defenders, etc. I know I do when I shoot hoops solo. People realize that there is no point in throwing a ball thru a hoop. It is pointless. They stop gettin high off of pride when this hits them. So they make up competition to give them a 'legitimate' reason to feel pride. They imagine buzzerbeaters, and crossover defenders over. They know there needs to be a 'real' challenge in order to deserve the pride.

My point is that deep down we know(well, some know) shooting hoops is an artificial challenge and we need something more to feel pride and consider it 'fun.' And THAT is what I am claiming should happen to manual drivers. Once they realize it is an artificial challenge, it SHOULD cease to incite pride and cease to be 'fun.'

You are saying that kinesthetic thinking is enjoyable for the very reason that it requires thought, creativity, or the proud feeling that you are 'one with the car.' It all boils down to intentionally doing something the hard way, which requires more thinking, which is a challenge, which causes us to feel proud when accomplished. That is why I dismissed the importance of 'kinesthetic thinking'. Because it just plays right into my theory.

If you are thinking: but if that is just how we are 'wired', then we should just do these mundane, repetitive, unnecessarily hard challenges and satisfy our brains requirement for pride/satisfaction.

I would not be asking this question if I was 'wired' in that way. I would just go shoot some hoops and drive my manny and feel superduperpride. I have hope that others are also not just victims of their 'wiring' because of how people invent competition when shooting hoops solo. They know. They know there must be more in order to deserve the pride.

The entire point of this thread hijacking is to see if manual owners could see this as well. That the manual is just satisfying humans desire to set and defeat goals. It is our wiring, you're right. And we may not be able to escape it. But we don't have to. We can set TRUE challenges to satisfy this craving. A manual is a fake challenge as of the year DCT.

Hopefully that long (sorry again) post clarifies my dismissal of kinesthetic thinking. I think you are right in that it is the reason manuals are fun. BUT the reason kinesthetic thinking is fun is because it is a challenge for us to overcome.

To be honest, I think you actually just explained the cognition behind my theory.

goodnight

I think you are too hung up on the pride issue. It might apply to manual shifting to some degree; but does not explain it entirely. People do all sorts of things that don't make them proud, but are fun. People do things that make them look like losers and have fun. So when people are shooting hoops by themselves, they are not necessarily challenging themselves--although some might. It is very possible that they are simply having fun. The same might apply to manual shifting if there is some dimension of creativity involved. If you ask exceptionally creative people whey being creative is fun, I doubt that most will say much about pride. Creative acts are innately fun for most.

Your artificial vs. natural challenge point doesn't really make sense to me. The entire car is an artificial system. Going around the track in your manual or DCT car is an artificial situation to begin with in the sense that it is self-imposed. If it is done for the challenge, there is nothing fundamentally less artificial--according to your definition of self-imposed vs natural--about the challenge of driving around the track in a DCT car because of the premise of the situation. In other words, there no anology between a blind person walking down the street and an unimpared person driving around the track with a DCT car.

[paulyd]

Originally Posted by lucid

I think you are too hung up on the pride issue. It might apply to manual shifting to some degree; but does not explain it entirely. People do all sorts of things that don't make them proud, but are fun. People do things that make them look like losers and have fun. So when people are shooting hoops by themselves, they are not necessarily challenging themselves--although some might. It is very possible that they are simply having fun. The same might apply to manual shifting if there is some dimension of creativity involved. If you ask exceptionally creative people whey being creative is fun, I doubt that most will say much about pride. Creative acts are innately fun for most.

Your artificial vs. natural challenge point doesn't really make sense to me. The entire car is an artificial system. Going around the track in your manual or DCT car is an artificial situation to begin with in the sense that it is self-imposed. If it is done for the challenge, there is nothing fundamentally less artificial--according to your definition of self-imposed vs natural--about the challenge of driving around the track in a DCT car because of the premise of the situation. In other words, there no anology between a blind person walking down the street and an unimpared person driving around the track with a DCT car.

This response clearly demonstrates that you don't understand what I'm saying.

You are attempting to circumvent my theory that the challenge and the resultant pride is the only thing that makes people 'enjoy' a manual. Instead of the challenge you are saying its is 'creative fun.'
I already said, what makes 'creative thinking' fun? You have no answer, you basically just say, well because it is. Thats not an answer.
I believe creative thinking is a thinking 'challenge, which is fun because solving it gives you pride.
You dismiss pride because creativity lovers would not admit they are doing it for pride. Of course they wouldn't admit it! They don't even realize it. Nobody in this entire forum seems to realize it. No one is making a conscious decision to self-impose challenges upon ourselves. All we know is that certain activities feel 'fun' and we don't know why. Nobody really cares why, we usually just do what is 'fun.'

I am attempting to explain this 'fun' as unconscious pride resulting from defeating challenges. You have not offered a single piece of evidence to refute this claim. And I might add that this is not some half-baked idea from me. Nor do I take credit for this idea. This is a psychological theory. Many believe in its existance. That humans thrive off of setting goals and defeating them. I'm just applying the theory to manuals. I think a manual is exactly that, a goal/challenge for us.

I feel like a broken record, but I'm going further than that theory. And I'm saying once we realize that this is human nature (to set goals and defeat them to feel good about ourselves) then you start to think about all of your personal behaviors. You realize that some challenges are legitimate challenges (overcoming blindness) while others your are subconsciously imposing upon yourself (manual). I'm distinguishing between the two and questioning whether the artificial challenges should still be 'fun' once you realize your just subconsciously tricking yourself into pride.

And what you mean about DCT and manuals both being artificial is what makes no sense. Track driving as a whole is artificial if that is what you mean. Driving around town is nothing its just a means to arrive at point B.

But there is a fundamental difference between DCT and manual. DCT is not a challenge. You push a button. You can choose to not even have to push the button. So there really is no challenge. Thats why you like manuals. Cuz they pose a challenge for you. You have to feather the clutch and row gears. How can you say there is no difference? That is the crux of this entire debate.

DCT = no challenge
manual post-DCT era = artificial challenge (self-imposed by choice) (EVEN IF you don't consciously realize that you are choosing it as a goal setting/goal conquest attraction.
manual pre-DCT era = legitimate challenge. (no alternative existed which was equally effective involving no personal work)

I'm just arguing THAT difference. Involving the choice to manually shift vs. DCT shift for you. That is the challenge I am 'challenging.'

You skipped to the even greater challenge which is drivng around a track to begin with (whether in a manual or DCT car)
Yes, I agree 100% that track driving as a whole is an artificial challenge.
But thats not the current debate, that is the larger theory.

Curiously, if you identify track driving as a whole as being 'artificial' then you absolutely haveee to admit the specific manual shifting challenge is artificial. You see the big picture clearly but then you glaze over the smaller component I am currently attacking which is the manual challenge only.

With that said, I don't track. Maybe I will one day (for artificial challenge), but currently I simply enjoy driving for the g forces. Why are g forces fun? I have no idea. Another good question. Just like why is it fun to conquer challenges. I'm saying pride is the reason. Everyone keeps dismissing pride as the reason, but I have yet to hear a single viable alternative, and this goal setting pride idea has firm roots in behaviorism.

You keep dismissing pride as the cause of the 'fun' but also can't tell me why else it would be fun. That remains the question. Until someone can explain why manuals are inherently fun, excluding the challenge, then I maintain it is fun for the challenge and resultant pride. And again, I believe your creative thinking theory as the reason things are fun, is just another way to say challenge. Creative thinking is a mental challenge.

And the blind analogy is a perfect analogy.
blind person = legitimate challenge
blindfolded person = artificial challenge

manual shifting pre-DCT = legitimate challenge
manual shifting post-DCT = artificial challenge

hopefully that clarifies how what you are saying interacts with what I am saying. I believe you understand the general idea I'm presenting. But you're missing how it does indeed, directly apply to a manual in a post-DCT world. DCT makes manual shifting become an artificial challenge, whereas it used to be legitimate. That fact that track driving is artificial as a whole does not negate this distinction.

[Champagne]

Chitown,

Could you please argue a little in favour of MT please? Would just like to see where it goes. Your mind is interesting! Allthough I'm not too fond of some of your choice of words.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by chitown08

This response clearly demonstrates that you don't understand what I'm saying.

You are attempting to circumvent my theory that the challenge and the resultant pride is the only thing that makes people 'enjoy' a manual. Instead of the challenge you are saying its is 'creative fun.'
I already said, what makes 'creative thinking' fun? You have no answer, you basically just say, well because it is. Thats not an answer.
I believe creative thinking is a thinking 'challenge, which is fun because solving it gives you pride.
You dismiss pride because creativity lovers would not admit they are doing it for pride. Of course they wouldn't admit it! They don't even realize it. Nobody in this entire forum seems to realize it. No one is making a conscious decision to self-impose challenges upon ourselves. All we know is that certain activities feel 'fun' and we don't know why. Nobody really cares why, we usually just do what is 'fun.'

I am attempting to explain this 'fun' as unconscious pride resulting from defeating challenges. You have not offered a single piece of evidence to refute this claim. And I might add that this is not some half-baked idea from me. Nor do I take credit for this idea. This is a psychological theory. Many believe in its existance. That humans thrive off of setting goals and defeating them. I'm just applying the theory to manuals. I think a manual is exactly that, a goal/challenge for us.

I feel like a broken record, but I'm going further than that theory. And I'm saying once we realize that this is human nature (to set goals and defeat them to feel good about ourselves) then you start to think about all of your personal behaviors. You realize that some challenges are legitimate challenges (overcoming blindness) while others your are subconsciously imposing upon yourself (manual). I'm distinguishing between the two and questioning whether the artificial challenges should still be 'fun' once you realize your just subconsciously tricking yourself into pride.

And what you mean about DCT and manuals both being artificial is what makes no sense. Track driving as a whole is artificial if that is what you mean. Driving around town is nothing its just a means to arrive at point B.

But there is a fundamental difference between DCT and manual. DCT is not a challenge. You push a button. You can choose to not even have to push the button. So there really is no challenge. Thats why you like manuals. Cuz they pose a challenge for you. You have to feather the clutch and row gears. How can you say there is no difference? That is the crux of this entire debate.

DCT = no challenge
manual post-DCT era = artificial challenge (self-imposed by choice) (EVEN IF you don't consciously realize that you are choosing it as a goal setting/goal conquest attraction.
manual pre-DCT era = legitimate challenge. (no alternative existed which was equally effective involving no personal work)

I'm just arguing THAT difference. Involving the choice to manually shift vs. DCT shift for you. That is the challenge I am 'challenging.'

You skipped to the even greater challenge which is drivng around a track to begin with (whether in a manual or DCT car)
Yes, I agree 100% that track driving as a whole is an artificial challenge.
But thats not the current debate, that is the larger theory.

Curiously, if you identify track driving as a whole as being 'artificial' then you absolutely haveee to admit the specific manual shifting challenge is artificial. You see the big picture clearly but then you glaze over the smaller component I am currently attacking which is the manual challenge only.

With that said, I don't track. Maybe I will one day (for artificial challenge), but currently I simply enjoy driving for the g forces. Why are g forces fun? I have no idea. Another good question. Just like why is it fun to conquer challenges. I'm saying pride is the reason. Everyone keeps dismissing pride as the reason, but I have yet to hear a single viable alternative, and this goal setting pride idea has firm roots in behaviorism.

You keep dismissing pride as the cause of the 'fun' but also can't tell me why else it would be fun. That remains the question. Until someone can explain why manuals are inherently fun, excluding the challenge, then I maintain it is fun for the challenge and resultant pride. And again, I believe your creative thinking theory as the reason things are fun, is just another way to say challenge. Creative thinking is a mental challenge.

And the blind analogy is a perfect analogy.
blind person = legitimate challenge
blindfolded person = artificial challenge

manual shifting pre-DCT = legitimate challenge
manual shifting post-DCT = artificial challenge

hopefully that clarifies how what you are saying interacts with what I am saying. I believe you understand the general idea I'm presenting. But you're missing how it does indeed, directly apply to a manual in a post-DCT world. DCT makes manual shifting become an artificial challenge, whereas it used to be legitimate. That fact that track driving is artificial as a whole does not negate this distinction.

The world is divided into two classes of people: the ones who understand you and the ones who don't. Actually, maybe there is another distinction: the ones who understand "pride", and the ones who don't. It's all that simple! One can explain/dismiss "pride" the same one can explain/dismiss "fun". They are both constructs. There is no objective anchor in any of this, and you keep on trying to convince yourself that there is, that pride is some kind of fundamental primitive of the universe whereas fun is not. I've said what I had to say, and am not responding to the specific points because we've crossed that threshold where these types of debates are not a good use of anyone's time. So, you can have the last word.

But remember, people, or shall we call them squares, who are constantly driven by --consciously or not-- accomplishment/challenge/pride are usually not liked by others because they just don't know how to have FUN!