Is it any different really? Isn’t the GENERAL END character of the content of a training session and hence the direction towards which the system is moved by a certain set of stimuli more important than the specifics of how that is achieved? Why getting lost already in the stimulus side of the equation when what matters in reality is only the RESPONSE one?
The GENERAL END character of ALL training stimuli was maybe the most precious lesson Charlie taught me over the years,and what I find universally applies to any training system really.
Let’s think of how we judge a training program we go through:we judge it from the END RESULT. Do we really know which stimulus in the program eventually lead us to a positive or a negative result? No,we do not. We most of the times just politely guess.