Buy:Prednisolone.Lumigan.Actos.100% Pure Okinawan Coral Calcium.Nexium.Human Growth Hormone.Zovirax.Synthroid.Mega Hoodia.Retin-A.Accutane.Arimidex.Valtrex.Zyban.Prevacid.Petcam (Metacam) Oral Suspension….

(There, enjoy the ad-space =)

I approved your comment in case you didn’t notice by yourself and to note that the bio you linked, the email address you gave and the name you entered are all referring to people with a different name. Also I hope that you and much of the people that write these lovely letter to me would notice that for some reason you seem so generic. What do you specifically like in this article? how did it touch you on personal level? Would you mind talking about the blog-article itself?

Just to underline – I’ll keep adding to the blacklist and report IP’s… =D

And thanks for Phaser to sort me out with most of the problems.

Considering the example of a 3d model or an 3d environment: preferably a person who’s able to communicate about the thing without bigger misunderstandings. So yes – it’s somewhat leading to that in most cases a person who has the understanding of the work involved, maybe even experience on that, is a lot easier to reflect the things with BUT(!) not really the top requirement. The level of understanding and closeness to the actual work (some people might find it hard to drop to the same frequency in the talk or mental approach is so different) affects the level where it could be taken. With someone who’s not really that familiar with the environment – it’s not that easy to talk about the details or actual ways or reasonings in achieving certain things. But when you bear that in mind – you can always keep the talk on higher level or even abstracted.

There is dramatic differences between the way of communication with other people that are not really working on the same exact thing. Firstly, people easily take a position basing on their profession and secondly the artist probably assumes that position too. There’s plenty of people the artist should take input from: AD’s, Managers, Technical guys, mom, target group and so on. In any of these cases it is clear what the stance painted on the stereotypical background is and even to some extent should be. It works as long as the people are good in communication and do not get caught in to the small details where all the misconception and arguing take place (note that those are the most minor in relevance and should be avoided). You might want to notice that in some cases the technical person probably works on the same exact thing with the same goal. Therefore in most cases it is not bad at all to talk with him or her.

In general, any people goes as long as they’re good and open in communication. Trust of ones abilities in his own profession is a key issue here too.

But good indication for if the person is suitable for “idea mirroring” is that if there is, interest (normally comes by working for the same goal), communication in the first place and if the reaction is to talk about the essence itself first – not to switch the talk straightly to the unrelevant things. As a bad example I could point out that it is not that uncommon to start a topic about something and the general feedback is not mirroring but a black hole or wrongly aligned mirror instead. Black holes are easily recognized to be the people that do not really think why and what you’re doing, claim that everything you come up is somehow wrong or at least not the perfect way it should be to their understanding and after the conversation you probably have less ideas than before it. Wrongly aligned mirrors may reflect something but probably misguide all the discussion to some other topics or details where it normally leads in to somekind of argue. Normally these kind of mirrors happen to reject your ideas because those are not their own and they might occassionally come up with something better but because of the somewhat aggressive approach they have back they can’t get the message back (therefore wrongly aligned).

Good mirrors reflect back and probably add something in to the idea. If you are also good at mirroring in that situation the effect continues and paths traversed easily between paths and goes poking all the ideas without an argue. It is additive process. You just keep iterating layer on top of it instead of concentrating to block all that you think that might be mistakes or not perfect.

But I published it just to give a reply for the question. Here’s a link to Tetris-forums as asked: http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/3422/