What are "the Basics"?

[RobertJasiek]

if he were turned off from making good posts in the future because of assumption-based criticism.

The purpose of [my] constructive criticism
- is not to turn off good posts
but
- is to motivate better than good posts, such where reader assumptions cannot lead to misinterpretation.

Likewise, the purpose of [your] criticism of assumption-based criticism
- is - I hope - not to turn off criticism
but
- is to motivate less misinterpretation due to assumptions.

[RobertJasiek]

i feel an assumption was made because disagreement was desired.

Reconsider your assumptions.

[Kirby]

i feel an assumption was made because disagreement was desired.

Reconsider your assumptions.

Ok, Robert. Then tell me, what in daal's post made you feel that he felt that eyes were more important in the game of go than connections?

[Bazoo]

There’s a thing called “rapport” in NLP and modern psychotherapy.

There's a thing called rapport in plain English, but it probably means the same.

[RobertJasiek]

Then tell me, what in daal's post made you feel that he felt that eyes were more important in the game of go than connections?

Ah, no, not "more important" but "coming in order of understanding before". Anyway, with this change:

1) The use of a numbered list was suggestive.

2) In the context of discussion moving from "the basics in general" to, introduced by his post, "the basics lower than fundamentals" while restricting, what he declared to be "[all] the basics", he wanted to start from the bottom.

3) He started with, of the three, the most basic of the basics, the liberties, and spoke of "most basic".

4) For his second basic, he wrote "an extension on the idea of liberties". So he put his second basic on pile of the first basic. I.e., he created a functional order.

This was already too convincing for me, so I did not pay close attention that he did not describe his third basic on pile of his second basic but wrote "along with".

[daal]

Just for the record, I was a bit ticked off by Robert's description of my post, but he's explained what he meant and so did I, what's the big deal? Is go really so uninteresting?

[Bonobo]

if he were turned off from making good posts in the future because of assumption-based criticism.

The purpose of [my] constructive criticism
- is not to turn off good posts

Uhm, Robert, are you aware that Kirby wrote “if he were turned off”, i.e. he was talking about daal, a person, not about their post, a thing. This is not about things, this is about people.

This may point exactly to what I wrote before. Let’s gain some awareness about what our words can do in others. People can understand us totally wrong because we 1) are are not accurate in our expressions (i.e. often ambiguous) and 2) because we tend to misunderstand wherever we can. And if we do, we most always tend to understand the worst possible meaning. E.g., I always need to remember that the characters I read on my screen are a text from a human expressing themselves, it’s not “just a post”. (And I for one tend to write from the bottom of my heart, and I know it can lead some to think, “what a BS”. Sometimes later I think so myself.)

So, what Kirby is expressing here (my interpretation, certainly) is his fear that daal could somehow feel p!ssed and be turned off from making good posts.

And IMNSHO there is no necessity to justify your post by declaring what the purpose of your criticism was NOT. I believe, and I suppose many people here do, that you write with best intentions. That’s not what this discussion is about. This is meta. And it’s not about what, it’s about how.

but
- is to motivate better than good posts, such where reader assumptions cannot lead to misinterpretation.

Great!

But! Isn’t it better to motivate by first telling “the kid” how well it performs? That it is good already? Anybody should surely appreciate respectful amendments and corrections if explained with sympathy and support, not contempt and patronizing. The first is what humans need to feel accepted and which “opens” them, the latter are for sure not your intention, but I swear, my perception is that many of your opponents in the discussions here read such in many of your posts. Some vitriol, some »von oben herab«/condescending, some “I’m/mine’s the greatest”. Again, I assure you that I believe this is not your intention, that you’d never want to be understood like this. But please consider that people 1) are inaccurate in their expressions and 2) people misunderstand each other (un)happily in the worst possible way. And if we’re not a bot, we’re “people”, so we are inaccurate in our expressions and so we also misunderstand. We may be more accurate than others, and/or we may understand better, but we cannot claim objectivity in our expression and our understanding. Well, we can, but this will lead to isolation and ceasing of meaningful communication with the outer world, which consists of … people who all believe they have the key to objectivity (I, for example, grok fundamental truths about how the universe and everything works )
________

OK, I see that meanwhile daal has replied also; well, I’ll post this nevertheless, hoping it is not too basic or brillant for at least a few to understand
And sorry for the threadjacking @ xed_over
________

K thx bye Tom

[RobertJasiek]

he was talking about daal, a person, not about their post, a thing. This is not about things, this is about people.

Sure; and, to calm down matters in my reply to Kirby, I have used a factual rather than a personal style. Now you misinterpret me as not calming down matters? What about your social competence? O o. It is possible to write one sentence here without misunderstanding?:)

Isn’t it better to motivate by first telling “the kid” how well it performs?

Disucssion should proceed rather than state the obvious. I am a child of usenet discussion, where the factual, anti-kid style is frequent.

[Kirby]

This was already too convincing for me, so I did not pay close attention that he did not describe his third basic on pile of his second basic but wrote "along with".

So my point is, Robert, that in this situation, you criticized a point that we don't even know that daal was trying to make. In daal's next post, he indicated that he felt resentment.

If you truly desire a constructive approach, is it possible that it might be better to simply respond to the original post directly, and indicate what you personally feel constitute "the basics"?

This way, the following can be accomplished:
1.) People can respect daal's contribution for what it was.
2.) daal does not feel resentment.
3.) People can still read your view on things, and evaluate it in its own right.
4.) You have the opportunity to comprehensively respond to the question at hand.
5.) You add to your reputation as one knowledgeable of fundamentals.

In criticizing that which may not have even being intended in daal's text, not all of these benefits are realized.

In other words, the "constructive" part of your "constructive criticism" can be utilized in isolation for what appears to be a greater beneficial effect.

[Kirby]

Just for the record, I was a bit ticked off by Robert's description of my post, but he's explained what he meant and so did I, what's the big deal? Is go really so uninteresting?

What can I say, daal? It's Friday, and I'm burnt out from a week of work. I suppose I should try to do something more productive with my time. I guess this is why I suck at go...

[Kirby]

he was talking about daal, a person, not about their post, a thing. This is not about things, this is about people.

Sure; and, to calm down matters in my reply to Kirby, I have used a factual rather than a personal style. Now you misinterpret me as not calming down matters? What about your social competence? O o. It is possible to write one sentence here without misunderstanding?:)

Isn’t it better to motivate by first telling “the kid” how well it performs?

Disucssion should proceed rather than state the obvious. I am a child of usenet discussion, where the factual, anti-kid style is frequent.

By the way, I like the "factual style", even if I don't always utilize it.

[Bonobo]

[..] to calm down matters in my reply to Kirby, I have used a factual rather than a personal style.

Note that I wrote above, a few posts ago, that you had criticized ad rem, not at hominem

Now you misinterpret me as not calming down matters?

No-no-no, all is fine (now).

What about your social competence? O o.

I guess I’m the last to be able to talk about my own social competence. But actually, I think my social competence is, uhm, brillant OK, forget that. All I can say is that I have over a decade of experience teaching kids from age of 11 to age 92. What I remember is that we both loved working with and learning from each other.

It is possible to write one sentence here without misunderstanding?:)

(Assuming that there is a “not” missing here …) No-no, we’re getting better. Ev’rything’s fine. Let’s just move on. All is well. Peace

Isn’t it better to motivate by first telling “the kid” how well it performs?

Disucssion should proceed rather than state the obvious. I am a child of usenet discussion, where the factual, anti-kid style is frequent.[/quote]
Usenet, me too. Even though I probably am quite a bit older than you. I’m actually a child of the end-60s and 70s (if we’re talking about our youth socialization). Nevertheless … usenet … netiquette … I remember there was something about the person on the other side of the cable … but you know what? Suddenly I have the feeling that all is fine and my, uhm, preaching is obsolete already. Just forget it, OK?

Peace, Tom

[snorri]

I don't agree that the concept of an eye should be replaced with the concept of life. I think that eyespace precedes life, and is more elemental and thus more basic. You expressed a differing opinion, and while I respect the fact that you are stronger and have more experience, your characterization of what I wrote sounds as if you are calling me a charlatan and I resent it.

By writing "the basics are", you have expressed your preference for limiting the scope to only three concepts. When doing so, it is of great importance to choose the three most appropriate ones.

You have also chosen to start above the rules. Liberties are part of the rules, but surely liberties are important and can also be extended to other types of liberties than those physical liberties occurring in the rules.

The concept of eye is an illusion, until one draws a very close connection to life. The type of "eye" used for independent life is unambiguous only if life is already given and eye can be derived from the possibility of creation the basic form of life, the two-eye-formation. Something similar can be said for sekis and for semeais. "eye" is derived from "life" and a "seki-eye" is derived from a seki - not vice versa (unless one wants to create confusion by being ambiguous). Therefore "life" comes before "eye".

"eyespace" is something else than "eye", and "potential for eyespace" is yet something else. During a game, potential precedes realisation, but if you want to talk about potential, then it would be better to talk about "to surround space" and call that third the preceding basic besides connection as the second.

No, I don't call you a charlatan or whatever. That I disagree with your post being "excellent" simply means that I think it is only "good" for the mentioned reasons.

If you do not want to express order, then do not use numbers to order your basics. Your opinion has the potential of being perceived as teaching advice by beginners. Therefore I think it is better worked out more carefully. What about the following?

All these basics are important already for early beginners:
- liberties
- connection
- surrounding space
- life
- eyes

In way eyes are just a tesuji to get more liberties or create the situation where liberties cannot be filled. So I guess one can draw the line of basic at the first tesuji. I like this list.

[Fedya]

Just what are the Basics exactly?

Black plays first, white plays second, everything else is pure theory.
-with apologies to Sepp Herberger

If you're going to steal from Sepp Herberger, don't you also need to say something like "The stones are round so that the game may change direction"?

[jts]

We can't be happy with each other yet -- we're only on page 3!