tsumego will make you strong

[kgsbaduk]

if its true we will see soon. Just started very hard go training by myself with tsumego and with Guo Juan Sensei.

[Hare]

Everything is easy if you put hard work in it.

This is not true. People have limitations. I've seen people work very hard and not become 8d.

I would agree with palapiku completely. I learned go as an adult at about the same time as my father. We grew together. I now am watching his rank slide in the wrong direction as he begins to decline. I also know my brain isn't as flexible as it once was and this is a limiting factor. Why do you think go schools accept young brains only? I know of a physics lab in which they find young brains have all the fresh ideas. After 25 or so the brain just isn't open to new thinking. Older physicists are there to coach younger minds, not generate new ideas.

[Monadology]

Everything is easy if you put hard work in it.

This is not true. People have limitations. I've seen people work very hard and not become 8d.

I would agree with palapiku completely. I learned go as an adult at about the same time as my father. We grew together. I now am watching his rank slide in the wrong direction as he begins to decline. I also know my brain isn't as flexible as it once was and this is a limiting factor. Why do you think go schools accept young brains only? I know of a physics lab in which they find young brains have all the fresh ideas. After 25 or so the brain just isn't open to new thinking. Older physicists are there to coach younger minds, not generate new ideas.

While this is true of mathematics, sciences like physics and probably games like Go it is not universally true. I know, for instance, in my field of study (Philosophy) many of the most innovative and influential ideas have been made by the fairly old. Immanuel Kant was over 60 years old when he turned the entire course of the discipline on its head for better or for worse. He also did not begin study at an incredibly early age (16).

Starting young will help (a lot) for pretty much anything, but it is not true that old brains are incapable or even unlikely to produce new ideas.

[cdybeijing]

While this is true of mathematics, sciences like physics and probably games like Go it is not universally true. I know, for instance, in my field of study (Philosophy) many of the most innovative and influential ideas have been made by the fairly old. Immanuel Kant was over 60 years old when he turned the entire course of the discipline on its head for better or for worse. He also did not begin study at an incredibly early age (16).

Starting young will help (a lot) for pretty much anything, but it is not true that old brains are incapable or even unlikely to produce new ideas.

While Kant produced a rash of publications towards the end of his career, it is not accurate to say that he developed any genius idea in his 60's. The man was a practicing philosopher for decades who never published any of his work. His writings represent the distilled efforts of a lifetime and not any special insight of later life.

[Monadology]

While Kant produced a rash of publications towards the end of his career, it is not accurate to say that he developed any genius idea in his 60's. The man was a practicing philosopher for decades who never published any of his work. His writings represent the distilled efforts of a lifetime and not any special insight of later life.

Except that the production of the Critiques was directly motivated by a turn in his thinking caused by an encounter with Hume around 1771, which would have been at the age of 47.

He certainly did publish his work prior to his post-Hume publications (over a dozen works published, in fact), it's merely that none of them contained any significantly influential or original ideas.

Kant isn't some kind of odd exception in the field either, http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/20 ... r-old.html

I'm not claiming that it's easy to pick up anything completely new at a late age. The older you are, the harder it is. That's a different claim, however, from another claim that was made in addition: namely that only the youthful are open to to reception or production of new ideas EVEN within the context of a field of study or practice inhabited since early adulthood.

EDIT: It's interesting to note that in the sciences, the age given in this thread as a kind of cut-off (25) is more like the peak, with actual dissemination peaking a number of years afterwards (~30) presumably due to the time required after conception to research and produce a result in an appropriate form. But that's only the peak, not a cut-off. The gradual decline is still forgiving through the 40's.

[Stable]

I recall reading that the peak meat-gathering age for a hunter in hunter-gatherer societies is about 42, as that's the age at which increasing experience finally starts to lose out to deteriorating physique. That should give me at least loads of time. How relevant any of this is to tsumego I don't know, but it seems clear you don't have to commit suicide at 26 and assume life after that is worthless. Which is good, since I have only months left!

[Monadology]

I recall reading that the peak meat-gathering age for a hunter in hunter-gatherer societies is about 42, as that's the age at which increasing experience finally starts to lose out to deteriorating physique. That should give me at least loads of time. How relevant any of this is to tsumego I don't know, but it seems clear you don't have to commit suicide at 26 and assume life after that is worthless. Which is good, since I have only months left!

The way this connects is, hopefully, to shed some doubts that hard work (Tsumego in this case) will be ineffective because one approaches thirty and, alas, will soon have a brain as hard as concrete.

[hyperpape]

Monadology, I'm not sure that's a just treatment of Kant's development. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-development/#8; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/

It's fair to say that if Kant had ceased publishing in 1770, we would probably not remember him. But he was a major German philosopher of the time already, and was grappling with the problem that he aimed to answer in the first Critique. He also had begun to develop ideas that were major sources of the Critique's lasting importance: i.e. the conception of sensibility and the understanding.

And of course while many of Kant's major insights were developed after 1770, his expertise was already great. That's a distinction that maps poorly to Go, but it would almost be as if an ordinary professional made the leap to being a titleholder.

[Monadology]

Monadology, I'm not sure that's a just treatment of Kant's development. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-development/#8; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/

It's fair to say that if Kant had ceased publishing in 1770, we would probably not remember him. But he was a major German philosopher of the time already, and was grappling with the problem that he aimed to answer in the first Critique. He also had begun to develop ideas that were major sources of the Critique's lasting importance: i.e. the conception of sensibility and the understanding.

I won't deny that a lot of the foundation was probably percolating prior to his encounter with Hume. It would certainly be absurd to suggest that Kant had no real engagement with philosophy despite what the use of the famous phrase "dogmatic slumber" might suggest. That's why even in my initial post I remarked at what age Kant had begun his study.

What I am pointing out is that the introduction of new ideas occurred at a late age with a rather explosive effect regarding the production of new ideas. This is directly contrary to what was implied broadly about the plasticity of the human mind by the example Hare gave. I'm pretty sure recent research into neurogenesis also puts doubt into the notion that learning is significantly hampered during middle age, but I don't have any citations on that.

EDIT: Go is different enough from philosophy that aging may indeed be a good deal more detrimental, but it seems far more likely to me that a number of other factors such as already formed lifestyle habits, work, family, and simple lack of proclivity are more limiting in the development of an amateur than age inasmuch as they limit the dedication that can be bestowed upon the game.

On the contrary, the very young do not have the majority of these concerns and have the capacity to pick up the game much more quickly than an adult. It's more a surplus of plasticity, time and energy in the young than any kind of deficiency of learning ability in the old that I would suspect.

[RedStick]

I think it's worth pointing out that philosophy is not competitive in the same way Go is and so "greatness" is measured in very different ways.

Also, Go is a confined system where life experience (and even language) isn't really necessary. Go is more like math and music. Philosophy is more like writing literature.

I think basic observation clearly enough suggests that some pursuits favor mature minds and others are soaked up better by developing brains.

[Monadology]

I think it's worth pointing out that philosophy is not competitive in the same way Go is and so "greatness" is measured in very different ways.

Also, Go is a confined system where life experience (and even language) isn't really necessary. Go is more like math and music. Philosophy is more like writing literature.

All of which I indicated a few times throughout this thread. Though I would disagree that philosophy is generally closer to literature than to math or music. And music? Isn't it close to literature in many ways? What about atonal music? I don't think the coordinates of the map you're suggesting are nearly as clear as they seem.

I think basic observation clearly enough suggests that some pursuits favor mature minds and others are soaked up better by developing brains.

I don't think basic observation is sufficient to make those sorts of generalizations, though it may provide evidence in one direction or the other. Basic observation can be notoriously misleading.

However, as I indicated I do think it is likely that development in Go is helped more by the youthful capacity to learn very quickly than something like Philosophy. I just wanted to caution against the corollary that seemed to be drawn that development in Go somehow becomes difficult to impossible after youth because:

After 25 or so the brain just isn't open to new thinking.

Which I feel is simply not true, and holds no more sway if 25 becomes 35, 45 or even 55.

[RedStick]

All of which I indicated a few times throughout this thread. Though I would disagree that philosophy is generally closer to literature than to math or music. And music? Isn't it close to literature in many ways? What about atonal music? I don't think the coordinates of the map you're suggesting are nearly as clear as they seem.


I don't think basic observation is sufficient to make those sorts of generalizations, though it may provide evidence in one direction or the other. Basic observation can be notoriously misleading.

1) I only meant in the sense that there are child prodigies for one group and not the other. And the fact that they are more confined systems with internal rules, whereas philosophy, well.... depends on who your talking about.

2) basic observation could also read life experience.

And I'm not proposing coordinates for a map or any 2-dimensional visual. that's how you get into comparing and quantifying things you have no business comparing and quantifying.

All of this to just express my uneasiness with the logic -> People get better at discipline A when they're older so they must be able to get better at discipline B too.

We can cluster and then generalize (like i did) but it's really not much better.

For what it's worth I think young people's confidence goes a long way whereas with older people self doubt seems to accompany any new endeavor. Is it more of a factor than developmental issues in the brain? who cares. all we can control is how we think about it and the extent to which we can change our ability from our mindset. (if you can't tell i'm more of a Wittgenstein/Rorty sympathist when it comes to philosophy)

[Monadology]

2) basic observation could also read life experience.

And that too can be very misleading.

And I'm not proposing coordinates for a map or any 2-dimensional visual. that's how you get into comparing and quantifying things you have no business comparing and quantifying.

But you were comparing things (though not quantifying)! Namely: Go, math, music, philosophy and literature. This is a very confusing point to make. Maybe you could clarify what it was you were actually trying to do.

All of this to just express my uneasiness with the logic -> People get better at discipline A when they're older so they must be able to get better at discipline B too.

It's definitely not a solid line of argument, I agree. However, the counterexample does refute pretty strongly the notion that the mind is simply not open to new ideas or new ways of thinking during or past middle age.

That doesn't mean that "the mind is open to new ideas and learning independently of age" should be taken as a new generalization, but I think that the counterexample should lead to skepticism about claims that the mind ISN'T open to new ideas/learning unless convincing reason is given otherwise OR unless convincing reasons are given for why the counterexample is merely an exception.

I think a singular exception is less likely in this context. I do not think philosophy is sufficiently removed enough that there can be an accounting for its status as a counterexample, even though it does differ in many ways from Go, physics or math. Further, the only evidence that has been given that old minds are NOT open to new ideas/learning is largely anecdotal. On the other hand the evidence given that young minds are very quick to develop and learn is much sturdier. Hence why I haven't rejected that it is almost always beneficial to start young, even though I do reject that it is particularly detrimental to start old.

For what it's worth I think young people's confidence goes a long way whereas with older people self doubt seems to accompany any new endeavor. Is it more of a factor than developmental issues in the brain? who cares. all we can control is how we think about it and the extent to which we can change our ability from our mindset. (if you can't tell i'm more of a Wittgenstein/Rorty sympathist when it comes to philosophy)

I gathered that from your comparison of philosophy to literature. Wasn't it Wittgenstein who remarked that a philosopher is a kind of poet?

[palapiku]

Philosophy would be a lot more relevant to this discussion had there been philosophy competitions where one had to come up with a hundred brilliant ideas in an hour.

[Monadology]

Philosophy would be a lot more relevant to this discussion had there been philosophy competitions where one had to come up with a hundred brilliant ideas in an hour.

You've clearly never participated in a verbal debate.

Plus, the time constraint is artificial. Go is no more or less Go if the game takes place over five days or thirty minutes.

Finally, no one is arguing that anyone can pick up Go at any age and get to the level necessary to compete against the promising young professionals in the Korean Go scene in an hour-long game. That's simply straw-manning.

But really, we could pick hundreds of differences between anything and anything else. It's trivial to point out that things are different.

Unless you can suggest a good reason as to why this particular difference means that old minds can't become strong at Go through hard work (and by "strong at Go" I do not mean "can compete at the highest professional level"), and I can't immediately see one, I'm not sure this difference makes a difference.