Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:The interesting question is not whether there are differences. Differences are obvious. Admission to Chinese universities is weighted much more to quantifiable, logical, rational processes (test scores) than American universities that look for a holistic picture of their applicants via personal essays (wait, what?!).

It's whether those differences are part of some big picture holistic vs. analytical thingamadoodle, and you can consistently categorize those differences in a way that isn't ad hoc and just looking for patterns.

For all my snark in the first paragraph, I think it's a fascinating topic. There's a half read book on my shelf, The Geography of Thought by Richard Nisbett (the badass social psychologist) that summarizes recent research on the subject. I had half a mind to do a review of it for L19, but never finished it, and also decided I wasn't in a position to review it very authoritatively.

Just to respond to your snark, perhaps the contradiction is only on the surface, and what we are seeing in your example is that American universities are looking for potential students that might stand out in ways other than test scores, and Chinese universites are looking for those who they believe might best contribute to their society as a whole. Just a conjecture.

BTW, The Geography of Thought is the book I mentioned in post 15.

@daal Man this thread was moving fast yesterday. I thought I read everything, but I must have missed that post.

daal wrote:Just to be clear, the above quoted article points to faults in studies making sweeping generalizations about cultural differences; it in no way suggests that cultural differences are non-existent.

That's not something I ever wanted to suggest.

entropi wrote:I cannot give reference but I heard from different sources that chess grandmasters have a very high IQ on average. Why should it be different at Go?

Maybe because Go masters are from the far east where the visual thinking is culturally more dominant than analytical way of thinking. In the west this is the other way round. And since IQ tests are more oriented towards analytical thinking, this could explain it.
Of course I am just specualting. But this is a rather interesting issue.

I think it's worth mentioning that the control group was also comprised of asian individuals. Their mean I.Q. was 101. That's seven points higher than the Baduk experts. So the question of I.Q. differences might not hinge on cultural differences. On the topic of I.Q. the study itself suggests "The relatively shorter period of formal education might be partially responsible for the fact that Baduk players tended to score somewhat lower on IQ scores than did the control group". In other words, they left school early to study Go.

To me, the topic of I.Q. is one of the least interesting aspects of the study. Consider this quote:

the study wrote:...Therefor, inexperienced [players in the control group] tend to utilize premotor and parietal areas [of the brain] to execute their tasks, and Baduk training appears to shift core structures to the right-side dominant fronto-stratal circuit and temporal areas for information processing.

Or what about the running comparison of Baduk experts who began their training in childhood to London Cab drivers who began their training as adults? The paper points out "expertise acquired in adulthood can cause significant changes in gray matter volume as well as in neuropsychological profiles". Seems like a positive message to those of us that began studying go well into adulthood.

John Fairbairn wrote:I do hope those people who have been beating some of us about the head with the need for precise rules,

Precise rules are necessary, unless you have a passion for unfairness and unresolvable problems.

and telling us how stupid the Japanese are, are reading this with red faces and tingling ears.

No one ever said that the Japanese were stupid. The FACT is, they are behind China and Korea. It is reasonable to ask why this is. Firstly, it sounds as if Japan has not modernized its training system for insei. (Correct me if I am wrong on this.) Secondly, Japan is unfortunately beginning to leave its traditional culture behind, and consequently the Go population is dwindling. This has to have an effect on Japan's performance. I would love to see Japan become stronger again, but right now, they're simply not.

Nagano (only because L19 is deathly quiet and needs warming up):

Precise rules are not actually necessary as centuries of go have proven. We simply need a model that is good enough (which can, admittedly, change over time).

The reference to people calling Japanese stupid was to comments often made by people talking about their rules. The Japanese rules have served well enough for a longer period of pro tournament play than anywhere else. The very occasional glitch serves a useful purpose of getting journalists excited, so is actually good for go.

The point is, as the papers behind the thread show, westerners are apt to pick on an individual instance divorced from context. The Japanese are more inclined to take account of the context, and that context includes the community. That allows them to handle rules problems in a way satisfactory for them. That is not stupid. In social terms it's very intelligent (empathy is supposed to be a marker of human intelligence, though I see from a report today that even that is now questionable - hens have been shown to feel empathy for their chicks).

Just as there is scope for a "geography of thought" there is scope for a "geography of rules".

John Fairbairn wrote:Nagano (only because L19 is deathly quiet and needs warming up):

Precise rules are not actually necessary as centuries of go have proven. We simply need a model that is good enough (which can, admittedly, change over time).

The reference to people calling Japanese stupid was to comments often made by people talking about their rules. The Japanese rules have served well enough for a longer period of pro tournament play than anywhere else. The very occasional glitch serves a useful purpose of getting journalists excited, so is actually good for go.

Centuries of void games, improper rulings and incorrect results are not what I would call "good enough".

It's a real shame. If Go Seigen hadn't had all those rules disputes, maybe he could've contributed something to the game.

The most powerful argument for research on rules and making changes is "why not try and simplify or clarify things?" and I've never heard an answer from John that convinced me. But he's right about one thing: rules mavens have zero credibility when they insist that the current state of affairs is THE WORST DISASTER EVER.

nagano wrote:Centuries of void games, improper rulings and incorrect results are not what I would call "good enough".

I'm just waiting for instant replay to be instituted in all tournament games. Do we REALLY know he beat the clock on the last stone placed?

Hello,
People who are interested in the east-west aspects of this subject might like to take a look at my article on psychology and go in the Bob High e-Library (http://www.usgo.org/bobhighlibrary). For example, there is some commentary on the language aspect that I didn't see mentioned in this thread.
To those who posted in this thread, thanks. When I get the chance, I will try to update to include some of the links and observations mentioned here plus other new research in the field. (I'll announce it here).
Best,
Peter Shotwell

Just a general thought on the original subject. Frankly IQ's are a very crude method of measuring human intelligence and the IQ tests generally have to make all sorts of assumption about education, culture, etc. In other words, it almost certainly can't deal with special circumstances like individuals who dedicated their minds to studying very specialized knowledge like Go, music, etc.

--
Bill

MarylandBill wrote:Just a general thought on the original subject. Frankly IQ's are a very crude method of measuring human intelligence and the IQ tests generally have to make all sorts of assumption about education, culture, etc. In other words, it almost certainly can't deal with special circumstances like individuals who dedicated their minds to studying very specialized knowledge like Go, music, etc.

--
Bill

Exactly. They ask too many knowledge based questions rather than questions that require intelligence to answer. For instance, one time I took an IQ test and was asked to name which Pope presided over the erection of the Egyptian obelisk at the center of the Vatican. I'm a history buff, but what in the world does that have to do with intelligence?

What IQ test was that, Nagano? All I remember from the one I took as a kid was making patterns using cubes (each cube had a different red and white pattern on its face, and I had to match a reference pattern as fast as I could).

I don't remember the name of it, but I am sure it was a standardized IQ test.

nagano wrote:

MarylandBill wrote:Just a general thought on the original subject. Frankly IQ's are a very crude method of measuring human intelligence and the IQ tests generally have to make all sorts of assumption about education, culture, etc. In other words, it almost certainly can't deal with special circumstances like individuals who dedicated their minds to studying very specialized knowledge like Go, music, etc.

--
Bill

Exactly. They ask too many knowledge based questions rather than questions that require intelligence to answer. For instance, one time I took an IQ test and was asked to name which Pope presided over the erection of the Egyptian obelisk at the center of the Vatican. I'm a history buff, but what in the world does that have to do with intelligence?

I suspect that most such tests are not quite that cultural specific. That being said, they generally assume basic knowledge of language, math and logic... as they are used in the general world. The problem is that someone who focuses intensely on a specific activity, like Go, have trained their brains in different thought patterns than the general population.

--
Bill