Life In 19x19

I don't have much experience the Pro Go teachers, but I have had a fair amount of experience with Chinese and other American teachers, mentors, supervisors. I get the impression that the historical approach dominates in China, to the extent that the reason something is the way it is, the first principles, were forgotten, and there is a much higher threshold for synthesizing something new or novel, and much more emphasis on memorizing and adapting ideas that are passed down.

tekesta wrote:In the US, most parents nowadays side with the student (their children) and largely antagonize the instructor.

More than before, but I certainly wouldn't claim most. What I've read on the topic suggests there's currently a class divide. Rich, management level parents have a tendency to view teachers as educational collaborators (or employees even), leading to increased participation (e.g., attending parent-teacher conferences), but also a sense that it's their prerogative to overrule the teacher. Working class parents who grew up with the teacher as an authority figure and now have a boss as an authority figure in their life are more likely to view the teacher as in charge. They're less likely to show up to a meeting (viewing themselves as unfit or at least not responsible for the child's education anymore), but are also more likely to defer to the teacher's authority. Talking to teachers, the most common angry parent story seems to be a parent coming in outraged over a grade or discipline, followed by the teacher explaining the child's behavior, and the parent's anger being redirected at the child who'd told a wildly different tale. But of course this is now moving anecdotal...

One thing I've discovered when reading about the book is that intellectual achievement has been perceived by most Americans as a form of privilege, not unlike great wealth or political influence. Hence there is the tendency to deride intellectuals as cold and distant, much the way that the rich would distance themselves from the poor.

Traditionally it has been a privilege. Class, gender, race and geographic location were by far more important considerations in how far you went in school then hard work or innate intelligence for most of U.S. history. We've also got a rich history of deriding every group: Northerners, Southerners, Nerds, Jocks, Catholics, Protestants, Those uninterested in sex, Those too interested in sex...

Although... if a German auto mechanic or beer brewer were to pursue perfection in his craft the way East Asian pros pursue perfection in the game, would that make him an intellectual in the Western - or at least US - sense of the word?

It's an interesting question, I think a lot of it comes down to behavior. If the master brewer only talks about brewing and shirks social engagements to study his craft, he'll tend to be viewed as an intellectual even if the term isn't applied. On the flip side, a socially active engineer who avoids the topic of his work to discuss beer, friends, sports, the weather, etc. isn't likely to be viewed as an intellectual in my experience.

Boidhre wrote:The example I think of is of a Master Distiller in a Whiskey Distillery. This is a person who would be very respected for their knowledge and skill in their field and (from interactions I've seen) been treated as another expert by for example academics (this doesn't mean mightn't consider them an idiot outside of their field, and this is something that holds true for pretty much everything). I don't think anyone would call them intellectuals, but intellectuals aren't the only group respected for their knowledge, ability or skill so I don't see it as an issue.

In North America a master distiller would probably be considered more "cool" than those who fit the classic egghead image. Even though a master distiller or brewer will usually lack the time for a friendly chat.

Or perhaps it's the following distinction that applies. An engineer or mathematician does not produce anything that is readily converted into money or can be consumed by the average layman, whereas the product of the master distiller or brewer is often available for the taking at any liquor outlet.

I now begin to wonder if Go, upon being popularized in North America and Europe, would soon be subject to the same commercialization seen in association football, American football, basketball, baseball, and other sports. In an age where "short and sweet" is at the top of every consumer's mind, Go may be something of a tough sell outside the academic/East Asian sphere.

Chess has the same problem as go does. People have a misconception about someone needing to be very intelligent (read: book smart) to even enjoy the game as an adult, never mind compete in tournaments. They are games for other people, that kid in class who was always ahead of the rest and so on and in my experience most of the people we get in the door at the club fit this stereotype but the strongest player we have would run right against it.

It's likely that such a notion is being dispelled as we speak. There is a film titled Brooklyn Castle, which is about a group of juvenile chess players in a New York City public school. Far from being uncool nerds, they are considered the cool kids. Below is a link to a New York Times article from April 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/nyregion/at-brooklyns-is-318-the-cool-kids-are-the-chess-champs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

SmoothOper wrote:I don't have much experience the Pro Go teachers, but I have had a fair amount of experience with Chinese and other American teachers, mentors, supervisors. I get the impression that the historical approach dominates in China, to the extent that the reason something is the way it is, the first principles, were forgotten, and there is a much higher threshold for synthesizing something new or novel, and much more emphasis on memorizing and adapting ideas that are passed down.

A wholesale application of the historical approach may not be entirely effective when teaching novices not of East Asian descent. One of the strengths of Western culture is that new ideas are readily considered and often adopted. I believe that this characteristic also exists in East Asian cultures, but historical continuity is given very high priority, often to the point of parochialism.

In China's case, Go is considered a sport, just as are association football, boxing, weightlifting, basketball, volleyball, etc. Since the advent of pro sports in China, there has been a strong political impetus therein, namely the drive to show that China is just as strong at sports as other countries. In the case of Go, it is probably more of a prestige issue; as the country in which Go originated, it is only fair that China strives to be No. 1 at it. As we speak, China is not very far from that spot.

I remember that Yang Yilun 8p wrote his The Fundamental Principles of Go as a guide to Go opening strategy and tactics easy to understand for Western students of the game. I found this book to be very helpful, but reading it by itself did not make me a better Go player. After playing and practicing, I gained background experience to make sense of what is explained in the book.

If I were a Go instructor, I would give some nuggets of information, either in the form of a short lecture or story, then let the student play, play, play as he/she experiments with it. There is no right or wrong answer. Rather, the idea is to let the student discover new lines of play and observe how they integrate with other plays on the board. It is important that the student gains experience to assist in understanding new concepts and skills.

There has often been talk about promoting the yeongusaeng system of training Go players in Western countries. While such a system of training does have its advantages, one should keep in mind that it is of Korean origin and it would require some changes should it be adapted for use in the West. As well, the yeongusaeng system is good for separating the determined students from the lazy ones, but I believe it is more important at the moment to expand the talent pool in Western countries. Korea, Japan, and China have large talent pools for their professional leagues, so sifting out the less diligent students makes sense for them.

I was looking last night at a PDF of the Kumon Method Math curriculum as used in Kumon schools, which can be found here:
http://www.kumon.com/miscellaneous/kumon_math_levels.pdf

I noticed how it was all structured. The first 5 lessons center on just teaching the child to count up to 100. From the 5th lesson on, the child learns addition and subtraction, beginning with numbers up to 10. Through an incremental approach, the child develops a solid command of the fundamentals, allowing for learning and mastery of more advanced concepts and skills.

I wonder if a similar form of curriculum could be established for those students in Western countries seeking formal instruction in the game.

Polama wrote:

tekesta wrote:In the US, most parents nowadays side with the student (their children) and largely antagonize the instructor.

They're less likely to show up to a meeting (viewing themselves as unfit or at least not responsible for the child's education anymore),

I think it is funny that a child spends more than eight hours at school but the teachers somehow think the parents are responsible for the students education, yet little Johnny counselor's son seems to get a great education with that extra AP credit that no one else can get because they don't offer the class any more and a spot on every athletics team. Not to mention they pass over all the straight A students when hiring teachers. I say antagonize away, 90% of education is just training people to live in a caste.

Polama wrote:More than before, but I certainly wouldn't claim most. What I've read on the topic suggests there's currently a class divide. Rich, management level parents have a tendency to view teachers as educational collaborators (or employees even), leading to increased participation (e.g., attending parent-teacher conferences), but also a sense that it's their prerogative to overrule the teacher.

When one has a lot of money and social influence, it is easy to look scornfully upon those who earn less - including schoolteachers. When a man feels like he has it all and deserves it on account of his efforts, the impulse to overrule everyone is often too strong to resist. (Many of the rich management types often seen today in North America were middle class at one time.)

This reminds me of the Go player who wins a lot and gets a swelled head.

Working class parents who grew up with the teacher as an authority figure and now have a boss as an authority figure in their life are more likely to view the teacher as in charge. They're less likely to show up to a meeting (viewing themselves as unfit or at least not responsible for the child's education anymore), but are also more likely to defer to the teacher's authority.

A certain feeling of impotence pervades the working classes in almost every society on earth. Thus, there is the tendency to delegate different jobs to different people. When one has to spend 8 to 12 hours daily at work just to keep a roof over one's head and food on the table, that feeling of impotence sets in after a while.

Talking to teachers, the most common angry parent story seems to be a parent coming in outraged over a grade or discipline, followed by the teacher explaining the child's behavior, and the parent's anger being redirected at the child who'd told a wildly different tale. But of course this is now moving anecdotal...

It's a social image thing. (I've seen children's school grades posted on Facebook.) The parent cannot brag to his/her peers if the child performs poorly at school and, unfortunately, the need to massage the ego is a common problem in modern society, whether East or West. One proof of this is that many parents will not hold themselves responsible in any way for their children's academic or other education.

Traditionally it has been a privilege. Class, gender, race and geographic location were by far more important considerations in how far you went in school then hard work or innate intelligence for most of U.S. history. We've also got a rich history of deriding every group: Northerners, Southerners, Nerds, Jocks, Catholics, Protestants, Those uninterested in sex, Those too interested in sex...

Such a wide range of insults is the price one must pay for living in a country with freedom of speech.

The US is still a country in which class, gender, and race determine academic achievement, albeit in smaller measure than before. This is not to say that White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) people always score higher academically or earn more money than other groups living in the US. (These days East Asians are the ones associated with high academic achievement.) Rather, the historical legacy of a society in which WASPs were at the top still affects US society today, even as US society becomes increasingly multicultural.

It's an interesting question, I think a lot of it comes down to behavior. If the master brewer only talks about brewing and shirks social engagements to study his craft, he'll tend to be viewed as an intellectual even if the term isn't applied. On the flip side, a socially active engineer who avoids the topic of his work to discuss beer, friends, sports, the weather, etc. isn't likely to be viewed as an intellectual in my experience.

Reduced popularity among friends is a price to pay for success, I guess.

I've encountered Go players who do not seem to behave as seasoned Go players would.

Links are often made between Go and Zen Buddhism. In the Spring 1999 issue of Tricycle magazine there appeared the following article by William Cobb. I read it for the first time last month and it caused me to have an epiphany.
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/the-game-go

tekesta wrote:

Boidhre wrote:The example I think of is of a Master Distiller in a Whiskey Distillery. This is a person who would be very respected for their knowledge and skill in their field and (from interactions I've seen) been treated as another expert by for example academics (this doesn't mean mightn't consider them an idiot outside of their field, and this is something that holds true for pretty much everything). I don't think anyone would call them intellectuals, but intellectuals aren't the only group respected for their knowledge, ability or skill so I don't see it as an issue.

In North America a master distiller would probably be considered more "cool" than those who fit the classic egghead image. Even though a master distiller or brewer will usually lack the time for a friendly chat.

Or perhaps it's the following distinction that applies. An engineer or mathematician does not produce anything that is readily converted into money or can be consumed by the average layman, whereas the product of the master distiller or brewer is often available for the taking at any liquor outlet.

I now begin to wonder if Go, upon being popularized in North America and Europe, would soon be subject to the same commercialization seen in association football, American football, basketball, baseball, and other sports. In an age where "short and sweet" is at the top of every consumer's mind, Go may be something of a tough sell outside the academic/East Asian sphere.

Chess has the same problem as go does. People have a misconception about someone needing to be very intelligent (read: book smart) to even enjoy the game as an adult, never mind compete in tournaments. They are games for other people, that kid in class who was always ahead of the rest and so on and in my experience most of the people we get in the door at the club fit this stereotype but the strongest player we have would run right against it.

It's likely that such a notion is being dispelled as we speak. There is a film titled Brooklyn Castle, which is about a group of juvenile chess players in a New York City public school. Far from being uncool nerds, they are considered the cool kids. Below is a link to a New York Times article from April 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/nyregion/at-brooklyns-is-318-the-cool-kids-are-the-chess-champs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I don't think dispelled is the correct word there. It'll take a lot more than one film to change deep rooted views. Unfortunately.

I don't know about the "cool" thing really. My social circle is pretty full with academics, people doing PhDs or who could have if they had wanted to. It's not a typical slice of Irish society.

Boidhre wrote:I don't think dispelled is the correct word there. It'll take a lot more than one film to change deep rooted views. Unfortunately.

Looks that way. Maybe only I.S. 318 in New York City and a few other schools in the US have victorious chess teams. Just about everyone loves to be associated with the victorious.

I think that, at least in the US, the establishment of a professional ranking system for Go players is a step in the right direction. However, let's keep in mind that, in medieval and early modern Japan, government patronage was one reason why Go was developed to a high standard there.

I don't know about the "cool" thing really. My social circle is pretty full with academics, people doing PhDs or who could have if they had wanted to. It's not a typical slice of Irish society.

It's probably all about the exposure. Outside of I.S. 318, not many people would want to associate with the chess team, even if they won tournament after tournament. At least in the US, lots of people would love to talk to or LeBron James or Kevin Durant - star athletes of the (US) National Basketball Association, through which these and other basket players get plenty of airtime.

Boidhre wrote:I don't think dispelled is the correct word there. It'll take a lot more than one film to change deep rooted views. Unfortunately.

Looks that way. Maybe only I.S. 318 in New York City and a few other schools in the US have victorious chess teams. Just about everyone loves to be associated with the victorious.

I think that, at least in the US, the establishment of a professional ranking system for Go players is a step in the right direction. However, let's keep in mind that, in medieval and early modern Japan, government patronage was one reason why Go was developed to a high standard there.

I don't know about the "cool" thing really. My social circle is pretty full with academics, people doing PhDs or who could have if they had wanted to. It's not a typical slice of Irish society.

It's probably all about the exposure. Outside of I.S. 318, not many people would want to associate with the chess team, even if they won tournament after tournament. At least in the US, lots of people would love to talk to or LeBron James or Kevin Durant - star athletes of the (US) National Basketball Association, through which these and other basket players get plenty of airtime.

Bill Spight wrote:I have been wondering about this prioritization of perceived smarts, given that America is still an anti-intellectual country. Perhaps there is an idea that some people are smart and some people are not, and if you are not, why beat yourself up? "E for effort" is another Western saying. If effort is not going to be rewarded, why bother?

Quick response: I meant the idea that if you're smart, you'll be able to do it, otherwise not, and effort is not so important. It's prioritization relative to effort, not prioritization relative to other life goals.

I am also not so sure that there is a connection to self-esteem. The cult of innate smartness does nothing for the self-esteem of those who are "not smart". Frankly, it doesn't even do anything for the self-esteem of the "smart kids", since they eventually will hit a wall, and will have to confront the fact that not everything comes easily to them. At that point, they'll either give up and feel bad about themselves or struggle through it.

I also do not think you can say that schools are necessarily less academic today in the US than they were in the past. This may just be characteristic of the schools I know about that serve middle class families, but anecdotally, schools are giving much more book work and homework to young children (kindergarten to third grade).

hyperpape wrote:I also do not think you can say that schools are necessarily less academic today in the US than they were in the past. This may just be characteristic of the schools I know about that serve middle class families, but anecdotally, schools are giving much more book work and homework to young children (kindergarten to third grade).

You got a point there. For starters, kids spending more time at school means more time for the parents to do things that do not involve their children.

About giving much more bookwork and homework to children in US schools, though... I wonder where this trend came from. (Maybe from East Asian countries known for high academic scores?) Giving more bookwork and homework alone may not help to raise overall academic scores substantially. A culture friendly to high academic achievement would have to be fostered as well; for most Americans school was more pleasant because of the social opportunities, not the academic ones.

Kids should be allowed to be kids (!) and school-related work should be both introduced incrementally and integrated with the rest of the kids' lives. After all, we do want our children to learn the skills needed to function autonomously once they reach adulthood. Those of us in the "North" should see how the cultures of the "South" integrate life in school and life outside school. I often get the impression that children's lives in Western countries are overly compartmentalized.

Though I speak mainly from hearsay, I find the Kumon Method to be a curriculum conducive to helping schoolchildren to do better in school. However, it is repetitive, so not every child may enjoy it. Montessori education seems to fit better into the Western pedagogical tradition.

tekesta wrote:

Boidhre wrote:I don't know about the "cool" thing really. My social circle is pretty full with academics, people doing PhDs or who could have if they had wanted to. It's not a typical slice of Irish society.

It's probably all about the exposure. Outside of I.S. 318, not many people would want to associate with the chess team, even if they won tournament after tournament. At least in the US, lots of people would love to talk to or LeBron James or Kevin Durant - star athletes of the (US) National Basketball Association, through which these and other basket players get plenty of airtime.

We've the same thing with Gaelic Football, Hurling, Soccer and Rugby. They're more accessible sports in one way but more importantly they're easier sports to watch because since birth we've all been exposed to extensive commentary on games of them. I've often watched a foreign visitor watching hurling and being a bit confused by it. The rules are pretty simple but the speed the game is played at makes it difficult to appreciate strategic nuance if you're not used to it and somethings that look very hard to the new observer are actually rather routine but displays of fine skill might be missed by them. With go or chess you have an even greater barrier, they're not field games.

SmoothOper wrote:

Polama wrote:

tekesta wrote:In the US, most parents nowadays side with the student (their children) and largely antagonize the instructor.

They're less likely to show up to a meeting (viewing themselves as unfit or at least not responsible for the child's education anymore),

I think it is funny that a child spends more than eight hours at school but the teachers somehow think the parents are responsible for the students education

The issue, in my opinion, is that the parents, as primary guardians, are at always partially responsible (or even fully) for what their children do.

This includes giving support to the school and the teachers rather than, as somebody said, siding with the kid each time a conflict arises - and conflicts always arise. For teachers and schools to function properly, such support is essential. The problem is that many parents think exactly as you seem to: my kid spends 8 hours per day in school so I don't need to get involved, and when I do, its the teacher's or the school's fault. Little Timmy is such an angel, after all...

As a matter of fact, the role of the parent in their kid's education is HUGE! And it starts very early, even before the kid is ready for any school. Part of it is, for example, teaching the kid proper respect for teachers and elders in general, something very sorely missing in some western societies.

Boidhre wrote:

tekesta wrote:

Boidhre wrote:I don't know about the "cool" thing really. My social circle is pretty full with academics, people doing PhDs or who could have if they had wanted to. It's not a typical slice of Irish society.

It's probably all about the exposure. Outside of I.S. 318, not many people would want to associate with the chess team, even if they won tournament after tournament. At least in the US, lots of people would love to talk to or LeBron James or Kevin Durant - star athletes of the (US) National Basketball Association, through which these and other basket players get plenty of airtime.

We've the same thing with Gaelic Football, Hurling, Soccer and Rugby. They're more accessible sports in one way but more importantly they're easier sports to watch because since birth we've all been exposed to extensive commentary on games of them. I've often watched a foreign visitor watching hurling and being a bit confused by it. The rules are pretty simple but the speed the game is played at makes it difficult to appreciate strategic nuance if you're not used to it and somethings that look very hard to the new observer are actually rather routine but displays of fine skill might be missed by them. With go or chess you have an even greater barrier, they're not field games.

In my opinion this goes even beyond being exposed to the rules and understanding the strategies.

For example: I have played Go for most of my life, and I consider myself a decent player - at least in the context of western society, better then most as a matter of fact. Yet I still often get bored watching live transmissions of pro games. The amount of cOT hatting during each live transmission on KGS seems to show I am not the only one. Why? One of the reasons is that I simply don't understand so many moves, and the ones I think I do understand I often find during subsequent play that my understanding was faulty. Another reason is the pace. It is very hard to be a spectator. Even for me - I have to think really hard to appreciate a game of Go at a really high level.

Same goes for chess - which might explain why chess, even though much more deeply rooted in wester culture than Go, is still only a fringe activity and not a spectator sport.

In contrast, while I don't like or understand american football, I can have fun watching a game. Same goes for hurling, for example. Or poker. To me, the difference is a certain level of perceptive drama and fast pace. If you're into this kind of things, you can enjoy this even without fully understanding and appreciating what is really going on.

To appreciate Go/chess, or to even find it interesting - you need not only to have a good understanding of the game, but you also need to think really hard. And thinking hard is too much like work for the generation and culture raised on Kardashians, Desperate Housewifves, and an occasional Lohan episode.