Life In 19x19

Yes, it's possible that written communication gets in the way. I'll try to simplify my views, as Jhyn elegantly did earlier:

1. I appreciate both politeness and sincerity.
2. Having both are idea. If I must choose one, I'll opt for sincerity above politeness.
3. That's because I really don't like hypocritical or fake behavior.

When I see a thread like this with all of the rules on etiquette (it's OK to do X, but not OK to do Y, and you can do Z when you do X first, but after dancing around the bonfire, etc.), my personal view is that it misses the point.

Just be yourself. If you're behavior pleases me, that's great. If it doesn't, you're not a hypocrite. You're not fake. And that's better than pretending to be someone you're not with me.

Kirby wrote:Yes, it's possible that written communication gets in the way. I'll try to simplify my views, as Jhyn elegantly did earlier:

1. I appreciate both politeness and sincerity.
2. Having both are idea. If I must choose one, I'll opt for sincerity above politeness.
3. That's because I really don't like hypocritical or fake behavior.

When I see a thread like this with all of the rules on etiquette (it's OK to do X, but not OK to do Y, and you can do Z when you do X first, but after dancing around the bonfire, etc.), my personal view is that it misses the point.

Just be yourself. If you're behavior pleases me, that's great. If it doesn't, you're not a hypocrite. You're not fake. And that's better than pretending to be someone you're not with me.

Kirby, I've seen you say this several times, but am unclear about your intent. I 100% understand that this is your personal preference, and if I played you, then I would even attempt to honor your preferences.

But one point behind politeness and manners is that we don't all know each other's personal preferences, so we establish social conventions to increase the likelihood of a pleasant interaction. Your personal preferences aren't relavent to the larger discussion, because 99.999%+ of go games don't involve you. And just because you prefer sincerity over politeness, there is no reason to expect society to adjust to that preference, nor is there any reason to expect anonymous internet opponents to know of and honor your preference.

That is why we respect the customs/norms/standards of the country/community/household we visit.

wikipedia:

Etiquette is a topic that has occupied writers and thinkers in all sophisticated societies for millennia...

wineandgolover wrote: Your personal preferences aren't relavent to the larger discussion, because 99.999%+ of go games don't involve you. And just because you prefer sincerity over politeness, there is no reason to expect society to adjust to that preference, nor is there any reason to expect anonymous internet opponents to know of and honor your preference.

It's pretty clear from this thread and others, that preferences are not universal. I am a part of society, and simply stating mine.

Personally, I think it's silly to get in a frizzle because somebody threw their go stones at you. Maybe you don't. That's fine, and I'm expressing my opinion. I thought that's what this thread was about - we are expressing our opinions.

If "proper etiquette" was universal and accepted, then we don't have anything to discuss here - it'd be universal.

I prefer sincerity, you don't. That's fine. We are both part of society.

I can just as easily say to you, "Just because you don't expect people to throw their go stones at you, there is no reason to expect society to adjust to that preference".

FWIW, I don't really care about this topic as much as other topics on the forum, and I'm not trying to convince anybody. Just stating my opinion, as all of you are.

Maybe there is a difference between what I expect of others, and my standard for myself.

When it comes to myself, I do feel inclined to try to follow others' preferences, especially if my relationship with them is important.

However, with others, I'd prefer that they be real with me rather than being fake.

So, I suppose I have a double standard. I don't mind being fake, myself, but I wish others wouldn't be fake around me?

Maybe my thoughts are nonsense. I don't know. But I guess, in this spirit, I should agree with you since it is more polite?

Or maybe I like to pass time by arguing. That could be it, too.

Either way, I guess I am wrong about things with this topic.

My way is not good.

I guess I genuinely feel that way, now.

Kirby wrote:However, with others, I'd prefer that they be real with me rather than being fake. [...] I don't mind being fake, myself, but I wish others wouldn't be fake around me?

Maybe they don't think they are being fake. Maybe they think they are being polite.

To me, politeness is about being empathetic, thinking about the other person's feelings, and trying to ensure that as much as possible you are both happy. That feels awfully real to me.

I already said I was wrong. What more do you want?

Anyway, if I go back to playing the devil's advocate, again, yes, you can show empathy by being polite. Or you can be faking it, being polite only on the outside. I think both are possible. I don't like the latter behavior.

Interesting things going on here … when one is a student of communication/semiotics, one is always “in the field”

It can be quite complicated, like a game of Go:

I can, for example, imagine having to do with somebody towards whom …

… my first feelings are: “Oh, what an a??h?le”,

… and a minute later I have already switched to “oh, they are only behaving like an a??h?le”,

… and again a minute later I realize that they are actually behaving like a person who’s been hurt a lot … in such situations I am very glad when I have managed not to simply be “authentic” but have instead contained and watched myself (and them, of course).

I have also noticed that sometimes people stop behaving like a??h?les when they relax and lose their fear. Guess this is commonplace, though — or is it not?
Cordially, Tom

I guess, bottom line is, you can act how you want, but some people might not like it. Just like I can post what I want, but some people might not like it.

It doesn't mean one way or another is better, inherently. But people are more likely to be my friends if I go along with their preferences.

So probably, if I am more agreeable on the forum, people will like me more.

So if I want people to like me, I guess I should go along with common opinion.

Kirby wrote:I guess, bottom line is, you can act how you want, but some people might not like it. Just like I can post what I want, but some people might not like it.

It doesn't mean one way or another is better, inherently. But people are more likely to be my friends if I go along with their preferences.

So probably, if I am more agreeable on the forum, people will like me more.

So if I want people to like me, I guess I should go along with common opinion.

I am baffled. How do you determine the "common opinion" here?

Kirby wrote:Having two toddlers, I can see it more clearly. Maybe my son wants a cookie. I tell him to ask nicely and say, "Please". He says "Please" and I give him a cookie. Was my son any nicer for saying please? Not really. He just said it because he wants a cookie. If I told him to say "Goglabunga", he's say that, too, as long as he got the sugar he wanted.

(I apologise for "jumping over" a few messages and come back to a previous point of the discussion. After writing this message I realise I am more looking for a dialog with you independently of other users' input. If this is disruptive I can send this as a private message next time.)

Kirby, this thread made me think a lot but I can't really make it into a coherent opinion. My first feeling was that I deeply disagreed with you, but I also remember having thoughts similar to yours when I was living in Japan. Maybe this whole discussion relates to the way we would like to "push" or "pull" the culture in which we live.

The first reason is probably that I feel that the French/Chilean go culture suffers more from people being "too childish" than not enough. (I use "childish" here as a shortcut for "genuine, but possibly selfish and/or unempathetic"). I'm putting in this category loud talking, sour losing or gloating, etc. On the other hand, I have never felt that excessive rules prevented me from "getting across" to people (or the opposite) if I wanted to. So I guess my "optimal point" would be somewhere between Japanese and French cultures in this regard.

The second point is that I suffered and suffer from many of this "childish" flaws, and the process of realising this and trying to correct myself possibly led me to being more intolerant to these behaviours in others. In this sense, I see learning politeness (in this restricted sense) as in itself a path to learn empathy and selflessness, althought I gladly admit that it is very easy to miss the forest for the tree and the intention for the gesture, especially when these gestures are imposed to you as ends by and for themselves.

In this sense the most valuable form of politeness is not composed of fixed sentences or gestures but of attentions and intentions. A while ago a Japanese opponent on KGS said something in Japanese to me after I blundered a game to him, which I later translated as something akin to "I have no merit in the outcome". I guess that, not knowing enough English, his empathy still urge him to say something, even if it would probably not be understood. The fact that I still remember him should tell you how much I appreciated it.

Let me finish this (too) long rambling with a video that had a big effect on me. It is a chess grandmaster's and his opponent's reaction to blundering a game. In this video I grew to admire as much both opponents' reactions. Georg Meier keeps his dignity while not hiding his emotions, and Vladimir Akopian does not talk or show an emotion, in (what I see as) an effort to respect the difficult moment his opponent is living. The contrast with the behaviour of the other spectator is striking. Probably Akopian and the spectator's reactions can be called genuine (and I would even say the spectator's is probably more genuine), but even just watching the video I cannot prevent a feeling of gratitude from the maturity of Akopian's behaviour.

Jhyn wrote:
Let me finish this (too) long rambling with a video that had a big effect on me. It is a chess grandmaster's and his opponent's reaction to blundering a game. In this video I grew to admire as much both opponents' reactions. Georg Meier keeps his dignity while not hiding his emotions, and Vladimir Akopian does not talk or show an emotion, in (what I see as) an effort to respect the difficult moment his opponent is living. The contrast with the behaviour of the other spectator is striking. Probably Akopian and the spectator's reactions can be called genuine (and I would even say the spectator's is probably more genuine), but even just watching the video I cannot prevent a feeling of gratitude from the maturity of Akopian's behaviour.

I like this video, and your discussion of the game you had on KGS with the Japanese player. It also reminds me of the Foreward to Relentless, attributed to Lee Changho:
"In ancient times there were four arts which educated people sought to master. They were: music (the zither), baduk (Go), calligraphy and painting.
Among these four arts, baduk is unique in being the only one that requires a partner. No matter how skilled a master is, they cannot create a work of art unless they have a worthy adversary.
This gives baduk a special character, because even though the top players throughout history always competed fiercely to be the best, they also respected one another and often became friends."

There can be a high level of respect for your opponent and an affection for that person who has agreed to work with you to help each other master one of the four arts.

Is it remarkable that this topic (etiquette) is now top of the list in this forum, and that the next is about psychology?
Must be somehow related.