Understanding

[EdLee]

I started this new thread for a few reasons.
The most recent one is prompted by a question in this thread,
Failure of Free Go club culture, post 92:

Would these few months be saved if the teacher simply *explained* what the student was doing wrong,

Ninja'd by DrStraw:

I totally agree with you. This thread is so much easier to understand than the meme thread.

Which turns out to be perfect timing, because:

I want to apologize to everyone here on the forum
who has had an unpleasant experience with me, for whatever reasons.

If I said something offensive, I apologize.
If it was because of other reasons, say, both sides exchanging
heated words, I still apologize.

The people include: Araban, Uberdude, Bantari, DrStraw.
If I've offended anyone else, please let me know, and I'll apologize to you.

( Will continue after DrStraw's post below. )

[DrStraw]

New thread. Still editing...

I totally agree with you. This thread is so much easier to understand than the meme thread.

And I was not aware you had ever offended anyone. You don't really seem to be that sort of person. Maybe the other person was easily offended.

[EdLee]

Some time ago, Bantari and I started a conversation.
I'll try to find the link and include it here...

What does it mean, to understand something ?

Here's a story I heard ( I'm not sure of its historical accuracy,
but I like the gist of it ):

Back in ancient Japan, a man crosses a bridge
and asks a Zen monk, "How deep is this river?"
The monk promptly throws the man into the river.

Perhaps this episode never actually occurred,
not even in ancient Asia; it's just a made-up story.
Of course, today you're looking at a lawsuit.

But it tries to convey some "understanding"
of what it means to understand something,
the different levels of understanding.

This thread touches on these various levels of understanding.

[EdLee]

Here's a crude attempt:

An understanding is a particular state of the neural system (and likely, other parts of the mind-body).

I'm not a trained biologist or neurologist. I guess I'm about 28k at biology and 29k at neurology.
( If someone "understands" what I'm getting at with the above crude attempt, please help me word it better. )

Going back to the Zen monk story:

• (a) Hearing "This river is 30 feet deep" gives rise to some configuration in the neural system of the person's mind-body;
• (b) Getting thrown into the river gives rise to some other configuration of the same system.

( For brevity, I'll use the shorter "state of mind" or other phrases in place of "configuration of the neural system of a mind-body". )

I suspect the two experiences, (a) and (b), result in different states of mind -- but I cannot prove this.
We probably have the technology today to scan the brain of the person to see the different effects.
But I'm going to assume (a) and (b) result in different understandings.

[EdLee]

Since understanding has to do with all the neurons (and possibly other parts of the body),
and their configurations,

Understanding is a continuum.

[EdLee]

Since understanding is a continuum, it's impossible to list all the different levels
(too many neurons, too many possible configurations -- for all practical purposes, infinite for current technologies).

Still, for various reasons, we find it useful to have shorthand notations to describe these understandings.
For example: the use of a single digit or double digits to describe a particular configuration of these neurons: e.g. 10 kyu, 5 kyu, 3 dan.

In other fields, there are other, similar shorthand notations for these understandings.
Example: a bachelor degree, a masters degree, apprentice, journeyman, master craftsman, etc.

[EdLee]

Here's another random list of various levels of understandings (out of the continuum), about a particular subject A:

• Don't know anything about A, but fake it, lie about it.⁽¹⁾
• Know about A, but deny it.
• Know something about A, but give out wrong or hurtful information.
• Don't believe A is possible ( Examples: Luke when his X-Wing was stuck in swamp; never heard of Go. )
• Seen A ( Examples: Yoda lifts X-Wing out of swamp; have heard of Go.)
• Know the basic rules ( Example: first 5 minutes after hearing about the basic rules of Go.)
• Still struggle with the fundamentals ( Example: kyu level )
• Very rudimentary knowledge of the fundamentals, stop tripping over oneself (Example: 1-dan).
• Can teach the basic rules to a beginner.
• Can help a beginner reach about 10k.
• Can help a 10k reach 1 dan.
• Can help a 1 dan reach mid-dan.
• Can help a mid-dan reach high-dan.
• Can help a high-dan make pro level.
• Can help someone make pro level, but don't know how to teach kyu people. (This is a very common level, as it turns out. )
• Top level expert but cannot teach a beginner. (Also very common -- teaching level is something else, all together.)
• Can help many people make pro level ( Example: Kitani )
• Can help a pro make top pro level ( Examples: Kitani, Fujisawa. )
• Top genius, only a few per century ( Examples: Go Seigen, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, etc.)

⁽¹⁾ The first few entries are my modifications based on another article,
a very high level understanding of the martial arts, written by the late Mr. Don Depree.
In that section, he was talking about levels of suffering,
the lowest being "Not suffering but act like it" -- equivalent Chinese understanding: 無病呻吟.

[EdLee]

When we discuss what's the "best" way to teach or explain something to someone --
that is, one target is a particular configuration of the neurons plus muscles --
we have these follow-up questions:

- how effective are words ?
- how effective is a demonstration ?
- how effective is direct personal experience ?

[EdLee]

Back to one of the original questions:

Would these few months be saved if the teacher simply *explained* what the student was doing wrong,

Follow-up questions:

• (big question) How effective are words in this case ?
• If it turns out, words are 100% effective -- then I think the problem is solved:
  just verbally give the explanations, and the student instantly reaches the level.
• If it turns out, it takes both words and some physical demonstration to be 100% effective,
  that's great, too -- do it, and the student instantly reaches the level.
• However, and here's the rub -- what if words and demos are still very ineffective ?

Curious follow-up question: what happened to that person who decided to try the 10,000-hour plan
to make pro level in Golf ? How is his current progress, and what's his current level ?

For example, in Bantari's question -- (paraphrased) why doesn't the teacher "simply explain" it ? --
I infer that Bantari assumes there exist certain words and/or physical demonstrations
that are highly effect in explaining this understanding to the student.

But that's a huge assumption.

Instead, we should first ask, do such words and/or demos exist ?
And how effective are they ?

For example, on a scale of 0% (least effective) to 100% (instant understanding),
how effective are words in this case ?

I infer, by Bantari's question, that he assumes such words exist, and they are highly effective
(say, over 80%). Because if he thinks no such words exist, or even the best verbal explanations
are only at 5%, then he would not have asked his question to begin with.

( The same is true for physical demos. )

[EdLee]

Examples:

• "How deep is this river? I just want an approximate number to the near foot."
  "The deepest part is about 30 feet, +/- 1 foot." -- This verbal reply would be highly effective, close to 100%.
• "What's it like to jump into this river ?"
  In this case, words are probably highly ineffective to transfer the understanding (neural + muscular experience)
  of the Zen monk who has jumped into the river, to someone who has never been in water, ever.

Another example:

The cliche "Finish 100 games ASAP." ( Or, some prefer "Lose your first 100 games quickly." )

I say this to beginners, because based on my understanding (and others may feel differently, I'm sure),
I find the direct personal experience (of finishing the 100 games) to be more effective for the raw beginner,
than reading many books. At least in the beginning.
I find in-depth reviews for raw beginners not very effective.
However, after they have finished around 100 games, then I find reviews to be more effective.

Of course, this is a general guideline. With some beginners, they need much fewer than 100 games, for example.

We adjust based on each individual situation, much like each Go move.

[EdLee]

People from various different backgrounds come to this forum.
We have different understandings. This is a double-edged sword:
it provides diversity and different views; it can also create disagreement and conflict.

This is one reason for the relatively "low" level discussion of "understanding" --
in terms of the neural and muscular systems and the mind-body.
I cannot go any lower -- to chemistry or physics. I'm already a very beginner layman
at biology and neurology.

I wanted a low-level approach, "from first principles":

• Let's discuss understanding starting with this low level.
• Question all assumptions.
  Example: did Bantari assume there exist highly effective verbal or physical demos when he asked his question ? Or no ?
  Let's first make sure we are on the same page -- (ironically) on similar "understandings," on similar shared backgrounds;
  otherwise, it's difficult -- instead of talking with each other, we'd just be talking past each other,
  which is often what happens in many threads.

[EdLee]

Bantari, that other thread was so long ago, I can't see seem to locate it.
Maybe you can dig up the link and include it here.

Now that we have some more foundation here, we can continue the other chat, if you'd like.

[Bantari]

Bantari, that other thread was so long ago, I can't see seem to locate it.
Maybe you can dig up the link and include it here.

Now that we have some more foundation here, we can continue the other chat, if you'd like.

This: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9077
and this: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=8833
and some other surrounding threads.

I will be out of town for the next month, so not sure if I get a chance to do any serious discussing. Will try... not sure if I can stay away, old grumpy arguer that I am. Family obligations may interfere, though.

What I read so far looks really interesting.

[EdLee]

Hi Bantari,

Thanks for the links! No hurry, I intend to add, slowly over time,
more of my personal experiences and understandings, here.
I've wanted to make a thread like this for some time now.
I just decided to do it today. I dunno why. It's for the long term.

Please take your time. Hope all's well with your family.

[Bantari]

Hi Bantari,

Thanks for the links! No hurry, I intend to add, slowly over time,
more of my personal experiences and understandings, here.
I've wanted to make a thread like this for some time now.
I just decided to do it today. I dunno why. It's for the long term.

Please take your time. Hope all's well with your family.

Cool. Family is ok, just have some overdue functions that need attending, and since I am in San Diego and they in Canada, we bundled it all up together just to make only one trip. Thus - a whole month. Still, thanks for the care.