hum hum.. well "feelings" is a vague word. There is that deep belief that science does not use emotions, that it would be pure logic, from facts falling from the sky objectively. Well, we have small brain and the universe is full of things we can't compute by our lonesome. We invented language at some point.. But before we made drawings, as this is how we are biases in our senses (the cortex surface area attributed to that sense, it kind of proportionally bigger that other externally pointing senses, if one would allow such premise, that we have an inside physical world to also sense in conjonction to the external). I might not just be babbling in vain, but definitely off topic. Let me cut that short. We can be rational about our emotions. And emotions guide our creativity. It does not have to be such a conflict. It is more likely the lack of self-awareness of how we subjectify everything under the conscious hood of our language or other external common experience, and that it leaves an entire under tip of iceberg do its thing, that denying our emotions in any amplitude makes the only emotions we might notice be either destructive or self-destructive. I guess I may have had a personal struggle myself to say such things, but it has been obvious to me that even in science and any reasoning we pretend to make purely rational, emotions are always lurking or even helping us along.
> Eureka.
The very nature of a eureka. should remind it to us. And no need to panic. "Don't panic!" (hommage!). There is a wheel of science for the proper use of emotions, feelings and hunches, it is called theory. It starts with creating hypotheses.
The wrong emotion is to latch on the first hypothesis we can muster, and cling to it forever, as it might have been partially true for one cycle of the wheel that dialogs with theory, the experimental part, based of empirical means or technological extensions of our senses that can be experiences in common agreement. (let's not forget it is a bunch of small brains doing all of that).
It is neglected world of emotions that is detrimental to shared learning progress. I also long for explicit rational tools being shared, and not recipes that I would need to keep accumulating without even being able to know how it worked or why. Theories of thinking about chess, theories of learning about thinking about chess, and theories of board logic can be shared toward making adult rational choices in method and goals of learning that would make insightful use of our limited and shrinking time per day or per life span. How is that for an introduction? Now I should read that blog! Sorry for this interruption.
PS: small eureka for me are part of my compensation for my otherwise high motivation demanding sustain attention stamina, in chess I found an unlimited source of them from any angle I have looked so far (but not from the social competition formats, I am sorry to say, it looks very cramped space that way). Immediate gratification internal drug. Luck or curse of birth or early development. Lazy slab of brain somewhere needs emotions to get going. Silly.
> Eureka.
The very nature of a eureka. should remind it to us. And no need to panic. "Don't panic!" (hommage!). There is a wheel of science for the proper use of emotions, feelings and hunches, it is called theory. It starts with creating hypotheses.
The wrong emotion is to latch on the first hypothesis we can muster, and cling to it forever, as it might have been partially true for one cycle of the wheel that dialogs with theory, the experimental part, based of empirical means or technological extensions of our senses that can be experiences in common agreement. (let's not forget it is a bunch of small brains doing all of that).
It is neglected world of emotions that is detrimental to shared learning progress. I also long for explicit rational tools being shared, and not recipes that I would need to keep accumulating without even being able to know how it worked or why. Theories of thinking about chess, theories of learning about thinking about chess, and theories of board logic can be shared toward making adult rational choices in method and goals of learning that would make insightful use of our limited and shrinking time per day or per life span. How is that for an introduction? Now I should read that blog! Sorry for this interruption.
PS: small eureka for me are part of my compensation for my otherwise high motivation demanding sustain attention stamina, in chess I found an unlimited source of them from any angle I have looked so far (but not from the social competition formats, I am sorry to say, it looks very cramped space that way). Immediate gratification internal drug. Luck or curse of birth or early development. Lazy slab of brain somewhere needs emotions to get going. Silly.
I am sorry, although I agree with your stamina proposition as a skill one might work on, for me it is impossible. I have ruined my maximal autonomy that way, and winning is not motivating enough given my current reality. I explained what is.. but I agree, one can't assume having a life span worth of time.
so the first part does not concern me. I do thing the second could be transposable given my chess as intellectual pursuit and entertainment goal (as problem solving source of fun). I will keep on reading..
Already seeing the theme of putting goals for attention engagement, even if not using that terminology. Some updated psychology of learning being injected there, which is not the norm, I would say. Let your intense stamina demanding time be well spent by chunking the set of goal into manageable duration sessions, adapted to your evolving (or not) limited such resources.. I guess I would have started there. But I might be not a good audience target profile.
so the first part does not concern me. I do thing the second could be transposable given my chess as intellectual pursuit and entertainment goal (as problem solving source of fun). I will keep on reading..
Already seeing the theme of putting goals for attention engagement, even if not using that terminology. Some updated psychology of learning being injected there, which is not the norm, I would say. Let your intense stamina demanding time be well spent by chunking the set of goal into manageable duration sessions, adapted to your evolving (or not) limited such resources.. I guess I would have started there. But I might be not a good audience target profile.
@dboing said in #4:
> I am sorry, although I agree with your stamina proposition as a skill one might work on, for me it is impossible. I have ruined my maximal autonomy that way, and winning is not motivating enough given my current reality. I explained what is.. but I agree, one can't assume having a life span worth of time.
> I am sorry, although I agree with your stamina proposition as a skill one might work on, for me it is impossible. I have ruined my maximal autonomy that way, and winning is not motivating enough given my current reality. I explained what is.. but I agree, one can't assume having a life span worth of time.
Great work @NM RyanVelez!! So informative, practical, helpful. Thanks slot
@farai2004 said in #6:
> Great work @NM RyanVelez!! So informative, practical, helpful. Thanks slot
Thank you. The goal with this one is to show busy people they can still enjoy chess. I think a lot of people who want to improve in chess need a little time to incorporate chess into their life. The 10 minute increment plan is not intended to "make people study for only 10 minutes." I am thinking of a parent with 3 kids who can do chess for 10 minutes at the end of the day, everyday, for maybe a few weeks. Then, they can do 20, then 30, and so on. Or the corporate exec who has too little time to devote to chess, so they have to slowly build it into their life.
At the end of the day, improvement will take a lot of time. But no one reasonably gets into chess and instantly studies for hours. It i s just unrealistic.
> Great work @NM RyanVelez!! So informative, practical, helpful. Thanks slot
Thank you. The goal with this one is to show busy people they can still enjoy chess. I think a lot of people who want to improve in chess need a little time to incorporate chess into their life. The 10 minute increment plan is not intended to "make people study for only 10 minutes." I am thinking of a parent with 3 kids who can do chess for 10 minutes at the end of the day, everyday, for maybe a few weeks. Then, they can do 20, then 30, and so on. Or the corporate exec who has too little time to devote to chess, so they have to slowly build it into their life.
At the end of the day, improvement will take a lot of time. But no one reasonably gets into chess and instantly studies for hours. It i s just unrealistic.
@Toadofsky said in #2:
>
My posts aren't for everyone :-)
I will note that while I fully agree 10 minutes of study is horribly insufficient, that isn't the point. The point is if someone wants to incorporate chess into their life, they may not really have the mental stamina to jump in and do chess for hours and hours. For example, yesterday, I studied an opening for 4.5 hours but was cut short due to an evening obligation. But with the current chess boom, we see a lot of new players (a LOT of them) who don't even know how to study chess, or for how long.
I think if a person can build a regular 10 minute habit of studying chess, and grow it from there, that they will eventually study chess at more usual levels.
So anyway, your comment seems to be a critique, but I am not sure what "feeling" you're referring to. But I appreciate criticism. Feel free to post your own opinion, instead of a meme. I don't know everything, and am glad to learn from you if you have something to teach.
>
My posts aren't for everyone :-)
I will note that while I fully agree 10 minutes of study is horribly insufficient, that isn't the point. The point is if someone wants to incorporate chess into their life, they may not really have the mental stamina to jump in and do chess for hours and hours. For example, yesterday, I studied an opening for 4.5 hours but was cut short due to an evening obligation. But with the current chess boom, we see a lot of new players (a LOT of them) who don't even know how to study chess, or for how long.
I think if a person can build a regular 10 minute habit of studying chess, and grow it from there, that they will eventually study chess at more usual levels.
So anyway, your comment seems to be a critique, but I am not sure what "feeling" you're referring to. But I appreciate criticism. Feel free to post your own opinion, instead of a meme. I don't know everything, and am glad to learn from you if you have something to teach.
@RyanVelez said in #8:
>
@Toadofsky is of few words, it is not always easy to interpret. I am not sure it was a critique myself. It maybe that our dear toad falling from the sky**, finds your blog well presented in a ratoinal fashion.
I would say that it might be about your current series of blogs. That you are methodically showing the logic or the arguments that one can bring home, and use autonomously. I am not sure it is about the hard work is the only way, and if your feelings about that are in the way, well too bad for you. Is that how you would interpret it? Then words might help. But schools of thoughts and words, don't help together much. It is not that rational either. It needs the polemic to have a debate space, where one could hear each others argument made in explicit ways. otherwise left with authority assumptions..
** (I assume I am not offending, this is a great username, and is not at all the user name, as I have gathered)
>
@Toadofsky is of few words, it is not always easy to interpret. I am not sure it was a critique myself. It maybe that our dear toad falling from the sky**, finds your blog well presented in a ratoinal fashion.
I would say that it might be about your current series of blogs. That you are methodically showing the logic or the arguments that one can bring home, and use autonomously. I am not sure it is about the hard work is the only way, and if your feelings about that are in the way, well too bad for you. Is that how you would interpret it? Then words might help. But schools of thoughts and words, don't help together much. It is not that rational either. It needs the polemic to have a debate space, where one could hear each others argument made in explicit ways. otherwise left with authority assumptions..
** (I assume I am not offending, this is a great username, and is not at all the user name, as I have gathered)
Fair enough... forums are a challenging space for public discourse.
Many of the points raised in this blog are quite reasonable, but many readers may still walk away unconvinced because it's difficult to persuade readers, and it's difficult to write succinctly about thinking, especially without references or data directly supporting theories. The allegory bit was amusing.
Indeed, building a habit often involves with something simple and gradually ramping up the difficulty. And you're right, being aware of both mental and physical strength is useful.
Many of the points raised in this blog are quite reasonable, but many readers may still walk away unconvinced because it's difficult to persuade readers, and it's difficult to write succinctly about thinking, especially without references or data directly supporting theories. The allegory bit was amusing.
Indeed, building a habit often involves with something simple and gradually ramping up the difficulty. And you're right, being aware of both mental and physical strength is useful.