.
This is a simple relatively short list of ideas culled from a handful of books on how we can and should think. It comes from books about logic & intuition and left-brain & right-brain and problem-solving.
Sleep well before and after an intense mental workout.
Breathe deeply and slowly to calm the reptilian brain. [ This is the only conscious way to affect it. ]
Let the mind wander a bit. [ This is its default mode effortless mode. It's important not to overwork our self-control focus 'muscle'. ]
Decide and silently state your goal. [ This pushes selective attention into effect. It automatically filters out things not relevant to the object of focus, the goal. ]
[ Separate the crucial from the incidental information. Avoid early decision-making or free-association thinking as that leads to premature conclusions. ]
Silently state the situation to clarify things.
Freely imagine many paths to the goal and if you need to step back from conscious effort and change your focus to something else (a stroll in the woods or your magic pen or what's for dinner).
Deduce a solution which best fits the situation & goal -- the clean elegant solution.
Blunder-check to get the most precise effective linear variation/sequence-of-actions.
That's it. There is more which a person might do, but this list seems like the crux of the matter. It's still too big for efficient fast chess play, but it's getting there. It covers ways to use and to avoid problems with the reptilian brain, the mammalian (memory & image) brain and some primate brain issues. It shows how to use left & right brain to get full use of your toy and it is all based on real science which shows this works in reality. At least pieces of it do. Whether one could learn this entire list and really do this in some rigorous way is beyond me. I can easily see parts being practiced and done regularly. Anyone wanting to think better and get results could start here and it would probably be a good improvement on what we're already doing. At least that's what the book cover blurbs say.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
Science Has Many Things to Say...Some Contradictory, Some Breakthroughs !
.
The bees are disappearing, no wait, they're making a comeback. Well, which is it?
Scientists discover what's killing the bees and it's worse than you thought
Reemergence of the bumblebee delights and perplexes scientists
Maybe it depends on the kind of bee in question.
Meanwhile, the North Pole is now a lake. Picture of the pole is a sad sight.
Here's another sad sight -- people earning ONLY $ 4.99 million / year must be sooo depressed.
The rich feel poor if they make less than 5 million. The poor darlings must so depressed when they can't get to the $ 5 mil mark. Well, there's hope for them in the next article.
Protein receptor crf1 identified as depression molecule. Maybe they'll have a great cure for poverty depression real soon.
Meanwhile, the rest of the 99% who really are poor will just have to do with food stamps (SNAP) if the Republicans don't eliminate it to cut the deficit. Sigh.
The bees are disappearing, no wait, they're making a comeback. Well, which is it?
Scientists discover what's killing the bees and it's worse than you thought
Reemergence of the bumblebee delights and perplexes scientists
Maybe it depends on the kind of bee in question.
Meanwhile, the North Pole is now a lake. Picture of the pole is a sad sight.
Here's another sad sight -- people earning ONLY $ 4.99 million / year must be sooo depressed.
The rich feel poor if they make less than 5 million. The poor darlings must so depressed when they can't get to the $ 5 mil mark. Well, there's hope for them in the next article.
Protein receptor crf1 identified as depression molecule. Maybe they'll have a great cure for poverty depression real soon.
Meanwhile, the rest of the 99% who really are poor will just have to do with food stamps (SNAP) if the Republicans don't eliminate it to cut the deficit. Sigh.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Wealth Disparity - Fair is Fair
.
Richest 300 persons on earth have more money than poorest 3 billion
As corporate profits reach record levels their effective tax rates decrease
The Right and many pundits say when the economy works right everyone benefits and it's natural for some who are particularly useful in the economy to grow richer and richer and richer. Now there are individuals and corporations who/which are extremely wealthy, yet the rules are rigged to help them by lowering their tax rates. Why would that be? Are they employing all the unemployed and under-employed? Are they using some of their tremendous revenues to pay workers more for their greater productivity?
Low-wage workers on federal contracts keep up pressure with third strike
Why would the government pay so little?
Economy of the squeegee carwasheros organizing across the country
Is our economy only working right when the tip-earners and car washeros are making starvation wages?
Speaker of the House John Boehner on his legacy fair to all protected
If John Boehner wants to be fair he could let Democrats participate by bringing up bills which have support from a majority of the House, including Democrats. Then maybe we could (at least) get the Republicans on the record about important issues to America, like wage levels.
How can Boehner be Speaker of the (whole) House when he won't let Dems bring up bills until the Republican caucus agrees?
How can anyone say the economy is working when so many are earning so little? Is that fair?
Richest 300 persons on earth have more money than poorest 3 billion
As corporate profits reach record levels their effective tax rates decrease
The Right and many pundits say when the economy works right everyone benefits and it's natural for some who are particularly useful in the economy to grow richer and richer and richer. Now there are individuals and corporations who/which are extremely wealthy, yet the rules are rigged to help them by lowering their tax rates. Why would that be? Are they employing all the unemployed and under-employed? Are they using some of their tremendous revenues to pay workers more for their greater productivity?
Low-wage workers on federal contracts keep up pressure with third strike
Why would the government pay so little?
Economy of the squeegee carwasheros organizing across the country
Is our economy only working right when the tip-earners and car washeros are making starvation wages?
Speaker of the House John Boehner on his legacy fair to all protected
If John Boehner wants to be fair he could let Democrats participate by bringing up bills which have support from a majority of the House, including Democrats. Then maybe we could (at least) get the Republicans on the record about important issues to America, like wage levels.
How can Boehner be Speaker of the (whole) House when he won't let Dems bring up bills until the Republican caucus agrees?
How can anyone say the economy is working when so many are earning so little? Is that fair?
Friday, July 19, 2013
How We Think and Gun Violence Legislation
.
One of the things we often do in a chess game, and I presume other things, is seize upon an idea and continue with it even when conditions have changed and we should reassess things.
I think something similar has often happened in the political world and it caused great frustration. When you have the English and Irish at loggerheads for hundreds of years there's a lack of creativity to find a peaceful solution. The same seems to exist in the Middle East where Israel is usually at a stand-off with its neighbors.
Recently, here in America, there has been far too much gun violence and the discussion about how to solve it has involved expansion of the background checks for gun purchases. Well, I continue to see news stories about children killing one another and eventually the sheer numbers of these hit me on the head like a 2" x 4" -- it's kids who don't know the dangers, not just the mentally challenged or criminals using guns.
The reassessment leads quickly to an obvious call for the required use of gun locks to prevent kids from playing bang bang.
9-year-old Mississippi boy shot by another child, parents in the next room
One of the things we often do in a chess game, and I presume other things, is seize upon an idea and continue with it even when conditions have changed and we should reassess things.
I think something similar has often happened in the political world and it caused great frustration. When you have the English and Irish at loggerheads for hundreds of years there's a lack of creativity to find a peaceful solution. The same seems to exist in the Middle East where Israel is usually at a stand-off with its neighbors.
Recently, here in America, there has been far too much gun violence and the discussion about how to solve it has involved expansion of the background checks for gun purchases. Well, I continue to see news stories about children killing one another and eventually the sheer numbers of these hit me on the head like a 2" x 4" -- it's kids who don't know the dangers, not just the mentally challenged or criminals using guns.
The reassessment leads quickly to an obvious call for the required use of gun locks to prevent kids from playing bang bang.
9-year-old Mississippi boy shot by another child, parents in the next room
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Some Good, Some Bizarre & Stupid
.
Some Good
Medical knowledge and technology and techniques continue to improve.
A new Cancer Knife to detect cancer as it goes!
Gene therapy promises to wipe-out rare childhood diseases!
Scientists switch-off chromosome that causes Downs Syndrome!
Some Bizarre & Stupid
We've all heard or watched or read about the Zimmerman murder trial, but did the news organizations tell us about this Florida woman gets 20 years for warning shot that hit nobody. I guess the Stand-Your-Ground law only applies to other folks. Zimmerman's defense lawyer said that if Trayvon Martin had fired the gun he wouldn't have been charged. I find it hard to believe.
Some Good
Medical knowledge and technology and techniques continue to improve.
A new Cancer Knife to detect cancer as it goes!
Gene therapy promises to wipe-out rare childhood diseases!
Scientists switch-off chromosome that causes Downs Syndrome!
Some Bizarre & Stupid
We've all heard or watched or read about the Zimmerman murder trial, but did the news organizations tell us about this Florida woman gets 20 years for warning shot that hit nobody. I guess the Stand-Your-Ground law only applies to other folks. Zimmerman's defense lawyer said that if Trayvon Martin had fired the gun he wouldn't have been charged. I find it hard to believe.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Immigration Reform
.
Many Republicans say immigration reform needs to be done, but there are a few components of it with which they have a problem. Well, the president has said for quite a long time that when there's differences we shouldn't let that stop us from agreeing to what we agree to and move forward on that. So, the Republicans in the House should simply look at the parts of the Senate bill they want and go from there. If there's more than that they want to do they should write something and see if Democrats will agree with any of it in conference.
If border security is something they want to spend a lot of money on they can always go home and campaign on that for the next elections. Maybe their constituents will be happy to pay the taxes for more and more and more. After all, they don't want to raise taxes and it will obviously have to come from the rich. Somehow I don't suspect that would go over too well with their campaign donors.
The big concession they need to make for their slothfulness is to let Democrats add an amendment to tax reform which will raise rates on somebody to pay down whatever debt the country has (while sunsetting that when the debt is at some sufficiently low level).
It's not really all that hard if you really want to get something done.
Many Republicans say immigration reform needs to be done, but there are a few components of it with which they have a problem. Well, the president has said for quite a long time that when there's differences we shouldn't let that stop us from agreeing to what we agree to and move forward on that. So, the Republicans in the House should simply look at the parts of the Senate bill they want and go from there. If there's more than that they want to do they should write something and see if Democrats will agree with any of it in conference.
If border security is something they want to spend a lot of money on they can always go home and campaign on that for the next elections. Maybe their constituents will be happy to pay the taxes for more and more and more. After all, they don't want to raise taxes and it will obviously have to come from the rich. Somehow I don't suspect that would go over too well with their campaign donors.
The big concession they need to make for their slothfulness is to let Democrats add an amendment to tax reform which will raise rates on somebody to pay down whatever debt the country has (while sunsetting that when the debt is at some sufficiently low level).
It's not really all that hard if you really want to get something done.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
How We Think: Part Infinity
.
Intuition, Right-Brain, image, wholistic, feeling, wordless, outside the box ...
non-thinking thinking, irrational, timeless, creative
Logic, Left-Brain, sequential, objects, within the box (and maybe consciousness)...
general thinking and concrete variations (sequences of moves), mental work and very tiring
Our intuitive Right-Brain thinking isn't so tiring we think, but an emotional component can quickly drain us and a paradigm shift can be overwhelming.
Our logical Left-Brain thinking is incredibly tiring when we focus on doing it for long. That's probably because it's unnatural to use our minds consciousness for work. We're used to just doing and using our conscious logical side to observe and redirect our efforts. Perhaps setting goals or some kind of guidelines is what that part of our mind does best. After all a plan is how to step-by-step reach a final wholistic conclusion.
Where do we fail?
When we're overloaded with variables, when our memory fails in the middle of a task, when we can't imagine and remember subtotals and other work-in-progress, when emotion overwhelms us, when our intuition and logical solutions clash, when we have biases which subconsciously distort things and sometimes when we just can't decide between two things. It's the conscious mental work we haven't been doing as humans which we aren't so good at (duh).
When I think of a move to play, make the move on the board and instantly realize it's a bad move, that's a disaster. Why couldn't I have evaluated the move before seeing it on the board?
When I think of several moves and I analyze each, but find each lacking and then for some unknown reason I either play the first move or some other next move without much further analysis, that's a potential disaster. Why would I be so weak as to give up on finding good moves supported by calculation?
When I get to a tough situation and can't find a passable move I fail. Then I bring the game to my friends and they see immediately what I should've done. How can that be when I'm the better player? How can the kibitzer who isn't involved in the game immediately see the/a good move, but I the player involved see nothing?
When I want to play a move, but can't discover if it's good though calculation and later I discover I wasn't even using my skills to properly calculate I wonder why I have these skills if during a game I'm not going to use them.
During a normal day a person may make hundreds of decisions, but during a day of blitz chess or tournament chess we have to make many times more. It's no wonder we get tired and the blood sugar drops to turn us into blithering idiots.
Given all these and other difficulties it's a wonder any of us can play consistently good chess games.
I decided to browse the net for what other people have to say about Intuition and Logic. Below are a few links for some of the most interesting posts I read.
How to successfully integrate intuition and logic
Logic vs intuition
Intuition
Transcendence through intuitive thinking
Bias vs logic in decision making
I won't say these were entirely enlightening, but I do like the idea of 'listening' to both Intuition and Logic to get closer to 'the answer' instead of trying to prove one is better than the other. I also like the idea (found on a post and somewhere else in a book by a chess player) that having an intuition doesn't mean we shouldn't check the calculations to see if it holds up to logical scrutiny. After all, intuited ideas have to be squeezed into the peg hole of a move (or move-sequence) on the chess board.
Perhaps where I missed moves I was looking in a too-narrow way instead of starting from the broad range of possibilities. I need to do more exploration of a position! Having a rigid ideology can be limiting. Having no ideology can be useless for finding one answer, even with a goal. Having a method, goal and just enough standards/ideology/belief-system to filter out truly bad moves might be better.
The suggestion we decide best with 3 candidate solutions/answers seems unfair because chess rarely offers up two, three or any particular number of potential solutions. Still, knowing we do best with three (candidates to choose from) can give us something to aim for.
I've also read in several places that we shouldn't be satisfied with one run-through of our method of finding a move and that if we have dissatisfaction in the candidates we should simply go back and find others. Make the method a loop with each iteration providing more information for the next go-round.
I especially like that we can think about chess positions and our plans as a combination of positions with static qualities the Right-Brain can get or reject as missing something and as starting points for various potential dynamic plans/options the Left-Brain can piece together. Aiming for sound solid safe positions won't get you anywhere unless the opponent simply walks his king out to greet your army. Aiming for dynamic plans may leave your defenses full of holes. Having both a whole position the Right-Brain can like and dynamic potentials the Left-Brain can find and work its way through seems like a better fit of our brains to the chess play task.
How can this all be pieced together to make a regular system? I think we have to accumulate information about the position each time it is changed by a move, so our current internal image of the position is complete. But, more than that we must explore possibilities to know where that position might be changed and what it could become. This exploration doesn't appear on the gamescore, but it's essential to really understand the potential. This wide-open view of the positions and their potentials is a bit brute-force, but it opens our eyes. After that we begin narrowing down with forcing or strategically important moves & sequences. To do that we have to know what those terms mean, but that can be learned. Essentially it's what has to be (or can be) done to effect the game's outcome to make a win from an equal start or to save a draw from a bad position. Knowing what our opponent's plans could be is as important as finding our own way forward.
After that it's the narrowing to move-sequences and one final move to be played. That's concrete conscious calculation and shouldn't be done too extensively to safe energy. Each position requires what it requires and we have to do what's needed...but no more.
Sometimes that final move choice is a matter of realizing which moves are awful and just playing what remains that seems okay. Sometimes there are several playable moves and we might seek to play them both in some order. Sometimes the playable choices lead in very different directions and we have to make that choice of direction to get the move.
One of the hardest choices to make is to wait. It seems anti-game or something, but once you've got a good position it's not easy to automatically make it better (or to harm the opponent's position). So, you wait. Or, as Jerry Brown, governor of California once said, to choose to not do anything is still a choice. Another great tactic top players use is to seek a position where their opponent has no useful moves and must wait. At that moment one player may be able to do useful things while the other cannot. That's a tremendously advantageous situation.
Should we therefore aim for a position or to have a plan to accomplish? I think, as I suggested above, we aim for both as they're both useful. Intuit a position, create a plan or goals and go to it.
Enough for now.
Intuition, Right-Brain, image, wholistic, feeling, wordless, outside the box ...
non-thinking thinking, irrational, timeless, creative
Logic, Left-Brain, sequential, objects, within the box (and maybe consciousness)...
general thinking and concrete variations (sequences of moves), mental work and very tiring
Our intuitive Right-Brain thinking isn't so tiring we think, but an emotional component can quickly drain us and a paradigm shift can be overwhelming.
Our logical Left-Brain thinking is incredibly tiring when we focus on doing it for long. That's probably because it's unnatural to use our minds consciousness for work. We're used to just doing and using our conscious logical side to observe and redirect our efforts. Perhaps setting goals or some kind of guidelines is what that part of our mind does best. After all a plan is how to step-by-step reach a final wholistic conclusion.
Where do we fail?
When we're overloaded with variables, when our memory fails in the middle of a task, when we can't imagine and remember subtotals and other work-in-progress, when emotion overwhelms us, when our intuition and logical solutions clash, when we have biases which subconsciously distort things and sometimes when we just can't decide between two things. It's the conscious mental work we haven't been doing as humans which we aren't so good at (duh).
When I think of a move to play, make the move on the board and instantly realize it's a bad move, that's a disaster. Why couldn't I have evaluated the move before seeing it on the board?
When I think of several moves and I analyze each, but find each lacking and then for some unknown reason I either play the first move or some other next move without much further analysis, that's a potential disaster. Why would I be so weak as to give up on finding good moves supported by calculation?
When I get to a tough situation and can't find a passable move I fail. Then I bring the game to my friends and they see immediately what I should've done. How can that be when I'm the better player? How can the kibitzer who isn't involved in the game immediately see the/a good move, but I the player involved see nothing?
When I want to play a move, but can't discover if it's good though calculation and later I discover I wasn't even using my skills to properly calculate I wonder why I have these skills if during a game I'm not going to use them.
During a normal day a person may make hundreds of decisions, but during a day of blitz chess or tournament chess we have to make many times more. It's no wonder we get tired and the blood sugar drops to turn us into blithering idiots.
Given all these and other difficulties it's a wonder any of us can play consistently good chess games.
I decided to browse the net for what other people have to say about Intuition and Logic. Below are a few links for some of the most interesting posts I read.
How to successfully integrate intuition and logic
Logic vs intuition
Intuition
Transcendence through intuitive thinking
Bias vs logic in decision making
I won't say these were entirely enlightening, but I do like the idea of 'listening' to both Intuition and Logic to get closer to 'the answer' instead of trying to prove one is better than the other. I also like the idea (found on a post and somewhere else in a book by a chess player) that having an intuition doesn't mean we shouldn't check the calculations to see if it holds up to logical scrutiny. After all, intuited ideas have to be squeezed into the peg hole of a move (or move-sequence) on the chess board.
Perhaps where I missed moves I was looking in a too-narrow way instead of starting from the broad range of possibilities. I need to do more exploration of a position! Having a rigid ideology can be limiting. Having no ideology can be useless for finding one answer, even with a goal. Having a method, goal and just enough standards/ideology/belief-system to filter out truly bad moves might be better.
The suggestion we decide best with 3 candidate solutions/answers seems unfair because chess rarely offers up two, three or any particular number of potential solutions. Still, knowing we do best with three (candidates to choose from) can give us something to aim for.
I've also read in several places that we shouldn't be satisfied with one run-through of our method of finding a move and that if we have dissatisfaction in the candidates we should simply go back and find others. Make the method a loop with each iteration providing more information for the next go-round.
I especially like that we can think about chess positions and our plans as a combination of positions with static qualities the Right-Brain can get or reject as missing something and as starting points for various potential dynamic plans/options the Left-Brain can piece together. Aiming for sound solid safe positions won't get you anywhere unless the opponent simply walks his king out to greet your army. Aiming for dynamic plans may leave your defenses full of holes. Having both a whole position the Right-Brain can like and dynamic potentials the Left-Brain can find and work its way through seems like a better fit of our brains to the chess play task.
How can this all be pieced together to make a regular system? I think we have to accumulate information about the position each time it is changed by a move, so our current internal image of the position is complete. But, more than that we must explore possibilities to know where that position might be changed and what it could become. This exploration doesn't appear on the gamescore, but it's essential to really understand the potential. This wide-open view of the positions and their potentials is a bit brute-force, but it opens our eyes. After that we begin narrowing down with forcing or strategically important moves & sequences. To do that we have to know what those terms mean, but that can be learned. Essentially it's what has to be (or can be) done to effect the game's outcome to make a win from an equal start or to save a draw from a bad position. Knowing what our opponent's plans could be is as important as finding our own way forward.
After that it's the narrowing to move-sequences and one final move to be played. That's concrete conscious calculation and shouldn't be done too extensively to safe energy. Each position requires what it requires and we have to do what's needed...but no more.
Sometimes that final move choice is a matter of realizing which moves are awful and just playing what remains that seems okay. Sometimes there are several playable moves and we might seek to play them both in some order. Sometimes the playable choices lead in very different directions and we have to make that choice of direction to get the move.
One of the hardest choices to make is to wait. It seems anti-game or something, but once you've got a good position it's not easy to automatically make it better (or to harm the opponent's position). So, you wait. Or, as Jerry Brown, governor of California once said, to choose to not do anything is still a choice. Another great tactic top players use is to seek a position where their opponent has no useful moves and must wait. At that moment one player may be able to do useful things while the other cannot. That's a tremendously advantageous situation.
Should we therefore aim for a position or to have a plan to accomplish? I think, as I suggested above, we aim for both as they're both useful. Intuit a position, create a plan or goals and go to it.
Enough for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)