I said that I own them, not that I had read them. If I had carefully studied all 200, who knows where I could be!

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Do you have a source that Westerns ask 'why?' more than Asians when presented with a problem? I mentor young researchers and of course many are Asian. However, asking 'why?' seems to vary more on an individual level than cultural. I honestly didn't notice a marked difference. The only thing that stands out is my most bullheaded 'Why?' askers were always Asian, always going until we ended up at first principle physics.

For both Asian and Westerners, the ones who avoided asking 'why?' almost always did so because they didn't want to appear stupid.

One of Yilun Yang's books say that, in Asia, whenever he taught something, the students would only say "Yes, teacher". He says that he felt compelled to write a book for a Western audience because he was always being asked "Why?" by his students after coming to the US.

There has been a great deal of convergence of cultures over the years. When I was in elementary school in Korea, I reported to the principal that my teacher was was beating other students and swearing at them (I felt confident because I read some law books on my dad's bookshelf). The principal ratted me out to her and she stopped teaching for three days so that she could beat me in front of the class instead of teaching. If that happened today, she would have been fired because teachers are no longer allowed to use corporal punishment in Korean schools.

The gap between Western and Eastern cultures is shrinking everyday, but there are still generations of people in Asia who grew up in a different culture than the currently prevailing one.
That's true, but some of the older Asians may also have been beaten as children when they were too persistent with their questions.

Exactly 0 of the young researchers have been old Asians, due to logic.

Nevermind where you could be, we all know where you would be...at the office playing go over lunch. Sato-san would have never known what hit him.

Are you being intentionally combative? No conclusion of that sort is implied by what I wrote. Nowhere in my post is anything stated in terms of absolutes. Even if it were stated in terms of absolutes, I don't recall using any universal quantifiers.

I hope you didn't think that I was attacking you because I quoted your posts. I was just continuing a conversation.

EDIT: I understand that it is impossible for young people to have been old, but I am still failing to see how this is connected to anything I wrote.

Also true of Westerners. I hear plenty of stories of people even in my parents' generation being terrified to ask what I would consider reasonable questions for fear of assault. The definition of "older" is a little different, of course, but I'm not convinced that the learning attitudes were so different, say, 40 years ago.

This goes way OT now but I just want to mention that, when I (*1957) was a child, corporal punishment was normal—in Germany!—at least in my family and all families I knew at that time. No days without slap and no week without some harder beating on the butt with a stick, ruler, or a wooden cooking spoon. It was only in the mid-60s, when my parents had their first contact with modern psychotherapeutical ideas, that they refrained from physical violence, and today I know how hard this fight with their inner demons must have been.

<edit>

Added the country, otherwise this wouldn’t be very informative

</edit>

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Trust me, there is a difference between the number of books you own and the level of your skills. But if you intend to own a large library of go books, you do have a long ways to go.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

Thanks for sharing; it's nice to get some more perspective. I guess people are similar everywhere, even if they are not similar at the same point in time. I am sure there's some off-topic Hegelian argument to be made about this.

Nothing specific. In a general context, I think it is not denied, nor particularly controversial, that there are differences between western and eastern approaches to teaching, and differences between those cultures in general. For some general research, I would recommend taking a look at e.g. http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html

In a go specific context, lemmata has given the example of Yilun Yang here, and Bill Spight mentions the experience of Jiang Jujo in another thread. Of course, the western tendency to ask "why?" more often in this context might very well be related to the fact that westerners taking pro lessons are far more likely to be go enthusiast, rather than casual players, because of the difference in how widely the game is known and played.

'Why' has a special status in English. Children learn very early that it is the most efficient way to wind up grown-ups ("You have to eat your porridge." "Why?" "So you'll become big and strong." "Why?" "So you can become a famous go player." "Why?" and so on ad infinitum). Older students, especially males trying to impress the girls in class, then pick up the meme that asking the 'why' question makes you sound both rebellious and sage. By the time you are working for a living, asking 'why' is a good way to succeed in business but a poor way to get along with a boss if you have one. By the time you are old and grey the question becomes a plaintive one. In short, the word 'why' is a very big part of our lives.

This is quite different from, say, Japanese. A dictionary may tell you that 'naze' corresponds to 'why', but in practice you would often use softer or more explicit modes of asking. Such as dou shite, dou iu wake de, nan no tame ni, dou desu ka, etc. Circumlocutions with no 'why' word at all may be used (e.g. 'Why not let him do as he pleases? - Kare ni suki na you ni sasetara ii ja nai ka). None of these variants indicate lack of moral fibre.

In such circumstances, if a Japanese expert says, "I think you have to do this" and you ask in English "why", he is apt to be confused or even flustered. Do you mean 'for what reason is that best?' or 'how did you come to that conclusion?' or 'what's that got to do with the price of fish?' or 'I don't care what your answer is, I'm just showing you off by putting you on the spot". Not getting the answer you want may not be his fault. And look at how many young native English speakers muck up 'Wherefore art thou Romeo?' Even when the teacher explains 'wherefore' means 'why', Shakespeare's sentence usually has to be explained even further (i.e. it's not that he's a Romeo but that he's a Montague - and you probably have to explain even that to half the class).

In short, building a case on 'why' won't take you very far.

There is always a more precise way of asking 'Why'. However, there is also a more precise way of saying almost anything, so the decision of which level of precision is the correct balance between openness and precision is arbitrary and socio-cultural.

There is nothing wrong with going for the fastest and most open:
- 'why'
instead of the more precise, but quite slower to express:
- 'Probably due to my rank, although I can't be sure of the reasons by precisely the same lack of strength, I am not able to read more than two or three moves in a game of the complexity of the one we are dealing with; taking into account that in this case I use "complexity" to express my perceived difficulty of evaluating the separation of enclosed territories and dame areas, if such thing exist, of which I can't be sure. This lack of reading ability makes me wonder: "is the reason of your suggested move - that must most probably be correct, if we assume that your rank is based, among other skills, on your reading strength - a conclusion in a number of moves beyond my skill range? Or is it a collateral effect that, although present in a shorter number of moves, still I am not able to observe due to other deficiencies in my go skillset."


There is an additional advantage of 'why' that's especially useful when children use it. Any other way of forming the question will add criteria to the answer that the person answering might not want there and is forced to remove.
e.g:
Q-'why P7?' A-'Because it gives the best thickness to white in sente.'
compared to:
Q-'wouldn't P8 also kill?" A-'Killing is not the objective. P7 gives the best thickness to white in sente.'


'Why' is better than a more precise question that implies, in the process of becoming precise, assumptions that result false. Thus, 'why' is the humblest question. It says 'I don't understand your last assertion and I don't presume to know the origin of my ignorance.'

Not necessarily. It depends a great deal on the context and the tone of voice.
In some cases, it can be a very arrogant and confrontational question.
In some other cases, it can be a very stupid question.
And yes, in some cases, it can be a very humble question.

Student: Why do I lose?
Teacher: Because you haven't completed enough tsumego?
Student: Why do you think I haven't completed enough tsumego?
Teacher: Because you lose.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

To a professional, in many situations, the question of "why?" is a nonsense question. They just gave you the correct answer. E.g:

What should I play here?
Move A is the correct move here.
Why?
Uhhh, because it is better than the other moves?

An analogy would be if someone asked you for directions, then after you've given them, they ask why:

How do I get to the theater?
Take the first left, drive on until you cross the rail road tracks, then go right.
Why?
Uhhh, because that's the shortest route to the theater?

The difference being that "shortest route" is defined solely by distance, whereas "better move" must take a larger number of factors into account, and it's not immaterial which of those are relevant.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

The better move is simply the one that gives you more points at the end of the game. But the game tree is so huge that it is impossible to prove any move better than any other. Professional judgement of what is better is, for a large part, instinct and reading. There is often no simple theoretical reason why the move is better, it's better because their instincts tell them it is.

If you give directions, you similarly don't consider every possible route in your head. You've got an instinctive idea, based on your experience in navigating the area, of what the shortest route probably is.

Don't forget that, sometimes, when we ask "why?", we're not asking for solutions to one particular problem, but instead rules of thumb or guidelines or nuggets of intuition that might guide us towards being able to solve future problems of similar sorts. We're asking things like "why, out of the 361 possible intersections on the go board, were your eyes drawn towards looking at this one first?". We're looking for a heuristic for finding answers, not just a single answer that we can confirm. Give a man a fish...

So the implication is that asking for heuristics or insights into a professional's instinctive and intuitive process is pointless. Said professional is not necessarily equipped to explain how he arrived at "the best move" or enumerate the factors that went into that decision. Asking for information that is not explicable may be regarded as disrespectful.

Whether this is cultural or not, the lesson seems to be: Be careful who you accept as a "teacher" because you may not get any insights beyond that which you gleen yourself from the basic data given to you ("this move is best"), and in fact, you may be regarded as not entitled to any (explanation or insight) given your inferior station as student.

Asking for deeper explanation is not an act of rebellion against authority. But in a culture where learning is meant to occur through osmosis, by merely being in the presence of masters delivering opaque "wisdom", it would likely seem that way and not be terribly welcome.