Quotation reference:
viewtopic.php?p=145242#p145242



No (for the most general context). What I assume depends on discussion context.

In the context of the referenced discussion, it was implicitly assumed that categorisation would be a good thing. So, for that context, I discuss under that made assumption.

In a different context, where it is not necessarily presumed that categorisation was a good thing, it is perfectly valid to consider different players' thinking preferences, such as yours of what you call intuition and such as mine of structured methodical approach. Obviously, different players have different needs of degrees of categorisation and codification.



Sorry, but I hope I do not claim my way of putting things to be "simply better". Rather I try to provide reasoning with which I try to convince others - and I expect others to provide reasoning with which they try to convince me.

There are times when I consider greater precision to be an advantage. E.g., when something such as josekis is created by both players, then it is more precise to consider both players' view than only one player's view. Why? Because the opponent does not automatically fulfil the player's intentions. Go is a two-player game - not a one-player game.



There are also people like me (tons of us!) who want to think in terms of understanding and reasoning.



Me neither. I achieve that also by providing explicit explanations / rules for the general case. Every more specific situation becomes an application of that.



You cannot teach your feeling to me. Contrarily, when I am aware of a proper move, there is a good chance that I am able to teach my explanation to those caring to learn from reasoning.



I understand.

People like you (including professionals) have thus not provided such calculations and so failed to teach me justifications for certain splits of profit vs. influence etc.