2. When your 3-3 or 4-4 stone is approached, respond (unless something else is urgent).

I thought one of the reasons for playing a 3-3 was that it could ignore an approach? Or is it the case that the approach is not so urgent as an approach on the other positions?

Ah, that makes sense. So what about my second hypothesis? A 3-3 is less urgent to approach because the other corners are usually more urgent?

Ah, that makes sense. So what about my second hypothesis? A 3-3 is less urgent to approach because the other corners are usually more urgent?

To sum all that up to one sentence, as I have been told, you could say this:

Play urgent moves before big moves.

And I can further sum that up to "Play the biggest move." Still, step by step thinking recipes have their place.

I think you meant to say "Play the best move." (This statement does not have any content, though.)
The point is the difference between 'urgent' (a move that is primarily related to safety, your own or your opponent's) and 'big' (a move that is primarily related to points).

No, I meant to say biggest. If urgent situations weren't also bigger point wise people would not play them. The distinction between big and urgent in go terms is artificial, and it's only useful in teaching people to watch the health of groups more, because they don't realize the related point swing otherwise.

And I can further sum that up to "Play the biggest move." Still, step by step thinking recipes have their place.

No, I meant to say biggest. If urgent situations weren't also bigger point wise people would not play them. The distinction between big and urgent in go terms is artificial, and it's only useful in teaching people to watch the health of groups more, because they don't realize the related point swing otherwise.

* Am I ok? (am I about to get hurt or hassled?)
* Is the opponent ok? (can I chase or hassle the opponent to get profit?)
* Where is big area? (going for wide area or big points)

...I feel that the questions themselves cloud the mind from what stronger players really think about during games.

First of all, weakness and strength is something you should constantly monitor, until it becomes an instinct. You can just look at something and feel how strong it is. It's something that comes from experience, honestly. It should be considered, but it isn't really thoughtful.

The big locations on the board are likewise part instinct, part learned theory. If it's a wide area, it's probably big. These are to be kept track of, but they aren't really thoughtful, are they?

Thoughtful play emerges when someone knows the usual way that something is played, and then deviates in an unusual manner which is superior to the usual. Running with the knight's move, because cutting it is impossible. Attaching to a weak stone, because it's part of a sequence to kill a group.

Whenever you play a move that you didn't play because of some proverb, or because of what someone told you to do, or because you asked yourself a set of fixed questions, some kind of play that involves your own thought process and reasoning, that's when you've played something thoughtful. A checklist for thoughtfulness, I believe, is a complete oxymoron.