RobertJasiek wrote:Bantari, as much as you claim that I would see only maths, you might claim that somebody else sees only informal descriptions of subconscious thinking. Nope. Both know that also the other's view exists. (Insert your standard phrase here;) )
This might be true, we can claim anything we want, and most of it will be true, or at least a valid viewpoint.
Yet the feeling persists that you seem to reject any argument not derived within your viewpoint. Like right now.
The point is - it is *your* attitude which causes problems, not others. Why? Because you seem much more rigid in your approach than most/all others.
For example - I have occasionally entered your 'world' and agreed with you within this 'framework' - even when I still understood that this is only one of many possible points of view. I even went so far as to recognize that within the confines of what you do, the stuff you say is absolutely valid and correct, and occasionally brilliant. As are you, in my opinion. But most of my arguments with you is about the fact that there are other contexts, every bit as valid and important as yours, a fact that you seem to either ignore or dismiss.
I have seen others do it as well. A quit-pro-quo would be for you to try to enter the 'world' of others, especially if it happens to be the majority. This does not mean you have to acknowledge what you think is wrong, but you sometimes need to see that other viewpoints are just as valid, even if contrary to what you think. I have seldom (if ever) seen you do this, or even a good effort. It is this lack of your willingness to step outside your own personal 'correctness' that prompts comments like 'your world' or 'your framework'.
And you make it worse by bringing up a defense like 'rational is better than irrational' - which pretty much dismisses most of what others say as 'irrational' with you the sole arbiter of where the dividing line goes. It might surprise you, but in the eyes of many here - it is you who is often irrational and unreasonable.
Case in point - the 'sportsmanship' discussion a while back - a purely subjective topic, where you seemed unable to see beyond the narrow confines of rules and formal definitions, and in my view made very little effort (if any) to try to understand what the rest of the world was trying to tell you. I consider your behavior in that case irrational and unreasonable. I am not inside your head, so I can only comment of how it looks to me from the outside. Maybe you made a very big effort you were just unable to step outside your box, but the result wrt this forum is the same.
A lot of this applies to almost any discussion you participate in, even if the subject is strictly 'go theory' as you define it. People are not computers and the way we perceive the world in general (and Go or anything else in particular)is much more fuzzy than you seem to think it should be.
PS>
I feel we are rehashing same old same old here. I am not sure I can add any more here, other than reiterate the same arguments I have been giving for years. For now, let me just assure you than I value your contribution to this (or any) forum very highly, and I hope you can resolve whatever issues are bugging you.
As a last advice - for future reference - a hint: if people are telling you something en masse, the there usually is something to it, and might be worth your while to take it seriously instead of insisting that you are right and the world is wrong. Even when you *are* right. Think like a teacher - a communicator - it is up to *you* to bring your message across so that people listen, not to the world to adjust. At least - not immediately. Instead, what you do is often present your message in such way that people's instinct is to argue rather than to think and possibly agree. And this goes especially when you yourself start arguing.
