Why are our instincts so bad?

[daal]

Hi Robert,

I see instinct as a bad word for "very fast initial knowledge application"

Is there such a word in German for "very fast initial knowledge application" ?
( I'm only curious; I speak zero German. )

There is the word Schnappschuss, one of the meanings of which is to shoot without aiming.

[RobertJasiek]

Is there such a word in German for "very fast initial knowledge application" ?

I would express it with similar number of words or word-components because I do not know a sufficiently appropriate word for this.

-- Would this be a fair description ?

I would not care for measuring fractions of a second.

meaning the kind of ideas that come to mind automatically as a result of past experience, study, and so on.

This comes much closer than the born / animal "instinct" but I would not say "automatically" because I entitle the brain the freedom to intervene:)

[Bill Spight]

Before this discussion gets too far afield, there is a beginner's mistake, called Atari, atari!, in which a player plays atari just because the opponent has to answer it. Now, there is a certain amount of go learning that goes into atari atari, but there is also an unlearned component, which may be called instinctual. Atari, atari is behavior that is mediated unconsciously, and therefore fits one of the definitions of instinct.

Psychologists or biologists may want to have technical definitions of instinct, but the above definition is fine for ordinary parlance.

[Bill Spight]

I had a recent review which was interesting. I played a fairly slack move. My teacher said when he was back in Korea, his teacher would force him to just play the correct move on the board 100 times before moving on in order to build his instinct on it. When bad moves were made, play the right one a lot just to build up your instinct and get rid of the bad move.

The problem with that method is that making the correct play (and then retracting it) alters the stimulus situation. Why? Because the original bad impulse is still inhibited by making the correct play. You have to wait a while for the bad impulse to come back in order to practice overcoming it.

[Kirby]

I had a recent review which was interesting. I played a fairly slack move. My teacher said when he was back in Korea, his teacher would force him to just play the correct move on the board 100 times before moving on in order to build his instinct on it. When bad moves were made, play the right one a lot just to build up your instinct and get rid of the bad move.

The problem with that method is that making the correct play (and then retracting it) alters the stimulus situation. Why? Because the original bad impulse is still inhibited by making the correct play. You have to wait a while for the bad impulse to come back in order to practice overcoming it.

I don't 100% follow. Are you saying that repeating the correct move is not fixing the root of the problem (i.e. the bad impulse)?

[EdLee]

beginner's mistake, called Atari, atari!

Hi Bill,

That's one example of playing a sente move without deeper analysis ("sente just because").

Other examples include trying to push through a bamboo joint, peeping (without considering whether the cut is better), etc.

Another example:

$$B Sente Just Because
$$ | . . . , . . . . . ,
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . .
$$ | . O X X X . . . . ,
$$ | . O O O 1 O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ ---------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Sente Just Because
$$ | . . . , . . . . . ,
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . .
$$ | . O X X X . . . . ,
$$ | . O O O 1 O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ ---------------------[/go]

Relating to daal's original question,
this kind of instincts ("sente just because")
tends to persist if:

• The person does not figure it out for herself;
• There's no external guidance (say, from another person, or any Go literature -- books, videos, etc.)

Over time, these tend to become bad habits.

[Abyssinica]

Maybe because it feels good to force your opponent to do something?

[Bill Spight]

I had a recent review which was interesting. I played a fairly slack move. My teacher said when he was back in Korea, his teacher would force him to just play the correct move on the board 100 times before moving on in order to build his instinct on it. When bad moves were made, play the right one a lot just to build up your instinct and get rid of the bad move.

The problem with that method is that making the correct play (and then retracting it) alters the stimulus situation. Why? Because the original bad impulse is still inhibited by making the correct play. You have to wait a while for the bad impulse to come back in order to practice overcoming it.

I don't 100% follow. Are you saying that repeating the correct move is not fixing the root of the problem (i.e. the bad impulse)?

Particular cases may be different, but in general, yes.

One way of looking at it is this. Given position, P (or certain features of that position), the correct play is C. Thus, practicing playing C in position P strengthens the connection between P and C.

However, all this is happening in the brain, not on the go board. In the actual game, the player facing P played B, a bad play. B may have been a relatively random play, but in this discussion we are assuming that there is a pre-existing connection in the brain between P and B. We now know that this connection is not eliminated, even when the player plays C. What happens is that it is activated, and that activation is inhibited, so that the connection to C is stronger. At times, particularly under stress, the inhibition fails and the bad play is made.

The problem with the immediate repetition of C a large number of times is that the player is no longer simply playing C in position P, but playing C in that position soon after having played C in that position. The brain is not in the same state that it was in the real game, nor in the state it will be in in the next similar position in which C is correct. It is better, I am reasonably sure, to wait until the effect of playing C recently has subsided. It would be enough, I expect, to finish the review, and then to come back to the problem position. That way the move, C, will not be so fresh in the brain, and the impulse to play B will have a chance to resurface. The situation will be more like the next time the player faces a position like P, and will have to overcome the impulse to make the wrong play.

Edit: Note that this is different from the case where the player is confused and finally makes the wrong play. Then there is no bad impulse to overcome. But rapid repetition of the right play still alters the stimulus situation.

[EdLee]

But rapid repetition of the right play still alters the stimulus situation.

Hi Bill,
( Off-topic? )

Interesting.

One wonders if there are similarities to this scenario:

P: Meeting someone. ( Interactions with people, in general ).
C: Greetings ( good feeling ).
B: Some nasty, or at least unpleasant remark. ( Bad feeling ).

Suppose a person has a tendency to express or otherwise project some unpleasant feelings toward others.
Now, rapid repetition of C -- say, "How are you" or at least holding the tongue long enough to think before speaking --
could alter the behavior of this person. But maybe that's only the symptoms, and not the root of the problem.
Which could be some bad experience in childhood, insecurity, anger issues, etc.
Unless and until we dig deep enough to uncover the buried issues, later on, especially under stress, B will likely re-surface.

[Kirby]

Particular cases may be different, but in general, yes.

One way of looking at it is this. Given position, P (or certain features of that position), the correct play is C. Thus, practicing playing C in position P strengthens the connection between P and C.

However, all this is happening in the brain, not on the go board. In the actual game, the player facing P played B, a bad play. B may have been a relatively random play, but in this discussion we are assuming that there is a pre-existing connection in the brain between P and B. We now know that this connection is not eliminated, even when the player plays C. What happens is that it is activated, and that activation is inhibited, so that the connection to C is stronger. At times, particularly under stress, the inhibition fails and the bad play is made.

The problem with the immediate repetition of C a large number of times is that the player is no longer simply playing C in position P, but playing C in that position soon after having played C in that position. The brain is not in the same state that it was in the real game, nor in the state it will be in in the next similar position in which C is correct. It is better, I am reasonably sure, to wait until the effect of playing C recently has subsided. It would be enough, I expect, to finish the review, and then to come back to the problem position. That way the move, C, will not be so fresh in the brain, and the impulse to play B will have a chance to resurface. The situation will be more like the next time the player faces a position like P, and will have to overcome the impulse to make the wrong play.

Edit: Note that this is different from the case where the player is confused and finally makes the wrong play. Then there is no bad impulse to overcome. But rapid repetition of the right play still alters the stimulus situation.

Interesting.

If repeating 'C' from board position 'P' is not great since 'C' is still fresh in the mind, what about a small modification?

1. Take an ordered set of board positions (P0, P1, ... Pn) where you played a bad move (B0, B1, ... Bn), and know the correct move (C0, C1, ... Cn). That is to say, on position Pi, you played bad move Bi, but the correct move was Ci for all 0 <= i <= n.
2. Select some index j at random, and practice playing Cj on position Pj.
3. Repeat step 2 several times.

This way, you still get practice strengthening the connection between the position and the correct move, but since you keep iterating to a fresh position for each iteration, you give a chance for your bad moves to show up again.

Would that work better?

[EdLee]

2. Select some index j at random...
3. Repeat step 2 several times.

( Old tech days. )

image.jpg (43.97 KiB) Viewed 7174 times

[jeromie]

Interesting.

If repeating 'C' from board position 'P' is not great since 'C' is still fresh in the mind, what about a small modification?

1. Take an ordered set of board positions (P0, P1, ... Pn) where you played a bad move (B0, B1, ... Bn), and know the correct move (C0, C1, ... Cn). That is to say, on position Pi, you played bad move Bi, but the correct move was Ci for all 0 <= i <= n.
2. Select some index j at random, and practice playing Cj on position Pj.
3. Repeat step 2 several times.

This way, you still get practice strengthening the connection between the position and the correct move, but since you keep iterating to a fresh position for each iteration, you give a chance for your bad moves to show up again.

Would that work better?

I don't have Bill's go expertise, but this essentially sounds like learning via spaced repetition based on your own games. As long as you understand the meaning behind the correct move, (and perhaps the erroneous thinking that led to the wrong move) I think this could be very effective. Without that crucial context, it could lead to a different (but still wrong) instinct in a similar position with the stones moved around slightly.

[Bantari]

Particular cases may be different, but in general, yes.

One way of looking at it is this. Given position, P (or certain features of that position), the correct play is C. Thus, practicing playing C in position P strengthens the connection between P and C.

However, all this is happening in the brain, not on the go board. In the actual game, the player facing P played B, a bad play. B may have been a relatively random play, but in this discussion we are assuming that there is a pre-existing connection in the brain between P and B. We now know that this connection is not eliminated, even when the player plays C. What happens is that it is activated, and that activation is inhibited, so that the connection to C is stronger. At times, particularly under stress, the inhibition fails and the bad play is made.

The problem with the immediate repetition of C a large number of times is that the player is no longer simply playing C in position P, but playing C in that position soon after having played C in that position. The brain is not in the same state that it was in the real game, nor in the state it will be in in the next similar position in which C is correct. It is better, I am reasonably sure, to wait until the effect of playing C recently has subsided. It would be enough, I expect, to finish the review, and then to come back to the problem position. That way the move, C, will not be so fresh in the brain, and the impulse to play B will have a chance to resurface. The situation will be more like the next time the player faces a position like P, and will have to overcome the impulse to make the wrong play.

Edit: Note that this is different from the case where the player is confused and finally makes the wrong play. Then there is no bad impulse to overcome. But rapid repetition of the right play still alters the stimulus situation.

I think this is a very good observation, I have not thought about it quite like that.

It reminds me of the thoughts I have had about solving go problems (find next move, etc) and why I can do seemingly better in pre-set problems or while studying pro games than in my own games. The issues is that, as you put it, my brain is not in the same "state" during problem solving - there is no tension, no urges to respond to previous move, no little voice telling me "attack attack" even when defense is asked for, and so on. Mentally, we are in a completely different place during practice and during real competition. It takes a lot of self-discipline to overcome that, something which I lack.

So in theory, practice and theory converge. In practice, however, they might not.

This was always why I rather played another game or two than wasted time solving X number of problems. I have always considered it much better training and much better learning. After your post, I am starting to have some insight into why, surprisingly, I might have had a point there. Imagine that!

[daal]

Interesting.

If repeating 'C' from board position 'P' is not great since 'C' is still fresh in the mind, what about a small modification?

1. Take an ordered set of board positions (P0, P1, ... Pn) where you played a bad move (B0, B1, ... Bn), and know the correct move (C0, C1, ... Cn). That is to say, on position Pi, you played bad move Bi, but the correct move was Ci for all 0 <= i <= n.
2. Select some index j at random, and practice playing Cj on position Pj.
3. Repeat step 2 several times.

This way, you still get practice strengthening the connection between the position and the correct move, but since you keep iterating to a fresh position for each iteration, you give a chance for your bad moves to show up again.

Would that work better?

I don't have Bill's go expertise, but this essentially sounds like learning via spaced repetition based on your own games. As long as you understand the meaning behind the correct move, (and perhaps the erroneous thinking that led to the wrong move) I think this could be very effective. Without that crucial context, it could lead to a different (but still wrong) instinct in a similar position with the stones moved around slightly.

Spaced repetition is slowly catching on with go, and there are two options: Either you use a system that provides the problems (Android app: Go Fuseki, Go Tesuji, Go Joseki or the system Guo Juan implemented her go school (if anyone knows any more about it, I'd like to hear!)) or you create the material yourself and plug it into Anki for which mkmatlock created a note-type (see here) and as RBerenguel discussed here.

[Kirby]

Well, I made my own, which is why I'm open to tips for improvement.

So far, my experience is that mixing up the problems is nice, but I still get the feeling that I am recalling board position as soon as I see the problem.

Maybe I just need more problems to fix this.