Clay logic?
When I found that system 2 has to act as a guide for system 1 by means of logic, I wondered how that would translate to other areas than chess. Since I have a firm belief that a method of educating system 1 should work in a whole lot of areas other than chess, where adults plateau for years.
Yesterday I tried again to make a clay model with female characteristics. It wasn't clear at first where logic would fit in the story. But Robert provided a few links with knowledge about the differences between male and female faces.
In my previous attempts, I just fiddled around until after 6 hours accidently a few feminine characteristics emerged. If system 2 doesn't guide you, everything happens by chance.
After reading the links, system 2 had learned about 8 characteristics that are different in males and females. And so it guided system 1 by steering the attention along these characteristics. This is the result after 1.5 hours:
The logic of the differences wasn't invented by me. So it is not the logic in itself that is doing the work, but the steering of the attention. Good logic or knowledge can lead to good results, while bad logic or knowledge cannot lead to good results, or it must be by accident.
With things like the tempo battle, I try to invent my own good logic. But that might not be necessary at all, if I can lean from good knowledge of other people.
System 2 is easily mesmerized by attractive logic. But what happens precisely? System 2 helps to guide the attention by creating a picture before the minds eye that has a relation with the knowledge. And that picture before the minds eye is something that system 1 can work with.
Which are my findings by modeling clay.
Now I must figure out how that translates to chess.
Somehow it reminds me of Bob Ross, where a whole bunch of simple tricks seems to add up to a painting.
ReplyDeletePART 1:
ReplyDeleteThose are some very insightful observations you have made, Temposchlucker!
Last night and this morning, I re-read Chapter 3: Your brain, the left and right of it in Dr. Edwards book. She uses the terminology of L-mode for System 2 and R-mode for System 1. In some ways, this alternate description is more appropriate and “true to reality” than Dr. Kahneman’s System 1/System 2 dichotomy. Dr. Kahneman himself cautioned against thinking that the two systems are separate and distinct, or even that the two systems actually exist!
Why more appropriate? Because the computer-centric (?) terminology of “System 1/System 2” connotes two separate and distinct systems, and implies that the two systems can only cooperate and work together simultaneously with great difficulty (if at all). Edwards’ terminology allows for more interactivity between the two modes while performing a specific task. We can switch between modes (with training), but the “system” approach makes it difficult to “SEE” how to transition between the two systems, when to transition and how to transfer tasking from one system to the other (intercommunication is lost in the mental imagery).
The “trick” that you have been looking for is HOW does the child prodigy learn to “SEE” apparently easily, while the adult has great difficulty in doing the same thing?
I think part of the explanation (perhaps most of it) is the ability of the child prodigy to effortlessly and UNCONSCIOUSLYswitch modes as needed to solve the problem, not by consciously trying to force the mind to switch modes or by trying to logically control both modes using the L-mode (System 2). Simply put, the child is unaware of two systems or modes, and simply uses whatever is needed without intellectualizing the process. The focus of formal education is almost completely on VERBAL communication of knowledge in a linear fashion because (it is ASSUMED) that this is the “best” way (in terms of speed of acquisition of knowledge) to “do” education of the masses.
But, there ARE ways of transferring knowledge into skill that are non-verbal. One can look at on-the-job-training (OJT) as the quintessential method of non-verbal training. The master-apprentice relationship is the epitome of this paradigm. Put in simple terms, the process is “monkey SEE, monkey DO.” We think it “normal” to have a personal instructor for artistic endeavors (like drawing, music, CHESS), which mirrors the recommendation of chess tutors who write instructional chess books, but we often (for a variety of reasons, often financial) don’t follow their recommendation. Kids eat this kind of instruction up! Adults, on the other hand, often prefer to read books or have someone else crank open their minds and pour in the knowledge with little effort other than “regurgitate and graduate.” That’s why adults overwhelmingly prefer books as the means of acquiring chess skill, whereas kids prefer doing, i.e., playing chess rather than reading abut chess. But skill comes from DOING, not from memorizing/remembering. Remember that the objective is KNOW HOW, not “KNOW THAT”!
There is an excellent description of the Two modes of information processing [pp. 36-37] in Dr. Edwards’ book. For those without the book [I highly recommend getting a copy if this topic interests you!], here it is (it’s relatively short):
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteAs our hemispheres gather in the same sensory information, the task may be shared [by the two modes], each handling the part suited to its style. Or one hemisphere, often the dominant left, can “take over” and inhibit the other half. Remember, language dominates! The left hemisphere verbalizes, analyzes, abstracts, counts, marks time, plans step-by-step procedures, makes rational statements based on logic, and looks to past experience to approach a new problem. Here is an example of an L-mode statement: “Given numbers a, b and c, we can say that if a is greater than b, and b is greater than c, then a is necessarily greater than c.” This statement illustrates the mode: it is verbal, analytic, propositional, sequential, symbolic, linear, objective, and provably true. But, we must remember, L-mode can also spin an untrue story to “explain away” a problem situation.
On the other hand, we have a second way of knowing: the right-hemisphere mode. In this mode, we can “SEE” things in the mind’s eye. [Emphasis added.] In the example given just above, did you perhaps visualize the “a, b, c” relationship? If so, that would be an example of the hemispheres agreeing and cooperating in understanding the statement.
In visual R-mode, we “SEE” how things exist in space and how parts go together to make up a whole. Using the right hemisphere, we use metaphors and mage solutions, and create new combinations of ideas and novel ways to approach problems. Sometimes our visual mode may SEE things that the L-mode can’t or won’t see, especially contradictory or ambiguous information. The right hemisphere tends to confront what is “really out there.” And there are times when language can be inadequate. When something is too complex to describe in word, we make gestures to communicate meaning. Psychologist David Galin has a favorite example: try to describe spiral staircase without making a spiral gesture.
This, then, is the right hemisphere mode: the intuitive, subjective, relational, holistic, time-free, reality-seeing mode. This is also the disdained, disparaged, left-handed mode that in our culture has been generally ignored and virtually neglected by our educational system. Neurobiologist Jerre Levy, who contributed greatly to Roger Sperry’s original work, said only half-jokingly at the time of Sperry’s studies that she thought “American education up through graduate school probably ablated the right hemisphere.” [Ablated: to have surgically removed diseased or unwanted tissue from the body.]
End of excerpt.
My hypothesis is that the educational system is unwittingly responsible for erasing (or at least diminishing) the mechanism for adults to duplicate the “trick” of the child prodigies in learning to play chess skillfully. Recall that Capablanca learned how to play chess solely from watching adults play, without any L-mode instruction and became a master as a child. Just think of how great he might have become if he had waited for the educational system to “teach” him the approved methods of play!! [Sarcasm OFF]
There are two areas of improvement. The first is logic. I clearly see the path forward there. And it will get me many, many points. But mere observation of my own games and that of others tells me that the second area might even be of much more importance. And that is the part that might be mastered by copying.
ReplyDeleteI remember a story of Kasparov as a kid where he learned how to play by copying his father. He solved a problem in the newspaper that his parents couldn't solve. Which made his father say, he already learned the end of the game. We might as well learn him the beginning.
I asked ChatGPT in what areas there are child prodigies. It are areas where copying indeed could play a role.
Today I saw a child prodigy in music playing fantastic piano. He played only for 3 months. He told that he had just copied his mother and father playing piano.