> Conciseness and Comprehensiveness: This combination requires dense language that can be overwhelming and hard to follow, leading to loss of audience engagement. A good example of this is with the field of Philosophy – some philosophers can pack a lot of information into a short paragraph, but it is often very difficult to understand exactly what is being said. You lack clarity.
Well said. I agree with this note, Suggestion: maybe refer to it early (the section), from the top of the article, as it is part of your preliminary presentation thinking context, that you chose a presentation strategy, yet asking people to read that first as stream of reading obligation, might have been too much preliminary, to keep attention going, given the core of your critique intent.
But a within a text ref., it might allow less expedite response as the second post. One can't fit everything into concise slogans. Jokes maybe or mysterious wisdom, but they would need some follow up. Would they not?
I am not sure about the other items though: sometimes, rephrasing might help a wider audience with different slants, even yourself while writing, examine a proposition from more than one angle. It might depend on the truth premise and how much the writer is inviting the audience to join in the pursuit of a possible slippery exact statement pinning the thoughts that might not have words yet.
It might be my misreading. And the culture habit of a unidirectional flow of communication, from the authority flair (left of username). I come from sciences where we all start from accepting we might not know everything, and that we need to make explicit arguments before convincing each other. The critique intent, might have me slipping into that expectation.
Edit: darn my attention span.. you prefer that too.... I am sorry to be reading in some unpredictable order. I agree you had lots to deliver..
I think the analogy with football is completely pointless because football is physical sport. That's why the descreptive approach isn't helpful to someone aspiring to become a better player. If you removed the physical aspect, let's say if you are a football coach aspiring to improve, then the descriptive approach becomes useful. Not to describe one individual play, but to describe a team's positioning on the pitch, just a chess player studying how to position their pieces on the board.
Axiom is also the last remaining Siberian Chess Tiger.
@lhb1313 said in #12:
> I think the analogy with football is completely pointless because football is physical sport. That's why the descreptive approach isn't helpful to someone aspiring to become a better player. If you removed the physical aspect, let's say if you are a football coach aspiring to improve, then the descriptive approach becomes useful. Not to describe one individual play, but to describe a team's positioning on the pitch, just a chess player studying how to position their pieces on the board.
So you're saying that if something is non-physical, then descriptive approaches will necessarily be useful? Can you elaborate on why we should make such an assumption?
Also, the analogy with football was only meant to be in the context of a single individual and their abilities. Obviously, once you start to consider the team aspect of the game, and the need for a coach to manage the multiple individuals of that team, then we have already far departed from any analogy to chess. In other words, you cannot simply 'remove the physical aspect', since then we are not talking about a footballer at all - rather, we are talking about a completely different role (coach) which I didn't mention or use in my original analogy.
I also believe there may have been a misunderstanding of the main point of the comparison - and potentially the entire article. The purpose was not immediately to critique the descriptive approach (I will do that later, mostly in part 4). Instead, it was to clarify what the descriptive approach entails. The football analogy was intended as a straightforward example to illustrate the difference between descriptive and practical aspects. Given this context, I'm unsure exactly what you're arguing against.
AX EYE OM
:)
It might be the nature of the art, not the physicality that is the weakness of the physical sport analogy in question. That there is no need to learn about where the ball to kick is, and possibly the positions of all other players, if not a goal prowess. The perception task difficulty, I mean. About what to move. or even where it would work. we all even non players can undersand the networks of passes and notoins of spaces and angles not covered.
That the kicker expertise, does not need language to be manifested and executed with success, is not an argument againt teaching from that expert to a non-expert, with the help of some language, or would it be complete imitation learning teaching? going through all the possible ways the learner might not be really imitiating perfectly?
no team sport there yet. (maybe the other player positoin, might be about this if the prowess was not only a goal).
my concern is that the perception of what matters in the visual sensory input, in the sport is not needing any training. or not part of what makes the player expertise I would think. . I might be wrong. though. but I am saying that the language might not have construction difficulty there..
compared to chess. which has a lot of crowded information to figure out over long duration of learning (more than one day, obviously), to extirpate useful mind focus as either internal pattern or shareable worded ones.
But yes, if only wanting to make the notion of descriptive not being what the expert is using. but what teachiers or coaches might be using on someone not an expert yet.. Well that works. If it not meant to say chess is the same disconnect as it would be there, was it.
now, you needed more arguments for that aspect (I am not yet htere. will take time).. so you are going full dissection and I understand and suport you going so methodically. and responding also as above. I look forward my own further reading. I have other things equally interesting already in motion. . but I will come back.
@RoySturgess said in #15:
> AX EYE OM
> :)
Everyone please ignore the comments of the legendary Roy. He is known to become aggressive when the topic of conversation is not the WingDing.
All that was a bunch of text and said something or not; it was somehow related to chess, I suppose.
@DailyInsanity said in #17:
> Everyone please ignore the comments of the legendary Roy. He is known to become aggressive when the topic of conversation is not the WingDing.
HOW DARE YOU!
@Swarm_of_NPCs said in #18:
> All that was a bunch of text and said something or not; it was somehow related to chess, I suppose.
Thank You