I’m not exactly sure what your worry is, but just set your expectations reasonable. It’s not your goal to teach them to play close to your level. Just explain the rules, start with capture go, and then let them have fun.
Like jlt said, you probably only get to explaining capture go, and perhaps continue to playing a full game with scoring territory once or twice.
If you blunder, they won’t know, and if you lose, they won’t mind. Maybe if you think this undermines your authority, you can point out that 9x9 is actually just as difficult as the big board in a different way, it’s just faster so that’s why it’s better to learn on. Have fun!
Question: Do we actually forget things from a first-person perspective?
If you forget things, it means that you remember that there is something that you should remember but you can’t recall it at the moment, so it’s not really forgetting. If you can’t remember it at all, then there’s nothing for you to forget because you won’t even know that you forgot it. So the idea of forgetting things, or at least forgetting things completely from a first-person perspective, doesn’t exist.
Generally when you forget something and someone shows it to you again, it seems familiar. I know a woman who is affected by Alzheimer’s disease, she doesn’t recognize her son but she is apparently aware that the man in front of her is someone that she likes.
I think yes, we do forget things from first-person perspective.
Disclaimer: IMO, IMHO, JM2C etc.
The feeling of “There’s something there” gives the feeling that if you give it some time, maybe a day or two, you will recall it again. But perhaps that moment of remembering never comes. Just because you ]\remember adjacent subjects, it doesn’t mean the core memory you can’t recall isn’t completely forgotten.
Example: I remember knowing how to solve all sorts of differential equations. I am also reasonably certain that no amount of time waiting will bring those memories back. Perhaps at best the general idea, but not all the nuances I know I once knew.
Example2: There was this one joke that a friend told me and we died laughing, like we cried for 20 minutes straight. Best joke we’ve ever heard. Years later we both tried to remember what the joke itself was, and - I’m still sad about this - we both just don’t know anymore.
Until you find a picture of you at an event that you completely can’t remember. Even if you don’t recall the slightest thing, you now have proof that you forgot.
I think what you described is how we forget things partially. Actually what I meant was that we do not forget something completely.
In this example, you forgot the joke’s content, but you still remember that there was this joke you laughed at, so you are only partially forgetting it. However, if you forget that such a joke existed in the first place, it’s completely out of your mind already. And if it is out of your mind, you won’t even know that you forgot it, hence the idea of forgetting it doesn’t exist.
I see your nuance and I agree with the partial forgetting, but…
This doesn’t feel right. I’ll try to reason why.
It is impossible to forget that you exist, and have existed for years. If you are an adult you’ve lived at least 5000 days. Yet you know you can’t recall conversations from most days, or if you wore socks, and if so, what color they were. And you know you probably had food each day. So you don’t exactly know what you forgot, but you do know that there are things you forgot.
In other words: because you can’t forget that you have existed for many days, you know that there must have been memories for each of those days, so every forgotten day counts as a partial forgetting, not a full forgetting.
I voted “complicated” because while it’s clear to me that we should tolerate other people’s ideas and that hate speech should be prohibited, what commonly happens is that when two ideologies A and B are opposite, people from each side accuse each other of being hateful and intolerant. These accusations may be true in some cases, but can also be a tactic, trying to win the ideological war.
Regardless on one’s view on this “paradox”, I don’t see how this fixes everything. It just moves the question to determining the “terms of the contract” that would allegedly be breached, which requires to define “tolerance” and brings back the same complexity.
Me neither… I have already written an extensive response on this issue in the place I found it (but I will not bore you with it) and, as far as I am concerned, the addition of the “rhetoric teacher” part actually detracts from whatever meaning the main image has.
@JohnnieDarko
I followed your advice and went for the game first. It was very interesting indeed
The only “issue” I had was calling the “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” kind of guy a “grudger”
I understand that mathematically they do not win in the game but, as evidenced by the longevity of the credo, it does give good practical results.
Honestly, being bad at 9x9 might help. I mean, crushing them right away might discourage them, but struggling alongside them makes it fun and approachable! Just focus on making the experience enjoyable rather than a masterclass, and they’ll have a good time.
What is “financial success in life”?
Of course it is a question that depends on the place and age of the individual, but what would you say that is the lowest bar for it at middle age - since this is the age of people I had this discussion with today.
The suppositions are:
You are in good health.
Having family or not is not part of the question (if you have family or not, you still need to have all these to be “financially successful”, but it would take more money since you’d need a bigger house, bigger car etc)
Having no debt goes without saying since “financial success” and debt are incompatible. We can assume that if your debt is being paid on time and you borrowed money to buy a house, you can say that you can tick the “you have a house” box, even though you are in some debt. So, you can say that debt that is not-financially-useful (e.g. credit cards) or not actively paid on time is what is out of the question.
(edit) “Savings” in the poll options are defined as having at least (or more than) “the money you’d need to survive for a year, if you lost your job/income”.
And the question is: How would you define the lowest point of entry for having achieved “financial success”, at middle age? (let’s define middle age between 35-40)
Having a stable job.
Having a stable job and savings.
Having a stable job, savings and a car.
Having a stable job, savings, a car and a house.
Having a stable job, savings, a car, a house and investments.
Having a stable job, savings, a car, a house, investments and real estate that generates income.
A different combination of the above or something different in general (please specify)
0voters
All the choices where mentioned in the discussion I had today.
I was between option 1 and 2, but eventually argued in favour of 2. If you have no debt, a stable job and some savings, I’d say that this is “good enough” to be deemed as financially successful at middle age. Certainly the more you have the better, but we are looking for the “lowest point of entry” here and that’s where I set the bar.
Apparently the other dudes didn’t think so and seemed quite keen/focused/stressed on some “lofty goals of success” and put the bar very high, which is why I am making this poll to get a wider, more multinational view.
