What makes you think they feel comforted, and not that they’re acting comforted so they don’t have to take on the burden of this whole thread? When I’m going through a thing and somebody says something rude to me because they think it’s what I want to hear, I’m likely to just go along with it in the moment because I don’t want to deal with the alternative.
Yeah, to find others with the same or similar experiences. Not to find people who can make analogies. Finding ways to empathize is great, but insisting that two different experiences are equal to each other is silly at best and harmful at worst.
Edit: sorry if this came off as particularly nasty. It’s just I’m sure I don’t speak for only myself when I say I’m quite fed up with this thread. Muting now to avoid the temptation to fan the flames further
If there was an extra heart for the database reference I would have given it
You are making a good point, I tried it with the details to actually make the points more understood, but it didn’t work, so since this did get waaaay too far in my regard here is the sum of the things I understand as possibly good ideas. This time in bullet points:
Take advantage of the internet. Cultivate a love of the game first, take advantage of the old idea of unity via common activity (e.g. Olympic Games ideals)
Trying to promote Go in the “west” is hard. It is obvious that adding an extra objective adds extra complexity. What I have found that is the easiest and most effective way to approach such issues is to always start thinking about any solution to any problem from the things you know and the parts of the problems you already understand. If you think that a different algorithm is better, that is fine.
A basic understanding of the human nature and the problems and distractions all kids face while growing up is going to be all-important. Special consideration needs to be given to the modern culture of “expendability” which is especially harmful to a game that needs a lot of effort like Go. Board games already attract specific groups of people. Investigate if cultural/social/family issues impose additional barriers for women to belong to such specific categories/groups from an early age. The parents are usually the key. Depending on the findings take appropriate measures to improve the issue.
Let’s see if this “clinical”/sanitized kind of way works better.
I am happy you brought this up, it gives me the opportunity to clarify that the above suggestions are not aimed towards women in particular, but towards the organisers/servers/clubs/associations in general.
It is obvious that I am talking about a plan of improvement on a grand scale which needs to be drawn and implemented for the future improvement of the game in the western countries, which obviously does not befall on any individual, but the way this topic has gone it is a good idea to be very clear on that.
Large scale problems require large scale planning and large scale implementations.
I suggest you explore the idea of differentiating between the “this happened to me, it is not so bad” (which indeed rarely works) with the “this happened to me, I understand what is going on and empathise” (which is usually a good idea).
I do not “think”. I know that.
How?
Feedback.
Sounds like a very weird idea to me.
One basic thing here:
I never even insinuated (let alone “insisted” ) that “two different experiences are equal to each other”.
Similar is not equal.
No worries. Written word is bereft of facial expressions and immediate elaborations, so it usually leads to some misunderstandings.
Yes, ignore the 10 posts that I specifically explained that idea, with context, and quibble over one word. Because that has been productive so far, eh?
Let’s quibble then:
In maths I’ve heard teachers say that “one plus one equals two”, but no teacher ever said “one plus one is the same as two”. I wonder why? Maybe because those words are different?
“Same” means that two things are of similar relative quality and is subjective.
“Equal” means that two things are of the exact absolute value and is objective.
E.g.
An orange and a tangerine have the SAMEcolour ( meaning that it is very similar, but noone put them on an RGB chart, eh? )
An orange and a tangering have EQUALcost per kilo ( meaning that it is the EXACT price in money ).
Same in real life is used in a non-measured subjective manner (You must have heard of expressions like: people of same height, of same weight, things of same size - noone measures those, they just use the expression to indicate something similar). Equal in real life is used for things that are measured or are objectively and precisely equivalent. Best example? Every price tag in a supermarket. The cost is equal to a specific price. Noone ever uses the phrase “the same as” in pricetags, do they?
I wonder why? Maybe because those words are different?
I sincerely find very interesting how I have explained somethings over and over again, wrote at least five times that a forum post is rarely an exact thing and is usually open to misunderstandings and that we should always be open for clarifications and still some people insist on ignoring full sentences and focus on individual over-analysing of words.
Really, you were so dissatisfied with the “Similar is not equal” clarification and you felt the need to go back and check all the words one by one?
It is fine by me, by all means keep fine-combing if this is fun for you, but it is a bit counter-productive for this topic. It would have been great for “the language learner’s library”
Ah, ignoring the point and tossing snide remarks. Very productive
I understand your point, but let us not pretend that we went to those extremes on any case or example here.
Since Martin re-quoted it, the example of someone being told that they cannot be a dancer because of their body type, with the example of someone being told they they cannot be a goalkeeper because of their body type, is nowhere near as outlandishly different as Jeff and his “tax woes”.
Those two are similar situations (obviously not equal because we are talking about different people in different social contexts, but who knew that this was not self-evident? Well, we do know that now ) and for similar reasons.
Is it really so illogical for people to use similar experiences to understand how other people feel?
I do not think so. Other people do. I fail to understand what is the problem though.
Is it really all important how we perceive a notion in our second language?
I do not think so. Other people do. Again I fail to understand what is the problem.
Having different opinions is part of life, after all, and a discussion is the way to explore those differences, not crusade to flatten them.
At least that is what I think. Other people don’t. And that’s fine. I do not see a problem with that.
My point was that when a privileged says to the unprivileged that he has analogue problems, then the unprivileged is angry. Their problems don’t have the same order of magnitude.
Jeth Bezos is just a Greek millionaire, he is not as rich as his American cousin Jeff, but his money problems are far smaller than those of the poor man. So Jeth Bezos should avoid talking about his money problems to the poor man.
JethOrensin is sometimes judged on his physical apperance, for instance when he wants to practice certain physical activities. On the other hand, women are judged on their physical appearance all the time. This is not the same order of magnitude.
A woman who is 5kg overweight may start to worry about her weight and to consider watching her diet. A man generally doesn’t care.
A woman who has a few wrinkles may want to use creams/botox/makeup. A man generally doesn’t care.
A woman who has a few white hairs may consider to dye her hair. A man generally doesn’t care.
A woman may be harassed because of her clothing. A man can wear almost anything.
Note: I am not saying the above is true for every woman or every man, just saying that mens’ problems concerning their physical apperance are generally milder.
Wow, how determined must you be to refuse admitting your mistake to start arguing that ‘same’ and ‘equal’ are not synonymous. I’m a bit baffled.
Mathematically speaking, I have absolutely no problems with “1+1 is the same as 2”. I believe you’re just wrong about ‘same’ meaning ‘similar’. In some instances ‘same’ and ‘equal’ aren’t interchangeable for grammatical reasons, but semantically these words are synonyms.
But it’s silly, I share Martin’s point of view, it’s no use trying to convince someone who can’t consider the option of being wrong.
I see your point and this seems to be our main difference on exactly that. Magnitude.
I will agree that there is some difference, but not to that extra-ordinary magnitude you mention.
For the following reasons: a) The appearance of every person is very important in school, church, work, in transit, on a night out, everywhere. Let’s not forget that for the vast majority of the people we meet, the first impression is usually our last (because we do not meet most people more than once) and if you are not attractive you will see more people for the last time than most b) Such a vast difference is not supported by data. Men do not care about their appearance? Since when? Let’s only take the simple thing, clothes:
Women seem to spend more. Around 40% more. Even taking into account the possibility of difference costs in the two industries, I will agree that the numbers say that there is a discrepancy, but not on the level of “poor and billionaire” …
And then it is the gyms:
I quote: “One might assume that majority of gym members are male; however, statistics show this is no longer the case. More than half—50.5%—of gym-goers are now female (IHRSA, 2020).”
So, it is fifty fifty there … hmm, so, no difference there?
Anyway, the overall difference seems to be very far from the magnitude you described.
There are multi-billion industries that live off the natural urge for people to be attractive (not to mention the billions spent into marketing to inflate that natural urge ), especially to the opposite sex/gender they wish to attract.
It is definitely not a one-sided effort.
It is not a matter of determination. Just not the same words, sorry.
That’s why we have two of them.
Great choice of words there.
You might be surprised, but that might also apply to you as well.
The difference is, I am not trying to convince anyone. Never tried it in 20 years of foruming and I am not about to start now.
I’ve said it before and you can “hunt” for that as well … a discussion is useful to explore other points of view and re-consider your opinions according to the new data you get. It is not there to “convince” other people.
The way I see it, everyone is holding a piece of the valuable and complex puzzle of truth.
Arguing is not a tool for convincing and thus losing that piece. It is a tool for finding what other people think and seeing that puzzle piece.
Don’t believe me? Well, I’ve got the receipts for that with “the Relative and the Absolute”, since you like digging in the past:
Even in my wildest dreams I cannot write as profound texts as Papanoutsos, so I suggest you give it a try. It is one of the best texts ever writen imho.
As far as I am concerned I have read in this topic dozens of new ideas and points of views and I find all of them quite fascinating and I want to thank everyone that gave their time to present their valuable opinions.
For me it was a very useful topic. I hope other people will find use in the new/different data and new/different ideas presented.
Sure, the difference is not as big as millionaire/poor, I made a comparison to make you understand the feeling of people when you compare their problems with your “rich man’s problems”.
And when you compare how much men and women care about their appearance, don’t forget the cosmetic industry, plastic surgery, the hairdresser’s, time spent each day to take care of your appearance,…
Also compare the number of explicit remarks that men and women get about their physical appearance.
And don’t forget to take into account that obese women face more job discrimination than obese men.
I don’t want to continue, this is way off-topic here. There is no point arguing anyway, it’s not about being right or wrong. If people don’t like their problems to be compared to yours, you can’t argue about that, a feeling is a feeling, it is not “right” or “wrong”.
Hello. We are making our first and only post in these forums.
We found this thread linked elsewhere and we have read through a number of posts. While some of them are kind and insightful, it is impossible to miss the absurd number of sexist and misogynistic posts from a great deal of people. We are disappointed in these people, who fail to realise that the only way to fix discrimination is to listen to the voices of those who feel discriminated.
Reading through this thread cements our belief that interacting with the go community at large is dangerous for us, as a woman. This thread demonstrates that it isn’t safe to be a woman who plays go, and we hope that all the people complaining there aren’t enough players game will eventually figure out why it’s happening.
I’m just following this thread like a melodrama and I wasn’t going to post anything but I feel like saying that playing go and engaging with the go community are 2 separate things. You can be playing go for 15 years and have reached pro level without having talked to a single other go player in that period. I don’t see a reason to merge these two concepts into one. There are a ton of people who do one and not the other.
Well it is not on the very very first minutes, but she is recounting her tale of how she ended up playing poker in gamblers dens and various other places.
Gambler’s dens, arguably far more sinister and dangerous places than the average Go club.
Apart from that it is an overall a very inspiring interview with many examples and outlooks of life on how to face adversity, being different, being a geek, engaging in activities that are not socially acceptable for you, sticking with your hobby even if you lose money and persevere and become the first player to win two European Poker Tour Main Events ( do note here that there is no such thing as “women’s poker”. Everyone plays on equal grounds on the same tables. So when we say the “first player” it means the first human being that managed it).
She even has a lot to say about outlooks on life and how things should or should not be taken seriously and she is a bright example on succeeding on the goals that were set here.
How are all that not relevant?
Please stick with it until a bit past the middle. Most of them are up till there, but it is worth listening to its entirety and I think that you will find it useful. Personally I found it very inspiring, thought-provoking and interesting indeed.
P.S.
Poker not having “women’s tournaments” seems to be leaps and bounds in front of most other similar games (Chess and Go included) in terms of inclusivity. Not treating people different and not categorising/seperating them by sex is the goal, isn’t that right?
) that “two different experiences are equal to each other”.
