BurnedOut
Your friendly neighborhood asshole
What is it about intuition that makes it so pervasive? After a half a decade of programming and playing chess, I have realized that intuition does not always pan out even in fields wherein you are highly experienced.
So I was once a gymnast. From a quite a young age. You'd imagine intuition being my go-to while performing the difficult elements which could probably maim you for life. However, I realized that it is also what held me back from learning more extreme stuff. The truth is, I learned more out of trial and error than anticipation. My medals and a few trophies would boast otherwise but it's not that difficult. Once you are flipping in the air, there's not much time to think at all. You'd fall or land depending on how well your take off for the element is and not how well you think when you are in the midst of it. It boils down to how well you have done your basics and trained your body.
Cut to chess. Here also intuition fucks up more often than not when you are not paying attarrives. This directly contradicts the concept that intuition arrives suddenly and consciously, hardly it ever does and more often than not it's inaccurate. Consider some other probabilities. Lonely streets are generally more dangerous. One might be compelled to not walk from there. However, night walkers would list out a number of lonely streets that are in fact safe on most parts. Reason why the former belief works is because it reduces even small probabilities of encountering a dangerous episode hence now converting intuition into something merely learned and triggering of negative memories and stimuli.
Coding. So many times I have felt like a genius and then like a buffoon. Sometimes it takes a long time. When you come back and look at your own code, it looks baffling. So many 'intuitions' simply gone wrong from time to time that felt amazingly effective. I was a long time fan of Perl, then ruby and finally settled on Python. At each point of liking these languages, I disliked the other two because of subjective reasons and objective reasons which only became clear after accidentally gaining exposure to the other. I could often get confused by own perl and ruby code but not so much by Python. I enjoyed thoroughly using the former 2 and made hundreds of scripts and minor projects but settled on Python despite it being more conservative with its syntax. That was more out of exposure and experience and less out of some guiding intuition. My problem does not lie with the language but the perceived usefulness and expressive ability or quality of being dynamically complex and simple. Now my latest pet project is R. More than half the internet hates it. It got on my nerves too as it was the only language that took quite some effort to learn. There was a system which was less arbritrary than that of Python but then Python also has many intuitive things for general purpose coding that are a little bit lacking in R. Does that make R superior to Python or vice versa? No. They just happened to have different local maximas and I just happened to use them both for their intended purposes more. What does 'intuitive' mean here? It does mean that it evokes some unconsciously intellectual god, it is just about anticipating how much effort it will take to accomplish.
Consider this now. I consider myself a person with preference for scientific reasoning. People might always confuse me for 'being' scientific when in reality I am not in many circumstances. Just because I am rational in 60% of the circumstances, it does not really make me a scientific person. I call myself open minded. But then I was closed minded too, maybe I still am. The point I am trying to make is that what we seem off is what we tend to believe rather than actually knowing who we are for quite a long time. I call one of my friends a drama Queen. But when I make the sample size of his interactions and mine a nonfactor, you will come to a conclusion that I am also a drama queen but with less sample size. However that will not prevent either me or him from thinking that he's more unstable than I am in our relationships. In fact a truly scientific attitude would manifest in something extremely different and quite understanbly very exhausting and more or less not viable. You'd be moved by both closed-minded attitudes and open minded ones and not just the former. You'd be much more likely to forgive people and punish rhem at similar frequencies if you were really objective. Here we are, just sitting with our likes and dislikes, guided less by any overarching gut feeling and more by experiences
So I was once a gymnast. From a quite a young age. You'd imagine intuition being my go-to while performing the difficult elements which could probably maim you for life. However, I realized that it is also what held me back from learning more extreme stuff. The truth is, I learned more out of trial and error than anticipation. My medals and a few trophies would boast otherwise but it's not that difficult. Once you are flipping in the air, there's not much time to think at all. You'd fall or land depending on how well your take off for the element is and not how well you think when you are in the midst of it. It boils down to how well you have done your basics and trained your body.
Cut to chess. Here also intuition fucks up more often than not when you are not paying attarrives. This directly contradicts the concept that intuition arrives suddenly and consciously, hardly it ever does and more often than not it's inaccurate. Consider some other probabilities. Lonely streets are generally more dangerous. One might be compelled to not walk from there. However, night walkers would list out a number of lonely streets that are in fact safe on most parts. Reason why the former belief works is because it reduces even small probabilities of encountering a dangerous episode hence now converting intuition into something merely learned and triggering of negative memories and stimuli.
Coding. So many times I have felt like a genius and then like a buffoon. Sometimes it takes a long time. When you come back and look at your own code, it looks baffling. So many 'intuitions' simply gone wrong from time to time that felt amazingly effective. I was a long time fan of Perl, then ruby and finally settled on Python. At each point of liking these languages, I disliked the other two because of subjective reasons and objective reasons which only became clear after accidentally gaining exposure to the other. I could often get confused by own perl and ruby code but not so much by Python. I enjoyed thoroughly using the former 2 and made hundreds of scripts and minor projects but settled on Python despite it being more conservative with its syntax. That was more out of exposure and experience and less out of some guiding intuition. My problem does not lie with the language but the perceived usefulness and expressive ability or quality of being dynamically complex and simple. Now my latest pet project is R. More than half the internet hates it. It got on my nerves too as it was the only language that took quite some effort to learn. There was a system which was less arbritrary than that of Python but then Python also has many intuitive things for general purpose coding that are a little bit lacking in R. Does that make R superior to Python or vice versa? No. They just happened to have different local maximas and I just happened to use them both for their intended purposes more. What does 'intuitive' mean here? It does mean that it evokes some unconsciously intellectual god, it is just about anticipating how much effort it will take to accomplish.
Consider this now. I consider myself a person with preference for scientific reasoning. People might always confuse me for 'being' scientific when in reality I am not in many circumstances. Just because I am rational in 60% of the circumstances, it does not really make me a scientific person. I call myself open minded. But then I was closed minded too, maybe I still am. The point I am trying to make is that what we seem off is what we tend to believe rather than actually knowing who we are for quite a long time. I call one of my friends a drama Queen. But when I make the sample size of his interactions and mine a nonfactor, you will come to a conclusion that I am also a drama queen but with less sample size. However that will not prevent either me or him from thinking that he's more unstable than I am in our relationships. In fact a truly scientific attitude would manifest in something extremely different and quite understanbly very exhausting and more or less not viable. You'd be moved by both closed-minded attitudes and open minded ones and not just the former. You'd be much more likely to forgive people and punish rhem at similar frequencies if you were really objective. Here we are, just sitting with our likes and dislikes, guided less by any overarching gut feeling and more by experiences
