|
|
|
On March 03 2016 06:13 ShoCkSC2 wrote:
The idea of simplify - as it's name already describes - is to narrow down information to it's core, thus providing only what truely matters of any given topic. I plan to make an effort on keeping the videos as short and comprehensible as possible.
I'm not quite sure how to phrase this nicely, but I'm not exactly sure if you want to mock me, or really think you brought across any kind of message in this artful video of yours. Take the "statement" I just quoted. I expected a video about simplifying techniques, not that I was expecting much, but I wasn't prepared for a different kind of South Park's
1) Collect Underpants
2) ???
3) Profit
Really. You tell me to set a goal, then make it complicated, then tell me I just used divide et impera despite doing just the opposite. Stopped the video after three minutes or something.
And that is just the biggest mistake, there was plenty of more misleading stuff in there.
|
Really. You tell me to set a goal, then make it complicated, then tell me I just used divide et impera despite doing just the opposite. Stopped the video after three minutes or something.
And that is just the biggest mistake, there was plenty of more misleading stuff in there.
The "goal" is what you want to achieve, not what we "make complicated". Our goal is important so that we can identify what we need, to get there.
For example, if your goal is to get into the top 1% of an activity or niche, there is many skills that you need to master which you do not need in just the top 50% (eg. advanced mental aspects).
What you are saying "making it more complicated" is actually the exact opposite of what we are doing: We identify the small pieces that together build the big picuture. Maybe this seems like "making it more complex" for you - but what it is is simply a deeper analysis of a skill. Sort of as in "stepping in and looking whats underneath it" 
greetings
Niklas
|
France13018 Posts
On March 03 2016 07:19 ShoCkSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +
Really. You tell me to set a goal, then make it complicated, then tell me I just used divide et impera despite doing just the opposite. Stopped the video after three minutes or something.
And that is just the biggest mistake, there was plenty of more misleading stuff in there.
The "goal" is what you want to achieve, not what we "make complicated". Our goal is important so that we can identify what we need, to get there. For example, if your goal is to get into the top 1% of an activity or niche, there is many skills that you need to master which you do not need in just the top 50% (eg. advanced mental aspects). What you are saying "making it more complicated" is actually the exact opposite of what we are doing: We identify the small pieces that together build the big picuture. Maybe this seems like "making it more complex" for you - but what it is is simply a deeper analysis of a skill. Sort of as in "stepping in and looking whats underneath it" greetings Niklas
In order to get to the top 1% you just need time
|
On March 03 2016 07:19 ShoCkSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +
Really. You tell me to set a goal, then make it complicated, then tell me I just used divide et impera despite doing just the opposite. Stopped the video after three minutes or something.
And that is just the biggest mistake, there was plenty of more misleading stuff in there.
The "goal" is what you want to achieve, not what we "make complicated". Our goal is important so that we can identify what we need, to get there. For example, if your goal is to get into the top 1% of an activity or niche, there is many skills that you need to master which you do not need in just the top 50% (eg. advanced mental aspects). What you are saying "making it more complicated" is actually the exact opposite of what we are doing: We identify the small pieces that together build the big picuture. Maybe this seems like "making it more complex" for you - but what it is is simply a deeper analysis of a skill. Sort of as in "stepping in and looking whats underneath it" greetings Niklas
by definition increasing complexity is not simplification but the opposite. ttrust me, telling any kind of beginner to train /learn / understand all potential aspects of a given subject he/she/it has no clue about yet is the worst possible idea; even assuming any of them could identify the key aspects seems naive.
maybe you should invest more time in researching topics rather than paraphrasing semi-authentic guidelines you found on the net or in kitchen psychology pamphlets.
|
On March 03 2016 07:50 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 07:19 ShoCkSC2 wrote:
Really. You tell me to set a goal, then make it complicated, then tell me I just used divide et impera despite doing just the opposite. Stopped the video after three minutes or something.
And that is just the biggest mistake, there was plenty of more misleading stuff in there.
The "goal" is what you want to achieve, not what we "make complicated". Our goal is important so that we can identify what we need, to get there. For example, if your goal is to get into the top 1% of an activity or niche, there is many skills that you need to master which you do not need in just the top 50% (eg. advanced mental aspects). What you are saying "making it more complicated" is actually the exact opposite of what we are doing: We identify the small pieces that together build the big picuture. Maybe this seems like "making it more complex" for you - but what it is is simply a deeper analysis of a skill. Sort of as in "stepping in and looking whats underneath it" greetings Niklas In order to get to the top 1% you just need time
No, time spent by itself isn't what separates the most capable at anything. It's more than possible to spend a lot of time at something and get almost nowhere.
|
by definition increasing complexity is not simplification but the opposite. ttrust me, telling any kind of beginner to train /learn / understand all potential aspects of a given subject he/she/it has no clue about yet is the worst possible idea; even assuming any of them could identify the key aspects seems naive.
maybe you should invest more time in researching topics rather than paraphrasing semi-authentic guidelines you found on the net or in kitchen psychology pamphlets.
It seems like you are unable to connect with me here.
"by definition increasing complexity is not simplification but the opposit" - as I have said, in my previous post "it is actually the opposit that we are doing". We make it simpler, by looking at individual parts. Did you even read what I responded?
"Telling any kind of beginner to train/learn/understand all potential aspects of a subject is the worst possible idea":
Learning is and will always be a forthgoing process. As stated in the end of the video (which by the way, you would know if you watched it before making your arguments  ) "it demands constant enhancement, adjustment and evaluation". That being said, it should be clear that one is not supposed to be able to list "all skills" of a given subject right of the bat, but rather by starting small and growing your skill-tree. The process I am presenting is iterative.
On top of that, the theory behind it is nothing new. It's what thousands of successful person have been doing for centuries. Quite frankly, this is the topic of each and every self-help book you find on the topic. I have studied this topic for years and I personally so far had great success with it.
Also, I can not see what your accusation that this is "bullshit" is based upon. You are not arguing with facts, but simply throwing around words. Do you actually deny that a human being is less capable of learning something by deliberately placing its focus on only that very thing? Because if you don't, then you obviously did not understand the context of this video. Because that is exactly, what we are doing here. Break the big image apart, take the small piece, focus ONLY on that, then go over to the next, and put it all back together.
A simple example for this can be as easy as learning to "watch the minimap" by getting into a Custom-Game without Ai, when we are trying to improve our map-awareness in StarCraft.
Alright then.
Before you make your next reply: I would appreciate it if you were able to be a bit more respectful. You don't have to call me naive to make your point, and neither do you have to accuse me of being out for your money. I have been doing hundreds of StarCraft videoguides and I have not earned a single penny for it. Why?
Because I am passionate about it. So unless you are able to maintain a healthy, constructive discussion, please avoid this blog.
Niklas
|
that was really confusing... like i get the idea (i think): have a big goal --> break it into smaller goals/skills needed --> break those into even smaller skills-needed --> work on these small skills individually --> put them together. but you explained it all in a super convoluted way. i'm not saying your method or ideas are wrong, but i'd work on the clarity of your presentation.
|
Thanks theGloob for your input. I guess the next time I will present a "step by step" it might be best to so sort of an explanation of the upcoming steps and why they are there and what for - before we enter each of the steps too deeply.
Thank you for communicating this, it's difficult for me to take the perspective of someone unfamiliar with this.
I will take a note for the next one,
Niklas
|
Maybe you should try to break down your video in more simple ones :D
Really though, this is supposed to be an introduction, I feel you could cut down half the time, some content (like the skilltree, save it for a later video where you can go into deeper details), and have more people getting your point in the end. So, pretty much what theGloob said. You probably heard of the KISS principle in all your research, well, do that.
Also, your sound isn't very clear either. As a non native english speaker, it makes it hard to get you sometimes. The echo kinda muffles your voice.
|
This video was a huge step up from your previous videos. Good one. I really like how you're not letting other people drag you down!
Audio could really need some work though.
Possible solutions:
1) Have a microphone as close to you as possible, like right outside the camera's view. Aim the mic at your mouth, speak directly into it.
2) There's some great post-processing tools for removing reverb. Hope you don't mind I uploaded a short sample on SoundCloud.
Before & after:
https://soundcloud.com/user-488450953/de-reverberation
You should probably lean towards solution 1), but some post-processing can be the icing on the cake, especially if your source material is already half-decent.
|
Thanks so much for your input beg, and thank you too Cynry!
I worked a bit on the sound, still not 100% content but we're getting there!
Also, thanks for going through the trouble of making a sample for me, I see what you mean with the reverb
greetings niklas
|
On March 03 2016 09:49 ShoCkSC2 wrote:
A simple example for this can be as easy as learning to "watch the minimap" by getting into a Custom-Game without Ai, when we are trying to improve our map-awareness in StarCraft.
So, let's get some facts then. It appears you think divide & conquer is something you can easily apply on any problem out there and it will always yield some result. It won't. Divide and conquer is a very abstract way to solve a given problem. You would divide problems in smaller parts and solve them one by one, with the goal being to achieve something that seemed harder to start out with. In this context your video appears to make a point, but it doesn't, or at least it won't in reality.
You can divide and conquer a very specific goal, e.g. optimizing a given process - learning for school, building a machine, or planning a larger project. It is your goal to create routines or to solve a unique problem, when there are no other instructions at hand.
If there are, you do not need to use divide and conquer. You make it sound as if an outsider can understand material on his own; obviously he can.
But a beginner, a total scrub, needs to learn the basics. Take chess for an example. A beginner needs to know the basic mate sequences and the rule "move a new piece every turn in your first moves". That's all. No divide and conquer needed, two aspects to focus on for his next thousand of games.
Your tutorial makes it sound as if a beginner needs to learn the fifty main variations for king and queen pawn openings before even trying the game for the first time. Truth is, you don't. If a beginner did, he'd soon find out he has no clue what to do, because his opponent plays some wacko shit like h4.
Now you might argue there are top players how train a single aspect of their game, their skill or whatever. True enough. But that's not divide and conquer, that's just training. It's not breaking down one big problem in smaller parts, it's optimizing an existing routine by building up muscle memory.
|
We are talking about mastery, not taking the first step towards learning. Though even at the beggining, you can start out by figuring out some basic skills, then placing your focus on each individually rather than grinding out your activity trying to do everything at once.
And yes, it is divide and conquer in a sense. They might not sit there, actively thinking about "the big picture" and its smaller pieces, but thats basically what they are doing on a subconcious level - its a methaphor. Working on different strategies, working on their mental game, ...all subparts of what the entirety of the skill represents
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
