Why i think we shouldn't say "You should be able to..."

[n0nco]

E.G. you're trying to get sub X using CFOP, you don't know full OLL, and someone says "You should be able to average sub X when you learn OLL, it for 1, gives them an idea of how useful something is, and for 2, gives them an expectation, which I believe could be pretty stressful if you don't get sub X and you start thinking its a problem with you, and that maybe you're just not good enough or just not cut out for cubing, so maybe we could try at the very least, saying that from my progression I was able to get sub X with full OLL, but I still think we should have a way to explain what's more important compared to other stuff, that's just my thoughts though.

 

[bldcuber314]

I mostly agree, but if somebody tells you that you should be able to average sub X by doing something and you weren't able, you shouldn't feel that you aren't good enough and quit cubing- you should see that it is a weakness and work to improve it. Everybody will have certain things they aren't good at, but that isn't a good reason to stop doing what they enjoy.

 

[JDAW6]

you SHOULD be able to , guys look words have meanings

 

[Bingus Ringus McDingus]

E.G. you're trying to get sub X using CFOP, you don't know full OLL, and someone says "You should be able to average sub X when you learn OLL, it for 1, gives them an idea of how useful something is, and for 2, gives them an expectation, which I believe could be pretty stressful if you don't get sub X and you start thinking its a problem with you, and that maybe you're just not good enough or just not cut out for cubing, so maybe we could try at the very least, saying that from my progression I was able to get sub X with full OLL, but I still think we should have a way to explain what's more important compared to other stuff, that's just my thoughts though.

This definitely speaks to me. I'm always frustrated that I'm seemingly stuck forever at the low-20s zone, but know a bunch of tricks. This definitely kills motivation and is what steers away a lot of beginner-intermediate level cubers (like sub-35 area) from continuing with improvement. I've been sitting on learning F2L last slot and OLL for ages, and I definitely feel like it's not a true depiction of speed. Practice, practice, practice, not fancy algs, will get you faster. (although fancy algs certainly help)

you SHOULD be able to , guys look words have meanings

Here we go again... I'll get the Spongebob ukulele music and the popcorn ready.

 

[Arcanist]

E.G. you're trying to get sub X using CFOP, you don't know full OLL, and someone says "You should be able to average sub X when you learn OLL, it for 1, gives them an idea of how useful something is, and for 2, gives them an expectation, which I believe could be pretty stressful if you don't get sub X and you start thinking its a problem with you, and that maybe you're just not good enough or just not cut out for cubing, so maybe we could try at the very least, saying that from my progression I was able to get sub X with full OLL, but I still think we should have a way to explain what's more important compared to other stuff, that's just my thoughts though.

I feel like you can learn something whenever you want to. I learned OLL at 22 seconds even if it wasn't the best decision. If you want to learn ZBLL or something at 30 seconds, as long as you enjoy it, go for it.

 

[randomness...]

I agree that "required" algsets shouldn't exist
(heck, I'm sub 15 with cfop and sub 20 with zz, and I don't know full OLL!)

 

[Clock_Enthusiast]

Definitely agree. There are more factors than simply knowing HOW to do something. Executing knowledge is a completely different thing. Everyone will have positives and challenges when learning new skills, and progress is never linear. I suppose one could reword this to "People are typically sub-X once mastering Y", but then again, there are always exceptions and no definitive barriers. I'm a weird case with Megaminx, for example. I'm not too great with 3x3 (I average around 17 with CFOP), but I've begun consistently averaging around 1:15 or lower on Megaminx with a 1:00 single. I've been told it doesn't really make sense, but Megaminx efficiency just clicks with me better I guess.

 

[Kami]

This definitely speaks to me. I'm always frustrated that I'm seemingly stuck forever at the low-20s zone, but know a bunch of tricks. This definitely kills motivation and is what steers away a lot of beginner-intermediate level cubers (like sub-35 area) from continuing with improvement. I've been sitting on learning F2L last slot and OLL for ages, and I definitely feel like it's not a true depiction of speed. Practice, practice, practice, not fancy algs, will get you faster. (although fancy algs certainly help)

Here we go again... I'll get the Spongebob ukulele music and the popcorn ready.

*opens obs*

 

[n0nco]

Definitely agree. There are more factors than simply knowing HOW to do something. Executing knowledge is a completely different thing. Everyone will have positives and challenges when learning new skills, and progress is never linear. I suppose one could reword this to "People are typically sub-X once mastering Y", but then again, there are always exceptions and no definitive barriers. I'm a weird case with Megaminx, for example. I'm not too great with 3x3 (I average around 17 with CFOP), but I've begun consistently averaging around 1:15 or lower on Megaminx with a 1:00 single. I've been told it doesn't really make sense, but Megaminx efficiency just clicks with me better I guess.

I like the idea but adding on to the "and you start thinking it's a problem with you, and that maybe you're just not good enough or just not cut out for cubing," I feel like saying people typically are sub X might feed into that, also I'd like to add that the "skill issue" (for a lack of a better word) bit was coming a bit from me.

 

[Clock_Enthusiast]

I like the idea but adding on to the "and you start thinking it's a problem with you, and that maybe you're just not good enough or just not cut out for cubing," I feel like saying people typically are sub X might feed into that, also I'd like to add that the "skill issue" (for a lack of a better word) bit was coming a bit from me.

I suppose there are some barriers that do require greater knowledge of certain concepts, though. For example, if you're trying to get sub-6 on 3x3, you'd more than likely be expected to know full OLL and PLL (if you're using CFOP).

 

[randomness...]

Here we go again... I'll get the Spongebob ukulele music and the popcorn ready.

oh no, there isn't enough already? i thought there was a lot?

 

[Timmah]

I come from the flipside of this thought. It shouldn't be what others think of us that kills our motivation. If we can't motivate ourselves to improve (AT ANYTHING IN LIFE) because someone says something we don't like, that isn't an issue with them. Its an issue with ourselves we need to deal with.

 

[Lord_Oscar]

you SHOULD be able to , guys look words have meanings

What works for you doesn’t mean it will work for someone else

 

[xyzzy]

you start thinking its a problem with you, and that maybe you're just not good enough or just not cut out for cubing

This is pretty much why I gave up on competitive speedcubing. I don't harbour hopes of becoming world-class, or even being competitive at local comps. Years of evidence point to those being impossible for me.

At least I still have fun cubing, and from time to time I randomly start breaking PBs and that feels great too.

---

Re: learning "fancy" algs and whatnot.

At some point, learning something like full OLL and full PLL (or at least most of these) is the obviously correct choice if you want to improve. The marginal benefit from learning the worst cases is tiny, so, whatever, skip those for now if you want to; but 90% of the algs are worth learning and you're stunting your improvement by refusing to even start.

(Same goes for something like L2E on big cubes; besides the N perm cases which are just kinda bad, all of the other cases are very much worth learning and it perplexes me that some fast big cubers just… don't?)

However, when it comes to actually fancy alg sets (anything beyond standard OLL and PLL), there really are rapidly diminishing returns, and you shouldn't bother unless you've exhausted everything else you could improve on (this almost never happens) or if you don't care about optimal improvement and you want to try something fancy for the sake of it.

Large alg sets that cover individually rare situations will require correspondingly more practice to get fluent at; the threshold isn't that high for 2LLL (something like 100 solves per week, or even less? that's why I think 2LLL is worth it for most cubers), but for something like ZBLL you probably shouldn't bother unless you do 500+ solves per week.

Also, learning any one new thing is never going to guarantee a certain amount of (short-term) improvement; there is a lot of individual variation. One person might find that full OLL made them (e.g.) 2 seconds faster, whereas someone else who had been using 2-look OLL for a very long time might instead find a much smaller improvement from learning full OLL, e.g. only half a second.

 

[n0nco]

you SHOULD be able to , guys look words have meanings

Should is heavily weighted towards most, I'd argue they're synonymous, also, should sounds like the average person is able to get sub X with OLL, which could make someone feel that they have a skill issue. (once again for lack of a better word)

 

[randomness...]

I had a opinion in a thread about algsets.
I don't believe there is a magic alg set that you should/have to know, in order to be fast.
what I believe is that when someone hits a slump of progression, they have to find the way to solve that works most for them, rather than trying to throw some ZBLL or some complex thing like that.

 

[n0nco]

I feel like this has gotten a bit off topic, my point was that we should phrase our advice in a more mindful way, I also only used “You should be able to…” as a catch all, I know this post isn’t that old but I’m still sorry for bumping it.

 

[randomness...]

its just a point out to everyone because even I say "should be able to" rather than "its recommended" or "you might want to look into" and etc
you're bringing awareness to it, ty

 

[Timmah]

I feel like this has gotten a bit off topic, my point was that we should phrase our advice in a more mindful way, I also only used “You should be able to…” as a catch all, I know this post isn’t that old but I’m still sorry for bumping it.

Why are you concerned with what others think and say about where you're at with cubing?

 

[n0nco]

Why are you concerned with what others think and say about where you're at with cubing?

I’m not? (At least not the think bit, remove the “think and” and change the you’re into a people are and I would say yes)