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

Ok, no problems. I'll rephrase slightly.

Why are you concerned what others say about where people are at with cubing?

Is there an epidemic of people throwing out their cubes and becoming origami masters instead, because someone said "should"?
 
Ok, no problems. I'll rephrase slightly.

Why are you concerned what others say about where people are at with cubing?

Is there an epidemic of people throwing out their cubes and becoming origami masters instead, because someone said "should"?
in person, the amount of people that do just throw their cubes out and say they are done, smh
Its just the thought of "should" sounding a little more aggressive, rather than pointing someone to
an algset that might help, and saying that this is the route that is the most popular
(im sorry I'm not trying to start anything <3)
 
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!)
To an extent. You can get even sub-10 (CFOP) with just 2 Look OLL. But you need full PLL if you ever want to get sub 20 or so, and you will need full OLL for sub-9 and so on. There are required algsets for each event. Example, I just talked about 3x3, but if you want to be sub 4/3 on 2x2, you need CLL. If you want to get sub 2 you will need EG-1, etc.

Same with SQ-1, you don’t need to learn the parity alg. But if you ever want to get decent at it, you will be required to learn it.
 
To an extent. You can get even sub-10 (CFOP) with just 2 Look OLL. But you need full PLL if you ever want to get sub 20 or so, and you will need full OLL for sub-9 and so on. There are required algsets for each event. Example, I just talked about 3x3, but if you want to be sub 4/3 on 2x2, you need CLL. If you want to get sub 2 you will need EG-1, etc.

Same with SQ-1, you don’t need to learn the parity alg. But if you ever want to get decent at it, you will be required to learn it.
fair, but my main concern was for stuff like WV, ZBLL,COLL, more advanced stuff.
 
fair, but my main concern was for stuff like WV, ZBLL,COLL, more advanced stuff.
Ah, in that case yes. Those algsets are really only (in my opinion) for ”advanced” people. At least for COLL and ZBLL. Those algsets really only help people that have already mastered the basic algsets, and want to get even faster. I’m talking about people who are like sub-7, only then do I see ZBLL and such actually helping you in some ways.
 
Ah, in that case yes. Those algsets are really only (in my opinion) for ”advanced” people. At least for COLL and ZBLL. Those algsets really only help people that have already mastered the basic algsets, and want to get even faster. I’m talking about people who are like sub-7, only then do I see ZBLL and such actually helping you in some ways.
yea, or you can be like me, love learning algs and starts just crunching up whatever sets I have saved on my computer lmao
 
“You” is used ambiguously in this post, not aimed at one particular person or group of people.

The whole reason someone may choose to use “should” is to stop it from being aggressive. You “should” learn PLL around sub-20 and OLL around sub-15. It’s not a universal truth. It’s not absolutely required to improve at those points or entirely detrimental if you learn it before then. But for most people most of the time, those are good general benchmarks. For some, it may be required to get sub-30, or maybe they like learning algs and learn those alg sets super early. For others, they may put off learning algs for as long as possible. When giving advice to someone who has only provided generic information about them (“I sub 20 how be sub 15?”), using this principle of “most people most of the time” is very helpful. Better advice can be given if and when there’s more specifics of the individual’s circumstances. I don’t think there’s a need to imply aggressiveness or judgement.

Cubing is an extremely individual activity. If you’re worried about self-confidence and think that it can be significantly negatively affected by someone saying that PLL is usually learned around sub-20, then your time will be much better spent on working to improve your self-confidence and self-worth (which is an extremely valuable thing) rather than attempting to baby-proof your life (which is an ultimately impossible task). Cubing is the least likely thing in your daily life to hurt your self-confidence, and it’s much more important to have a stronger self-image (which can be difficult but is important). If you’re struggling with “you should be able to” affecting your self-confidence, you’re just as likely to be discouraged by WR holders, other’s fast improvement, etc. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people providing benchmarks and saying what is “average”, or best for most people most of the time.

As an extremely competitive person by nature, I’ve had to learn that in my life, when I’m competing in the field of the entire world (such as cubing), I suck. I will probably never be the best or even world class at anything with a meaningful amount of people competing. The solution isn’t to only engage in activities and competitions that I will probably win, the solution is to learn the difficult but true lesson that I need to focus on my own individual improvement, and maybe compete with someone similar to me on an individual level, but not be worried or upset if I don’t win my competition consisting of the 100+ best cubers within driving distance of me, or feel bad that Yiheng Wang is actively breaking the laws of physics to accomplish his feats while I’m still “only” sub-15 (the idea of fast vs slow is also relative and adjacent to this conversation but I won’t get into it now).


I think the following interaction between Mike Hughey and I demonstrates the usefulness and downsides of the “most people most of the time” principle:

[In a thread titled “why cant i do lookahead”]

You can only lookahead if you’re able to glance at any f2l pair, close your eyes, and solve it with 99%+ accuracy. If you can’t solve the pair without looking at it then it’s impossible to look ahead to the next pair

Also, lookahead is only something you really should start developing when you’re confidently and easily sub-20, for the aforementioned reason. What’s your current average?
Ah, the difference between youth and old people. If I had waited until I was confidently and easily sub-20 to work on lookahead, I'd still be barely sub-30. (And I got barely sub-30 by learning full OLL. LOL!)

Perhaps someday I will be confidently and easily sub-20 so it will actually be okay for me to learn lookahead.
Fair point. What I was trying to get across is that you need to be very confident in individual F2L cases before you can start looking ahead while solving. Trying to learn lookahead before that doesn’t really do anything. From my experience, this mostly happens around the sub-20 barrier, but clearly that’s not always the case
 
“You” is used ambiguously in this post, not aimed at one particular person or group of people.

The whole reason someone may choose to use “should” is to stop it from being aggressive. You “should” learn PLL around sub-20 and OLL around sub-15. It’s not a universal truth. It’s not absolutely required to improve at those points or entirely detrimental if you learn it before then. But for most people most of the time, those are good general benchmarks. For some, it may be required to get sub-30, or maybe they like learning algs and learn those alg sets super early. For others, they may put off learning algs for as long as possible. When giving advice to someone who has only provided generic information about them (“I sub 20 how be sub 15?”), using this principle of “most people most of the time” is very helpful. Better advice can be given if and when there’s more specifics of the individual’s circumstances. I don’t think there’s a need to imply aggressiveness or judgement.

Cubing is an extremely individual activity. If you’re worried about self-confidence and think that it can be significantly negatively affected by someone saying that PLL is usually learned around sub-20, then your time will be much better spent on working to improve your self-confidence and self-worth (which is an extremely valuable thing) rather than attempting to baby-proof your life (which is an ultimately impossible task). Cubing is the least likely thing in your daily life to hurt your self-confidence, and it’s much more important to have a stronger self-image (which can be difficult but is important). If you’re struggling with “you should be able to” affecting your self-confidence, you’re just as likely to be discouraged by WR holders, other’s fast improvement, etc. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people providing benchmarks and saying what is “average”, or best for most people most of the time.

As an extremely competitive person by nature, I’ve had to learn that in my life, when I’m competing in the field of the entire world (such as cubing), I suck. I will probably never be the best or even world class at anything with a meaningful amount of people competing. The solution isn’t to only engage in activities and competitions that I will probably win, the solution is to learn the difficult but true lesson that I need to focus on my own individual improvement, and maybe compete with someone similar to me on an individual level, but not be worried or upset if I don’t win my competition consisting of the 100+ best cubers within driving distance of me, or feel bad that Yiheng Wang is actively breaking the laws of physics to accomplish his feats while I’m still “only” sub-15 (the idea of fast vs slow is also relative and adjacent to this conversation but I won’t get into it now).


I think the following interaction between Mike Hughey and I demonstrates the usefulness and downsides of the “most people most of the time” principle:

[In a thread titled “why cant i do lookahead”]
My example wasn't good at all, (Thanks for pointing that out) but my point wasn't supposed to be very specific, I was just saying "Hey, try and phrase advice mindfully" Maybe I didn't say it well in the original message, and that I think we should say that people tend to average sub X by the time they know something, or that at your speed when people learn this they usually average sub X, not that knowing something and being sub X is the same thing, and making that clear.

People have varying levels of understanding English, and various levels of understanding in general, so I'm just trying to give a heads up. (I'm only 12, so please tell me if I didn't understand what you said properly)
 
Back
Top