Color Neutral Debate

[Kirjava]

What I am saying is that your argument against CN was that for the amount of time it would take to do it, being CN was not worth it, and with your mindset, it is. (I totally respect this mindset, it definitely makes sense)

CN is "worth it" however long it takes. However, alternative techniques can help you improve an inordinate amount more than this in a much smaller timescale. It just makes more sense to work on something that has a much bigger payoff.

I don't think that I've ever said that you argument is based off of the fact that you are going to quit at some point, what I am saying is that your argument is based off of time, and jsyler and I prefer to ignore the time it takes to achieve things.

However, if, like jskyler and I, you prefer to imagine that cubing is an infinite activity, in other words that to will be doing it for an infinite amount of time, than color neutrality is worth it.

If I'm wrong in all of this, about that being your point, please tell me.

If you had an infinite amount of time, why would you want to do something that helps you improve the least amount and takes the longest first?

Why not do many things that can help you improve a great deal in a shorter amount of time before leaving the extremely minor improvement until the end?

You both also seem to be unaware that some people *prefer* to not be CN, and there is no evidence that CN is better than nonCN.

 

[qqwref]

As I discussed in my initial post, recognition can be improved with practice, in other words, with enough time, equally good recognition with all colors is very possible.

Sure, but maybe if you had spent that same time on fixed-color recognition you'd be even better at it than that - being better able to go straight into OLL without a pause, or being more likely to see multislotting opportunities, for instance. Even if you cube "forever" I don't think the difference in recognition will always even out to nothing. And since the recognition IS objectively more difficult, even if only a little, that will offsets the advantage of CN by a different amount for different people.

Personally I've toyed with various CN-like ideas in the past - trying normal CN (I remember doing CN races with Dene a while back when he was in the States), being completely CN with some non-Fridrich methods, using different color schemes (and even being somewhat color-scheme-neutral, lol), etc. For me, I have really nice recognition with white, and so I'm good with fixed color. I don't feel like the extra few cross moves would ever actually be worth it to me.


EDIT: As an analogy, I feel like nonCN vs CN is very roughly similar to someone using a longer and fingertricky algorithm (say, 17-move Y) as opposed to an optimal and awkward algorithm. They each have their advantages, and you can't objectively say that one is better, or worth changing to. Some people will always end better at the longer one just because of their cubing style, and some people will always end up better at the shorter one.

 

[jeff081692]

Just my two cents,

I think that color neutrality is better but it depends on the cuber if they want to switch or not. With color neutrality on average you will find easier crosses because you have 5 extra chances thus giving you faster times, although maybe not much faster than without being color neutral.

For many cubers the switch is not worth it and that is understandable and many can and have argued that there are plenty of other things one can do that would decrease averages a lot more than color neutrality. This is true, but if people are considering switching it might be better to start early since you would have to go through the process of being worse for a certain time period anyway.

If you are going for world records CN might make things easier in the long run, but it is possible to get sub 10 without it so it all depends on the cuber, their goals, and how much time they have available.

Any argument above that is kind of pointless because there are people that will vote CN and people that will say it is not worth it and both are true to an extent. CN is faster but the amount faster it gets you and the time it takes for some people to master can make it not worth learning.

 

[jskyler91]

Hmmm, but we don't have infinite time. What it if takes 1-2 years to get comfortable with CN. Then it could be that you've just spent 1-2 years just getting to the same point you were already at. If you spent that time working on some other aspects (lets say 2side PLL recognition, fancy optimal F2L moves, OLLCP... there are lots of things you could work on in 2 years), then the benifits of those other things may be way more than just being CN.
Now, lets say when you become CN then you work on those other things.... but in that time the non-CN person could be doing even more things... essentially the CN person would be playing catch up... almost like he'd taken a 1-2 year break.

Although that is assuming that you can only work on one thing at a time.

I had a steady but slow progress going, then I took 2 months out to be bi-CN, but I'm not seeing many instances where it makes a difference which cross I'm choosing, so it's essentially like I just took a 2 month break from improving.
Although that should be disclaimered by the fact that I'm quiet slow and rarely look into the first F2L pair yet.

This assumes two things: first that becoming color neutral takes a really long time and second that one cannot do other things while they are becoming color neutral. Both of these statements are, IMO, false. You can check out my vid in my sig/ read my arguments, but I think the limiting factor on switching speed is your determination level and your ability to discipline yourself. As to the doing other things, you would be very imprudent to ONLY practice being CN for a month, you should always be practicing multiple things and this is all the more easy with being CN seeing as how you are just changing where you solve, not how you do it (physically at least).Right now i am working on mastering 10 new f2l algs, 2 side Pll recog, R-Oll, a couple new Oll algs, adding thumbs to my solves and using lower case d's in my solve all at the same time. Being CN and doing other things would not be that difficult. Just my two cents.

CN is "worth it" however long it takes. However, alternative techniques can help you improve an inordinate amount more than this in a much smaller timescale. It just makes more sense to work on something that has a much bigger payoff.



If you had an infinite amount of time, why would you want to do something that helps you improve the least amount and takes the longest first?

Why not do many things that can help you improve a great deal in a shorter amount of time before leaving the extremely minor improvement until the end?

You both also seem to be unaware that some people *prefer* to not be CN, and there is no evidence that CN is better than nonCN.

I prefer to get the harder stuff out of the way first, that way it is all downhill from there. Different mindsets I guess.

Sure, but maybe if you had spent that same time on fixed-color recognition you'd be even better at it than that - being better able to go straight into OLL without a pause, or being more likely to see multislotting opportunities, for instance. Even if you cube "forever" I don't think the difference in recognition will always even out to nothing. And since the recognition IS objectively more difficult, even if only a little, that will offsets the advantage of CN by a different amount for different people.

Personally I've toyed with various CN-like ideas in the past - trying normal CN (I remember doing CN races with Dene a while back when he was in the States), being completely CN with some non-Fridrich methods, using different color schemes (and even being somewhat color-scheme-neutral, lol), etc. For me, I have really nice recognition with white, and so I'm good with fixed color. I don't feel like the extra few cross moves would ever actually be worth it to me.


EDIT: As an analogy, I feel like nonCN vs CN is very roughly similar to someone using a longer and fingertricky algorithm (say, 17-move Y) as opposed to an optimal and awkward algorithm. They each have their advantages, and you can't objectively say that one is better, or worth changing to. Some people will always end better at the longer one just because of their cubing style, and some people will always end up better at the shorter one.

Again, you are thinking there is a lack of lookahead in being CN because you don't look at pieces in the CN way, but there isn't. IF you learn to look correctly then you will see patterns and shapes which are equally distinguishable no matter what color you see them on.

 

[Kirjava]

Being CN and doing other things would not be that difficult.

Who said it was?

I prefer to get the harder stuff out of the way first, that way it is all downhill from there. Different mindsets I guess.

I didn't say it was harder, I said it took longer.

I could probably learn 1LLL quicker than switching to CN, but that doesn't make it easier.

Again, you are thinking there is a lack of lookahead in being CN because you don't look at pieces in the CN way.

No he isn't. You're accidently attributing things you have made up to people because you've misunderstood what they've said.

 

[jskyler91]

Who said it was?



I didn't say it was harder, I said it took longer.

I could probably learn 1LLL quicker than switching to CN, but that doesn't make it easier.



No he isn't. You're accidently attributing things you have made up to people because you've misunderstood what they've said.

I love how hard you try to discredit me. To your first response, it seems you were not paying attention: Godmil even said himself that he was assuming that you could only do one thing at a time, I was simply responding to him. To your second, the only reason I can see it taking as long as you insist it does is because it is hard. If not hard then are you saying switching is easy? iF it is easy then why don't you just do it? Easy things don't usually require much thought so why wouldn't you? Finally, Qqwref was saying that looking ahead IS harder for CN and I said it wasn't, he was just looking ahead wrong. Wrong on 3 account Kir.

 

[Escher]

Wrong on 3 account Kir.

Nope nope nope.

Please stop using the argument that 'because it was easy/quick for me it is easy/quick for everyone; if it isn't easy/quick then you're doing it wrong'.

It's a terrible argument form.

If it isn't the case that your thinking is actually like this, particularly in regards to this whole 'experiences with attempting CN' issue, please take more care to thoroughly explain what exactly they are doing wrong and why, and how you can show that 'your' method/approach is superior and is different to their approaches.
The thing is, I trust qqwref to have put considerable thought into this; he isn't the best non-physical cube solver in the world for nothing.

 

[Kirjava]

I love how hard you try to discredit me.

It is very easy.

To your first response, it seems you were not paying attention: Godmil even said himself that he was assuming that you could only do one thing at a time, I was simply responding to him.

Before you say that 'doing things as well as being CN is not difficult', you have a list of things you are adding to your style. This reads as if you're saying that you can be CN and use other additional techniques aswell, which I didn't see anyone disagree with.

To your second, the only reason I can see it taking as long as you insist it does is because it is hard. If not hard then are you saying switching is easy? iF it is easy then why don't you just do it? Easy things don't usually require much thought so why wouldn't you?

jskyler91 seems to think that if something takes a long time, it has to be hard.

Finally, Qqwref was saying that looking ahead IS harder for CN

The term lookahead isn't mentioned a single time in qqwref's post.

 

[yoshinator]

CN is "worth it" however long it takes. However, alternative techniques can help you improve an inordinate amount more than this in a much smaller timescale. It just makes more sense to work on something that has a much bigger payoff.



If you had an infinite amount of time, why would you want to do something that helps you improve the least amount and takes the longest first?

Why not do many things that can help you improve a great deal in a shorter amount of time before leaving the extremely minor improvement until the end?

You both also seem to be unaware that some people *prefer* to not be CN, and there is no evidence that CN is better than nonCN.

I think that it really comes down to the question: Why do we cube?

The obvious answer is that it's because cubing is fun, we enjoy it, but why do we enjoy it? I would argue, that, at least for me, cubing is so much fun because of how unbelievably challenging it is, physically, mentally, and even psychologically.

With that in mind, I became color neutral because I wanted another challenge, because I wanted to push the challenge, the awesomeness, of cubing further. Also because I thought that Y-perms looked really awesome on red/orange cross =P

Sure, but maybe if you had spent that same time on fixed-color recognition you'd be even better at it than that - being better able to go straight into OLL without a pause, or being more likely to see multislotting opportunities, for instance. Even if you cube "forever" I don't think the difference in recognition will always even out to nothing. And since the recognition IS objectively more difficult, even if only a little, that will offsets the advantage of CN by a different amount for different people.

Personally I've toyed with various CN-like ideas in the past - trying normal CN (I remember doing CN races with Dene a while back when he was in the States), being completely CN with some non-Fridrich methods, using different color schemes (and even being somewhat color-scheme-neutral, lol), etc. For me, I have really nice recognition with white, and so I'm good with fixed color. I don't feel like the extra few cross moves would ever actually be worth it to me.


EDIT: As an analogy, I feel like nonCN vs CN is very roughly similar to someone using a longer and fingertricky algorithm (say, 17-move Y) as opposed to an optimal and awkward algorithm. They each have their advantages, and you can't objectively say that one is better, or worth changing to. Some people will always end better at the longer one just because of their cubing style, and some people will always end up better at the shorter one.

I could tell you that recognition can only be so good, but there was a recent study done for quantum mechanics, in which thoughts traveled backwards in time (maybe), so maybe recognition can become infinitely good (although probably not).

On the other hand, "toying" with being color neutral is in no way effective, if you want to be color neutral, you have to work at it, and just messing around with it isn't enough, which is why it is so challenging.

Finally, I definitely agree that it depends on the cuber, it depends on the mindset, it the depends on why they cube, and many other factors.

This assumes two things: first that becoming color neutral takes a really long time and second that one cannot do other things while they are becoming color neutral. Both of these statements are, IMO, false. You can check out my vid in my sig/ read my arguments, but I think the limiting factor on switching speed is your determination level and your ability to discipline yourself. As to the doing other things, you would be very imprudent to ONLY practice being CN for a month, you should always be practicing multiple things and this is all the more easy with being CN seeing as how you are just changing where you solve, not how you do it (physically at least).Right now i am working on mastering 10 new f2l algs, 2 side Pll recog, R-Oll, a couple new Oll algs, adding thumbs to my solves and using lower case d's in my solve all at the same time. Being CN and doing other things would not be that difficult. Just my two cents.



I prefer to get the harder stuff out of the way first, that way it is all downhill from there. Different mindsets I guess.



Again, you are thinking there is a lack of lookahead in being CN because you don't look at pieces in the CN way, but there isn't. IF you learn to look correctly then you will see patterns and shapes which are equally distinguishable no matter what color you see them on.

…I hate to point out your contradictions, considering that we believe the same thing, but: You say that you can work on color neutrality and other things at the same time, but you also seem convinced that color neutrality must be your main focus (which I definitely agree with).

I am not trying to say that you are wrong, or that you are stupid, because you are neither. However, you seem to by trying extremely hard to prove that color neutrality is worth it, which is completely understandable, you obviously have put lot of thought into this topic, and Kirjava did *kind of* attack you when you initially presented your method on becoming CN. On the other hand, I think that you are ignoring some really, really powerful proof on the other side, NOT saying that color neutrality is bad (although that does seem like what Kirjava is saying), but saying that, perhaps, color neutrality is not worth it for everybody.

I really respect you as a Cuber and critical thinker (about cubing) respectively, however I think you have (maybe) become a bit angry, and thus have stop thinking as deeply as you initially were before posting. Please don’t take this as criticism; it is merely something I am noticing.

Thanks,

Who said it was?



I didn't say it was harder, I said it took longer.

I could probably learn 1LLL quicker than switching to CN, but that doesn't make it easier.



No he isn't. You're accidently attributing things you have made up to people because you've misunderstood what they've said.

Please don’t abuse what Jskyler says right now, you know what you meant, and you know what he means, you’ve made him angry by attacking him (which I can’t really blame you for, the posts that you attacked him on *were* kind of stupid (2 side PLL recognition thread), but still 2 wrongs never make a right, they make a U-turn), and now he’s attacking you back, which has in turn made you angry. THIS IS NOBODY’S FAULT SPECIFICALLY, WE CAN JUST AS EASILY BLAME BOTH OF YOU.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

Don’t flame, even if it isn’t really flaming, but being unhappy with someone making threads or posts that you disagree with. And when someone flames you, tell them how right they are before telling them that they are flaming, or getting angry yourself.




If this post in any way came out as mean, than please tell me, but tell me why I’m right first =P

Thanks for reading this monster of a post.

 

[Quadrescence]

THEOREM: color neutrality permits faster solving

PROOF: suppose one solves with fridrich. suppose white is always the side of the cross. suppose all cubes given to this kind of solver always had a green cross solved. on average, this cube would be 7 moves shorter to solve than solving the white cross first. At 4 tps, this is approximately 2 seconds faster on average. QED

COROLLARY: color neutrality saves moves

 

[Kirjava]

which has in turn made you angry

nah mate it's all lols for me

 

[Ickathu]

I'd vote that it's good.
I myself am CN for CFOP, but not for Roux (it's so much harder! idky any ideas?)

 

[teller]

Here's the thing: Doing CN is bad-ass different from plain vanilla CFOP. So is Roux. It's like being able to speak both French and German. You speak Orange and Blue. Or blocks and LSE. Or if you're Kirjava, you speak all languages (which is nuts) except for CN (also nuts).

 

[ottozing]

wow after reading through this thread again i dont really know where i stand on cn being worth the practice or not.

 

[jskyler91]

LET ME START THIS BY SAYING THAT I DO NOT THINK COLOR FIXED CUBERS ARE IN ANYWAY LESSER TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, I just think that you are being imprudent to not try be because I feel it is easy and has many great benefits. There is nothing else there, so please do not infer anything or think I am attacking you subvertly. IF IT HAS SEEMED TO YOU THAT I DO FEEL THIS WAY THIS WAS A MISINTERPRETATION. IF I OFFENDED ANYONE PLEASE KNOW THAT I AM SORRY!!!!!.

It is very easy.



Before you say that 'doing things as well as being CN is not difficult', you have a list of things you are adding to your style. This reads as if you're saying that you can be CN and use other additional techniques aswell, which I didn't see anyone disagree with.



jskyler91 seems to think that if something takes a long time, it has to be hard.



The term lookahead isn't mentioned a single time in qqwref's post.

Kir, you have an amazing ability to circle around the true logic of my statements and instead comment of inconsequential facts, Bravo, Bravo. Also,to everyone, the argument that hard things usually take a long time is completely true. IN GENERAL MOST harder things do tend to take more time some examples: overcoming phobias, climbing mountains, studying for major tests (if you actually study) etc. easier things like cleaning your room, eating dinner, and tying your shoes take less time. This is not some majorly controversial claim. Sure there are plenty of hard things that are quick such as getting a shot, but hard things generally take a longer time. The point I was making was that if Kir thought being CN is easy then it really shouldn't take that long to do and he could likely multitask while doing it. Very simple. Not controversial.

I think that it really comes down to the question: Why do we cube?

The obvious answer is that it's because cubing is fun, we enjoy it, but why do we enjoy it? I would argue, that, at least for me, cubing is so much fun because of how unbelievably challenging it is, physically, mentally, and even psychologically.

With that in mind, I became color neutral because I wanted another challenge, because I wanted to push the challenge, the awesomeness, of cubing further. Also because I thought that Y-perms looked really awesome on red/orange cross =P




I could tell you that recognition can only be so good, but there was a recent study done for quantum mechanics, in which thoughts traveled backwards in time (maybe), so maybe recognition can become infinitely good (although probably not).

On the other hand, "toying" with being color neutral is in no way effective, if you want to be color neutral, you have to work at it, and just messing around with it isn't enough, which is why it is so challenging.

Finally, I definitely agree that it depends on the cuber, it depends on the mindset, it the depends on why they cube, and many other factors.



…I hate to point out your contradictions, considering that we believe the same thing, but: You say that you can work on color neutrality and other things at the same time, but you also seem convinced that color neutrality must be your main focus (which I definitely agree with).

I am not trying to say that you are wrong, or that you are stupid, because you are neither. However, you seem to by trying extremely hard to prove that color neutrality is worth it, which is completely understandable, you obviously have put lot of thought into this topic, and Kirjava did *kind of* attack you when you initially presented your method on becoming CN. On the other hand, I think that you are ignoring some really, really powerful proof on the other side, NOT saying that color neutrality is bad (although that does seem like what Kirjava is saying), but saying that, perhaps, color neutrality is not worth it for everybody.

I really respect you as a Cuber and critical thinker (about cubing) respectively, however I think you have (maybe) become a bit angry, and thus have stop thinking as deeply as you initially were before posting. Please don’t take this as criticism; it is merely something I am noticing.

Thanks,




Please don’t abuse what Jskyler says right now, you know what you meant, and you know what he means, you’ve made him angry by attacking him (which I can’t really blame you for, the posts that you attacked him on *were* kind of stupid (2 side PLL recognition thread), but still 2 wrongs never make a right, they make a U-turn), and now he’s attacking you back, which has in turn made you angry. THIS IS NOBODY’S FAULT SPECIFICALLY, WE CAN JUST AS EASILY BLAME BOTH OF YOU.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

Don’t flame, even if it isn’t really flaming, but being unhappy with someone making threads or posts that you disagree with. And when someone flames you, tell them how right they are before telling them that they are flaming, or getting angry yourself.




If this post in any way came out as mean, than please tell me, but tell me why I’m right first =P

Thanks for reading this monster of a post.

I appreciate your sentiments, but you have me all wrong, I am not upset here, I am just treating Kir how he treats us i.e. by pointing out where others are wrong. If it appears I am mad then you are completely overreading into my words. Also, you should read my how to be cn thread, it should more than eliminate and/or counterweight those "counterarguments".


Same to you Aprom, I am not meaning this to be personal, these are just my logical beliefs, and I am not going to change them because they inadvertantly make other people feel as if they are lesser or anything else.

 

[Kirjava]

Wow, great job Kir, you have an amazing ability to circle around the true logic of my statements and instead comment of inconsequential facts

How come you haven't replied to all my statements? Are you having trouble finding counterarguments to them?

if Kir thought being CN is easy then it really shouldn't take that long to do

traversing every position is easy, but takes a long time to do.

I am just treating Kir how he treats us

You would be if you were presenting valid arguments.

 

[jskyler91]

It is very easy.



Before you say that 'doing things as well as being CN is not difficult', you have a list of things you are adding to your style. This reads as if you're saying that you can be CN and use other additional techniques aswell, which I didn't see anyone disagree with.



jskyler91 seems to think that if something takes a long time, it has to be hard.



The term lookahead isn't mentioned a single time in qqwref's post.

I think that it really comes down to the question: Why do we cube?

The obvious answer is that it's because cubing is fun, we enjoy it, but why do we enjoy it? I would argue, that, at least for me, cubing is so much fun because of how unbelievably challenging it is, physically, mentally, and even psychologically.

With that in mind, I became color neutral because I wanted another challenge, because I wanted to push the challenge, the awesomeness, of cubing further. Also because I thought that Y-perms looked really awesome on red/orange cross =P




I could tell you that recognition can only be so good, but there was a recent study done for quantum mechanics, in which thoughts traveled backwards in time (maybe), so maybe recognition can become infinitely good (although probably not).

On the other hand, "toying" with being color neutral is in no way effective, if you want to be color neutral, you have to work at it, and just messing around with it isn't enough, which is why it is so challenging.

Finally, I definitely agree that it depends on the cuber, it depends on the mindset, it the depends on why they cube, and many other factors.



…I hate to point out your contradictions, considering that we believe the same thing, but: You say that you can work on color neutrality and other things at the same time, but you also seem convinced that color neutrality must be your main focus (which I definitely agree with).

I am not trying to say that you are wrong, or that you are stupid, because you are neither. However, you seem to by trying extremely hard to prove that color neutrality is worth it, which is completely understandable, you obviously have put lot of thought into this topic, and Kirjava did *kind of* attack you when you initially presented your method on becoming CN. On the other hand, I think that you are ignoring some really, really powerful proof on the other side, NOT saying that color neutrality is bad (although that does seem like what Kirjava is saying), but saying that, perhaps, color neutrality is not worth it for everybody.

I really respect you as a Cuber and critical thinker (about cubing) respectively, however I think you have (maybe) become a bit angry, and thus have stop thinking as deeply as you initially were before posting. Please don’t take this as criticism; it is merely something I am noticing.

Thanks,




Please don’t abuse what Jskyler says right now, you know what you meant, and you know what he means, you’ve made him angry by attacking him (which I can’t really blame you for, the posts that you attacked him on *were* kind of stupid (2 side PLL recognition thread), but still 2 wrongs never make a right, they make a U-turn), and now he’s attacking you back, which has in turn made you angry. THIS IS NOBODY’S FAULT SPECIFICALLY, WE CAN JUST AS EASILY BLAME BOTH OF YOU.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

Don’t flame, even if it isn’t really flaming, but being unhappy with someone making threads or posts that you disagree with. And when someone flames you, tell them how right they are before telling them that they are flaming, or getting angry yourself.




If this post in any way came out as mean, than please tell me, but tell me why I’m right first =P

Thanks for reading this monster of a post.

How come you haven't replied to all my statements? Are you having trouble finding counterarguments to them?



traversing every position is easy, but takes a long time to do.



You would be if you were presenting valid arguments.

What arguments? You didn't say anything I didn't respond to in some way besides the Being CN and doing things stuff which was completely ridiculous and just you using your favorite fallacy Ad Hominem . Also known as deflecting.

 

[Kirjava]

You ignored my point about qqwref's posts.

I have made no ad hom arguments.

 

[jskyler91]

You ignored my point about qqwref's posts.

I have made no ad hom arguments.

Again you being pedantic; qqwref said recognition when talking about F2L, normally bad recog is another way of saying bad lookahead i.e. "I can't recog my f2l pairs fast enough to look ahead." As to the Ad hominem, are you honestly saying that you never make irrelevant claims that attempt to subvert my character? Because you would be flat out lying if you honestly don't think you do that. You think that by bringing down the person who is arguing with you that your actual arguments are right, but this is a logically false way of thinking which is called the Ad Hominem fallacy.

 

[jskyler91]

You ignored my point about ad hom attacks.

Can you point out my ad hom attacks?

Jumpy much? Someone obviously has nothing better to do. (that was an ad hominem btw, sound like something you have said before?)