Pinkerton's Newsday article: "Chinese play a different game ..."
td...@yahoo.com
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin174178081mar17,0,6979067.column
Republican James P. Pinkerton mis-uses Go as example for logical
fallacies (text below).
James P. Pinkerton has been a columnist for Newsday since 1993. Prior
to that, he worked in the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan
and George H. W. Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992
Republican presidential campaigns.
Pinkerton is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big
Government--And the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He is also a
contributor to the Fox News Channel and a Fellow at the New America
Foundation in Washington DC. He is a graduate of Stanford University.
My comments (short):
as much as I like the fact that Go is in the media more & more often
(twice The Economist, Financiele Dagblad (NL), NRC (NL), div. manager
magazines, Computer AI magazines,
Die Zeit (DE), Der Spiegel (DE) etc.), I worry about the underlying
generalizations in that article (in addition to several details):
Fallacious Arguments of generalization and a false analogy + an
unecessary analogy are committed
(though it reads well what has been written for money)
- in population A (China), game A1 is played, which has features A11,
THUS they behave in game game X (politics, diplomacy) by behaviour X1
this generalization is dangerous (politically) , and I dare to say -
usually wrong - (no causality).
- the same fallacy of generalization, most probably wrong too, is done
with population B (Western countries - did you think only of the US
too?),
- then an advice to the - soo naive - US population is given: learn Go,
understand Go, because THE possible enemy China knows how to play it.
What can be the outcome of a comparison between two wrong
conclusions??
some other thoughts:
- the idea of backpack nuclear bombs has been investigated by many non
Go players - I assume - in American think tanks.
- the majority (gaussian curve) of all players are quite weak, if you
believe in the causality of wrong generalizations, you could end up
with wild diplomats and wary generals who play weak Chess, Go and Poker
and THUS work badly too (formulated that way - we can see it is not
reality).
- even good players have differing, distinctive playing styles (which
could be mutually exclusive), still behave the same in other parts of
life
- in China are many, many chess players (XiangQi)
- I would like to add the reference to the 40 year old JFK Cold War
statement: "They play chess, we play poker." (USSR-USA)
What American general compared American and Soviet foreign policy by
saying "They play chess; we play poker."?
Of course, it's less dangerous to play poker with nukes than casino
chips.
- technically the center in Go IS important (for influence etc.)
- the author seems to be an American citizen
- does there exist a James Pinkerton in the American Go Association?:
ID MExp MType Chapter State Rating Sigma Date Name
9389 9/5/2005 Full NOVA Go Club MD -2.42146 2.34305 8/1/2001 Pinkerton,
John not James!
- what does the author know (about Go) to draw far-reaching, dangerous
conclusions?
- how come that only military thoughts/solutions are envisaged? (this
displays a small horizon, short sightedness & is very unflexible),
- I'd prefer preventions, agreements and peaceful solutions much more
than single-minded military think-tank exercises which fuel further
military expenses (and I am not at all a pacifist in the biblic sense
("... the other cheek"))
- the 3rd world war might be economically ... globalization ...
Chiese and others not buying US obligations, rather spending dollars in
the US.
Lesson: 1st: it's always different ... 2nd: ... than you think
- Go teaches (me) mainly about balancing several parameters (tempo,
territory, influence, strength, flexibility, options, safety ...)
trying to reach a harmony.
It also teaches that the BEST solution is often not available, but
survival is the aim.
- The best players in Go (I guess in Chess too) show a high degree of
flexibility.
- Differences of thinking between "the East " and "the West"
(generalizations) could perhaps better be explained by mindsets
which are much more part of the cultures of the populations than games
(because most people do not know how to play Chess or Go):
- Aristotelean logic and rhetoric, (e.g. Schopenhauer's "The Art of
Controversy") ... (Western) vs.
- 36 Stratagems (sanshiliu ji), e.g. see
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/5882/36s.html and the wish to
cooperate or come to an agreement.
I think that Pinkerton has given here - paid, unvoluntarily or not - an
example of lobbyism for political hawks, paving a way in public
opinion.
My conclusions :
1. to date Microsoft's Flight Simulator has caused more harm to the US
than the game of GO.
2. Politics is a secret game with a lot of anticipating movements which
are supposed to be invisible to your opponent, while GO is totally
transparent - you cannot hide anything.
3. The same reasoning applied to "pétanque" (jeu de boules) should
have made the French world champions in the design of ballistic
missiles.
4. You could probably write a similar article about Cricket and the
British Empire !
There would be still so much to say, .....
below is the article:
Greetings,
Tommie
NB: has this article not been noticed until now?
I am really annoyed by the platitudes of it,
which could be mis-used for any other hobby as well.
The article reads:
"Chinese play a different game
The United states should pay close attention to the way its challenger
in the East deals with foes
James P. Pinkerton
March 17, 2005
BEIJING
The cliche about the Chinese is that they are patient.
Conscious of avoiding shallow "Orientalist" stereotypes, I have
traveled through China looking for evidence of the opposite. And while
I have seen plenty of hustle and bustle in streets and factories, I see
more evidence that the Chinese are, indeed, a subtle and patient
people. And that's something for Americans to think about as the great
empires stare at each other across the Pacific.
Everywhere I go here, I see Go. "Go" is the name by which most
Americans identify the board game that the Chinese call wei-ch'i. It's
played on a flat grid of 361 intersections. The two opponents play with
pieces, called stones, white vs. black. Unlike chess, black moves
first. Also unlike chess, the stones are all the same, and once they
are put down, they can never be moved.
But they can be removed - if the opposing player succeeds in
surrounding them. And that's the object of the game, to wipe out the
foe by surrounding his forces, thus gaining control of the board. Since
the Han Dynasty of more than 2,000 years ago - long before chess was
invented - wei-ch'i has been the favorite game of Chinese
intellectuals, including generals and politicians.
Moreover, the popularity of wei-ch'i, which has never caught on in the
West, reveals much about the nation that created it. In terms of motion
and excitement, wei-ch'i makes chess seem like pinball. After all, the
pieces move in chess; even nonplayers can observe an armada of chessmen
marching down the 64 squares and realize that something is happening.
By contrast, watching wei-ch'i is more akin to watching a jigsaw puzzle
being assembled. In other ways, too, the games are different. In chess,
the goal is to control the center. From a strong central position, the
player can strike decisively in any direction. But in wei-ch'i the
strategy is the opposite; the smart player aims for the corners, the
better to surround and destroy the foe.
To be sure, like chess in the United States, wei-ch'i in China has been
eclipsed by video games and the like. Yet, just as chess symbolizes
brains in the West, so wei-ch'i is status-heavy in China. I have seen
many wei-ch'i sets for sale in shops, as well as grid motifs worked
into advertisements. In fact, at the CourtYard Art Gallery, across the
street from the Forbidden City, the brochure features artfully
photographed wei-ch'i stones on a fluorescent pink board.
So what does wei-ch'i have to do with contemporary Chinese politics?
One answer came from a Beijing-born professor at Yale, Scott Boorman,
who in 1969 published "The Protracted Game: A Wei-ch'i Interpretation
of Maoist Revolutionary Strategy." As Boorman notes, Mao Zedong
(1893-1976), an avid wei-ch'i player, used wei-ch'i analogies as he led
the communists to victory in the Chinese civil war of 1927-49. In a
1938 pamphlet he wrote that the struggle was "rather like a game of
wei-ch'i," insofar as the communists controlled the countryside (the
corners, according to the wei-ch'i analogy) while the nationalists
controlled the cities (the center).
Moreover, Boorman continued, "It is fruitful to apply the wei-ch'i
analogue to post-1950 insurgent actions in Southeast Asia." Which is to
say, to Vietnam, where once again, the insurgents proved to be more
patient and strategic than two foreign armies, first the French and
then the Americans.
And what about more contemporary issues, such as the fate of Taiwan?
Gordon Chang, a Chinese-American attorney who spent two decades working
in China, notes that Mao always predicted that China would solve the
Taiwan issue in a hundred years. It's hard to imagine any American
politician talking like that, urging patience over such a long time
frame.
Interestingly, in 2001 Chang published a book with a provocative title:
"The Coming Collapse of China." By that he prophesied the collapse,
within a decade, of the current political system, in which he saw an
unsustainable mix of dictatorship and free markets. There's still time,
of course, for Chang to be proven right. But even if the People's
Republic of China were to implode, China would surely survive. Why?
Because the basic ethnic and cultural bonds, reaching back some 5,000
years, still hold tight. Any country that's lasted that long knows
something about national survival.
For its part, the United States, which finds itself increasingly at
odds with China over the Taiwan issue, might wish to give more thought
to the principles of wei-ch'i, for the sake of its own national
survival. Thinking about any coming conflict with America, the Chinese
can clearly see that they are far behind the United States in military
strength. The United States has spent a trillion dollars on nuclear
strategic weapons, such as missiles, submarines and bombers. And no
doubt, in the decades to come we are prepared to spend another trillion
dollars on strategic defense against other countries' missiles,
submarines and bombers.
Confronted by that huge gap, what might the Chinese be likely to do? In
the spirit of wei-ch'i, the Chinese might decide to play a subtler
game. That is, the Americans, being chess players at heart, are
preparing for a showdown with China in which Uncle Sam sends a huge
material storm down upon China, like a player launching a checkmating
attack in chess.
Probably there's nothing the Chinese can do to thwart such an attack.
Except for one thing. What if the Chinese played wei-ch'i at the same
time we played chess? In other words, the Chinese might conclude that
the Pentagon juggernaut is unstoppable, if an American president pushes
The Button. But they might think of another approach to stopping the
Americans. They might, for example, note that America has virtually
open borders, and a free society within those borders. Which is to say,
we don't have much in the way of homeland security.
So a wei-ch'i player might see the makings of an anti-American
deterrence plan - or even a first-strike plan. In the spirit of putting
down stones onto a grid, in hopes of forming a winning pattern, why
couldn't the Chinese put down nuclear weapons inside the United States?
Al-Qaida hasn't been able to do that, of course, but the Chinese are a
lot smarter than Osama's bunch. Given our porous frontier, would it
really be that hard to sneak in nuclear weapons - or the components of
nuclear weapons, for later assembly? Just like stones in wei-ch'i,
these prepositioned nukes would just sit passively, tucked away under
U.S. cities, never moving, always waiting. There'd be no need for
guidance systems, just a way of detonating them, if the call from
Beijing came.
Would this be terrorism? Unfair fighting? Maybe. But to a Chinese
strategist, versed in patient positioning, it might mean victory.
The point here isn't to tell the Chinese how to defeat America. In the
era of miniaturized atomic weapons, countries know all about
sneak-nukes, even if the United States is bizarrely, and gravely,
ill-prepared to guard its territory more than three years after 9/11.
Instead, the point is to remind Americans that when studying a
potential enemy, one must learn the game being played by the possible
foe, not just the game one wishes to play. So if the Chinese know
wei-ch'i and its political- military applications, then we must study
it, too."
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>"Chinese play a different game
>The United states should pay close attention to the way its challenger
>in the East deals with foes
>James P. Pinkerton
>
>March 17, 2005
>
>BEIJING
[snip]
>That is, the Americans, being chess players at heart,
?? Poker players. Duh. The Russians are the chess players.
-- Roy L
-
"td...@yahoo.com" <td...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In
> http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin174178081mar17,0,6979067.column
>
> [ ... ]
>
> My comments (short):
>
> [ ... ]
Well put, contrasting the journalist who writes for general
audiences with results from "field research" on the game itself.
Human beings are faced with a serious management problem
(of themselves). Absense of coherent purpose and direction
has proved to be the downfall of many societies/civilizations.
Survival appears to require planning and coordination activity.
Whether these are engendered by games or not is immaterial.
Knowing when to play (and not to play) can be as important, or
even more important than the "where" to play (or not to play).
Once a game is used for directives the appeal is made for
its social cues as some type of recipe or prescription. Whether
existence by nature, is game-like, seems to be an open question.
Highly ritualized behavior is rather often one result of game focus.
Can be a strong tendency to discount additional considerations,
as if the dimensions of life are not infinite but limited according to
certain finite combinatorics. Agendas and corporate fiefdoms are
likely. People encountering distrust through experience and then
propagating that distrust into new contexts of unknown relationships.
The film _Eternal_Sunshine_of_the_Spotless_Mind_ contains a
number of key philosophical quandries. For prior reference then
see one BBC production of _Sylvia_ who also sought mental erasure.
The notion that things could be set aright again if only one might be
able to "start over" turns out to be a subliminal clue provided by the
"gaming" notion of life. Concerning ESoftheSM, be aware the the
opening scenes of the film actually depict their reunion -after- the
"lacuna" procedure, and that their original meeting was instead at
a Beach Party. Can memory be wiped so easily as picking up the
stones? Might be an appealing notion but what of "revisionism"
on middle-school history textbooks? How about blaming somebody
else because the "official story" has now changed and they just do
not adapt quite so readily to ideas of "governmental" shifting sands?
Or, the notion that only ONE "official story" is to be tolerated: that
there is no room for dissent, plurality, disagreement, or challenge?
How about a hierarchy of relationships with individuals not regarded
as equal but socked interminably into some arbitrary pecking order?
Explanations that do not explain but illustrate knowledge deficiency?
The problem is "human management" and economies in a vile
competition with each other for the sake of survival in turf-war toilet.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freakonomics, A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side to Everything
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=freakonomics&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>> That is, the Americans, being chess players at heart,
ro...@telus.net wrote:
> ?? Poker players. Duh. The Russians are the chess players.
The Chinese are trying to change that.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesian Scientists Put 11 Volcanoes Under Alert
http://www.rense.com/general64/11.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
td...@yahoo.com
> In
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin174178081mar17,0,6979067.column
> Republican James P. Pinkerton mis-uses Go as example for logical
fallacies (text below).
A friend sent me the following comment:
"Come on , the world is not just black and white !
>To be sure, like chess in the United States, wei-ch'i in China has
been eclipsed by video games and the like.
>Yet, just as chess symbolizes brains in the West, so wei-ch'i is
status-heavy in China.
>I have seen many wei-ch'i sets for sale in shops, as well as grid
motifs worked into advertisements.
1. first occidental success : we have pulled them down to our level
already !
> But in wei-ch'i the strategy is the opposite; the smart player aims
for the corners, the better to surround and destroy the foe.
2. first chinese success : they have occupied one corner already in the
US - California !
>So if the Chinese know wei-ch'i and its political- military
applications, then we must study it too.
3. first personal impact : I have tried to (study Weiqi;...12k...;
remark by TD),
but I don't have the mind of a nuclear backpacker nor am I a homeland
security freak !
PS: WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM SOMEBODY WHO WORKS WITH FOX NEWS
??????????????????????????????? "
Could s.o. please check the Newsday paper whether reader's letters
concerning the Newsday column were sent in, and what they said?
Did the AGA react or s.o else (Chinese in the US etc.)?
Or is such weird logic so common that one passes over with it?
goplayer
potential enemy, one must learn the game being played by the possible
In the Middle East, the game is backgammon. So now we know how to win the
war on terror - study backgammon. It's all so simple, this world of ours.
-
-( forwarded )-
From: "Dan Tennenbaum" <*******@mcleodusa.net>
{ Doctor of acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine. }
There are five big mind strata, and they differ from continental influence
sphere to influence sphere.
1. China, country of the Middle, Spleen, yellow color, food, digestion.
Spleen rules the mind but that means thir strength is in memorization.
So memory mind, (remembering names and facts), so the Chinese are
excellent students because university studies check the memory.
2. USA, Australia, country of the South, Fire, Heart/Circulatory system, red
color (redskins), mental excitment, commmunication, talking. Their strength,
invention spirit, ability to communicate. Different mind from rogue memory.
3. Western Europe exclusive off Germany, Sweden, Poland, Russia, part
of near east. Country of the Liver, Wood, East, Green/Blue color. Good
at judgement, classification, judgement of colors, shapes, art. Military
strength.
4. Japan, Taiwan, Korea. North, Kidney, Water, color black. Will power,
Enduring, taking information, refining, polishing, improving, adding value
to things. Strengthen the structure of the brain itself.
5. Russia, Germany, India. West, Metal, white color, Lung. Strong in pushing
things through, courage, guts, staying power, focusing on things. Clean and
methodical thinking. Strong at engineering. Melancholic tinge.