MB : From the moment we realize that we don't have the right solutions I start again, but to start again is to start again from the beginning...well there are starting points
, I can quote it since it is repeated between Bourges and Agen.
it's not just that, but finally Bourges and Agen, We have to start from the first point.
When we start again, I say to myself if I have Bourges as a starting point: why am I leaving Bourges as a starting point?
Is there something in my deduction that I have agreed with what is written in the book or am I really 100% on board.
If a second time we deduce that we are 100% sure, we deduce that it is Bourges and from there we attack the 2nd and so on.
To say that today I have a theory which is beautiful, I am attached for one reason or another, I find it difficult to get rid of it, in any case you are penalized that's for sure, it can't be not be the right approach for a challenge. The questioning is based on the fact that no one has found everyone wrong, perhaps not 100%.
But you have to start from scratch to be sure.
(Q - ??: there are several of us in this state of mind, we are not attached to anything at all and we try to keep the best track, if I have to change track I change track track It's true that we see some who are attached to their track, defending it but others not at all, they are more lost than anything else)
MB : the fact of being lost means that they have, somewhere, a regret that their solution is not the right one, so they are not in a state of questioning but in a spirit of nostalgia for having spent all this time and not having found what I needed.
If we want to attack a new line of reasoning, we must put ourselves in the position of a chess player, we must analyze, we must tell ourselves my solutions no longer exist, we must not regret them and put them straight, find our blood cold and get off to a good start.
(Q - ??: it's rather lost for me, it's because I don't know what to choose as a resolution, for the 600, I don't know, the black ship perched, I don't can't figure out what it is, I have several hypotheses and I can't decide)
MB : but how many hypotheses?
(Q - ??: 2 or 3)
MB : 2 or 3 hypotheses can be analyzed, there are not 2 or 3 which can be convincing in the end it is not possible, there is one which is necessarily better than the others or than your reasoning is fragile. But if you have built a certain number of solutions, if there are 3 possibilities you have to exploit all 3, there is nothing superhuman about it.
If a second time we deduce that we are 100% sure, we deduce that it is Bourges and from there we attack the 2nd and so on.
To say that today I have a theory which is beautiful, I am attached for one reason or another, I find it difficult to get rid of it, in any case you are penalized that's for sure, it can't be not be the right approach for a challenge. The questioning is based on the fact that no one has found everyone wrong, perhaps not 100%.
But you have to start from scratch to be sure.
(Q - ??: there are several of us in this state of mind, we are not attached to anything at all and we try to keep the best track, if I have to change track I change track track It's true that we see some who are attached to their track, defending it but others not at all, they are more lost than anything else)
MB : the fact of being lost means that they have, somewhere, a regret that their solution is not the right one, so they are not in a state of questioning but in a spirit of nostalgia for having spent all this time and not having found what I needed.
If we want to attack a new line of reasoning, we must put ourselves in the position of a chess player, we must analyze, we must tell ourselves my solutions no longer exist, we must not regret them and put them straight, find our blood cold and get off to a good start.
(Q - ??: it's rather lost for me, it's because I don't know what to choose as a resolution, for the 600, I don't know, the black ship perched, I don't can't figure out what it is, I have several hypotheses and I can't decide)
MB : but how many hypotheses?
(Q - ??: 2 or 3)
MB : 2 or 3 hypotheses can be analyzed, there are not 2 or 3 which can be convincing in the end it is not possible, there is one which is necessarily better than the others or than your reasoning is fragile. But if you have built a certain number of solutions, if there are 3 possibilities you have to exploit all 3, there is nothing superhuman about it.