MB : my attitude towards that, which offends a lot of people and which has led some to say that I am a divisive person, but I assume, my attitude towards that is to say that
'we must remain much simpler, that is to say that the process is not to make things that you see fit with the enigmas, it is to decipher enigmas in your head to go and confront them in the field
what you imagined and deduced and not the other way around.
And when we look at the stories that many players tell, not all but many players, it's confusing to see that in reality, the process is completely reversed: ""I found that so"", ""j I found that on the ground, I see that so indeed something, but it's not like that and I'm trying to say that's not how it should work, and that we need to stay a lot more. .. how would I say, much simpler that’s for sure.
But at the same time much more rigorous towards oneself, it does not make oneself... one must not allow oneself multiple interpretations at multiple levels on things that one is going to see on the terrain... You have to stay much colder, much more rigorous, say to yourself I've deduced that, I'll leave it there, no question of increasing pressure because I'm going to find a little detail, a little thing, something that makes me think...
This process is pernicious, do you understand my answer? It's extremely pernicious, you have to put yourself in one direction, the enigmas anyway, they work in one direction: we deduce, we analyze, we deduce, we construct a theory, we go into the field, there is something behind but it is not on the ground that we will find clues. I'm talking about clues, we're not going to find clues on the ground, any more than on the map.
When I say the map it's a tool, Max said the map is not a tool, well it's a pure question of semantics, I say a tool it's a practical thing which avoids dealing with the hand, so we are more efficient with a tool.
Well, the map allows you to put on paper, to put down on paper things that you have deduced in your head, that's how I say it, at the level of the enigmas: we deduce, we analyze, we think that , we make a theory, we go into the field, it works or it doesn't work, but as soon as there is something that doesn't work, we shouldn't try to hang up, if it doesn't work it doesn't work not.
And that's also why we shouldn't go into the field too quickly, there's no point in rushing, if we have a good approach to the great solution, honestly we can go into the field but if we have a little hesitation saying to ourselves, I'll see on the spot, it's because we haven't really captured what.
And when we look at the stories that many players tell, not all but many players, it's confusing to see that in reality, the process is completely reversed: ""I found that so"", ""j I found that on the ground, I see that so indeed something, but it's not like that and I'm trying to say that's not how it should work, and that we need to stay a lot more. .. how would I say, much simpler that’s for sure.
But at the same time much more rigorous towards oneself, it does not make oneself... one must not allow oneself multiple interpretations at multiple levels on things that one is going to see on the terrain... You have to stay much colder, much more rigorous, say to yourself I've deduced that, I'll leave it there, no question of increasing pressure because I'm going to find a little detail, a little thing, something that makes me think...
This process is pernicious, do you understand my answer? It's extremely pernicious, you have to put yourself in one direction, the enigmas anyway, they work in one direction: we deduce, we analyze, we deduce, we construct a theory, we go into the field, there is something behind but it is not on the ground that we will find clues. I'm talking about clues, we're not going to find clues on the ground, any more than on the map.
When I say the map it's a tool, Max said the map is not a tool, well it's a pure question of semantics, I say a tool it's a practical thing which avoids dealing with the hand, so we are more efficient with a tool.
Well, the map allows you to put on paper, to put down on paper things that you have deduced in your head, that's how I say it, at the level of the enigmas: we deduce, we analyze, we think that , we make a theory, we go into the field, it works or it doesn't work, but as soon as there is something that doesn't work, we shouldn't try to hang up, if it doesn't work it doesn't work not.
And that's also why we shouldn't go into the field too quickly, there's no point in rushing, if we have a good approach to the great solution, honestly we can go into the field but if we have a little hesitation saying to ourselves, I'll see on the spot, it's because we haven't really captured what.