Is my good memory hindering the benefits of fool proofing ?

ecarr_12

I've been caping out at around 4 times to go over a single game because I feel like I begin to actually memorize all inferences, I know that this is the point but sometimes I feel like I'm not really thinking too hard to come to my answer choices even though they end up being correct most of the time. Is this the goal with fool proofing? I don't know whether I'm finally breaking through that threshold of understanding where things just "click" or if my memory skills are just carrying me through because I've seen certain games before. Any advice from others who may feel/felt this way towards fool proofing ?

NotMyName

Do you return to games after more than a week has elapsed? If not, I'd recommend you begin to.

But I can relate to your post. It's difficult to tell what you're learning vs memorizing for that specific game. The ultimate test is whether or not you can recognize the same inferences when they appear on new games. But, as you say, internalizing the inferences in the goal after all.

I would suggest working on more than just memorizing inferences when you are fool proofing, though. Practice applying a consistent symbology in your rules, writing NEATLY, skipping to the easiest QTs in a game (new-rule questions first), splitting, not splitting and visualizing, etc etc etc.

TheMikey

I think if you remember it's still fine to repeat the games as long as you work through every single thing in the game and realize the step you are taking for each thing you do since in the future you will be repeating them.

just don't pick an AC or diagram a certain way because you know it's like that. Realize why you are doing what you are doing (e.g. seeing 7 names and seeing that they are all consecutive and then seeing that it's a single layered sequencing game if there's no double layered feel to it or something).

Sami

@ecarr_12 said:
I've been caping out at around 4 times to go over a single game because I feel like I begin to actually memorize all inferences, I know that this is the point but sometimes I feel like I'm not really thinking too hard to come to my answer choices even though they end up being correct most of the time. Is this the goal with fool proofing? I don't know whether I'm finally breaking through that threshold of understanding where things just "click" or if my memory skills are just carrying me through because I've seen certain games before. Any advice from others who may feel/felt this way towards fool proofing ?

You really do make an excellent point. Repeating games at some point can actually become a hinderance and I think the gain can actually be in negatives. Learning patterns in inference making is good, but when you find yourself that you are not working as hard or doing the process then you can actually hurt your LG strategy because you may become complacent and that will really show on a LG section you have never done.

The focus for an LG section should therefore be on having a solid form such as circling signals- drowning noise, identifying rules that lead you think inferences can be made, and triggers for when you know you should split vs not. If a game becomes too easy, do one that's like it but not the exact one and truly see if you got it.

goingfor99th

@Sami said:

@ecarr_12 said:
I've been caping out at around 4 times to go over a single game because I feel like I begin to actually memorize all inferences, I know that this is the point but sometimes I feel like I'm not really thinking too hard to come to my answer choices even though they end up being correct most of the time. Is this the goal with fool proofing? I don't know whether I'm finally breaking through that threshold of understanding where things just "click" or if my memory skills are just carrying me through because I've seen certain games before. Any advice from others who may feel/felt this way towards fool proofing ?

You really do make an excellent point. Repeating games at some point can actually become a hinderance and I think the gain can actually be in negatives. Learning patterns in inference making is good, but when you find yourself that you are not working as hard or doing the process then you can actually hurt your LG strategy because you may become complacent and that will really show on a LG section you have never done.

The focus for an LG section should therefore be on having a solid form such as circling signals- drowning noise, identifying rules that lead you think inferences can be made, and triggers for when you know you should split vs not. If a game becomes too easy, do one that's like it but not the exact one and truly see if you got it.

I don't know about this. I always repeated games, and many times. I didn't do it like the "foolproof method" advises, though. I had much more time between repeats, and usually I had run through at least 30-40 tests worth of other LG/LG sections before I returned. I always felt as though I took something more away from the game when I would repeat in this way.

Sami

@goingfor99th said:

@Sami said:

@ecarr_12 said:

I don't know about this. I always repeated games, and many times. I didn't do it like the "foolproof method" advises, though. I had much more time between repeats, and usually I had run through at least 30-40 tests worth of other LG/LG sections before I returned. I always felt as though I took something more away from the game when I would repeat in this way.

I definitely repeat games too and they are very helpful. It's hard to put into exact words but I guess what I am trying to say is unless you are focusing on form because you have done these games before they can hurt you a bit as they can hide poor form and actually make that bad form a habit. But doing repeats with good form is really really good (there is a distinction). For example, on a repeat you may know to split a game but on the real one unless your repeats had good form you may miss the triggers for splitting. Also, poor form can easily be hidden in repeats but manifests into those "silly" mistakes that makes us go -1 or -2 on an LG where we should go -0.

@"Cant Get Right" and I are currently working on a session that talks about what a good form on LG looks like. So let's see how that comes out.

goingfor99th

@Sami said:

@goingfor99th said:

@Sami said:

@ecarr_12 said:

I don't know about this. I always repeated games, and many times. I didn't do it like the "foolproof method" advises, though. I had much more time between repeats, and usually I had run through at least 30-40 tests worth of other LG/LG sections before I returned. I always felt as though I took something more away from the game when I would repeat in this way.

I definitely repeat games too and they are very helpful. It's hard to put into exact words but I guess what I am trying to say is unless you are focusing on form because you have done these games before they can hurt you a bit as they can hide poor form and actually make that bad form a habit. But doing repeats with good form is really really good (there is a distinction). For example, on a repeat you may know to split a game but on the real one unless your repeats had good form you may miss the triggers for splitting. Also, poor form can easily be hidden in repeats but manifests into those "silly" mistakes that makes us go -1 or -2 on an LG where we should go -0.

Ah, I better understand what you're describing now. Yes, this phenomenon occurred during my training as well. It happened for a while, in fact.

For me, overcoming this was mostly about striking a balance between "artistry" and "mechanics."

Alex

@Sami said:

@goingfor99th said:

@Sami said:

@ecarr_12 said:

@"Cant Get Right" and I are currently working on a session that talks about what a good form on LG looks like. So let's see how that comes out.

yay -- so excited for this

StrangerThanFiction175

@ecarr_12 said:
I don't know whether I'm finally breaking through that threshold of understanding where things just "click" or if my memory skills are just carrying me through because I've seen certain games before.

I know what you mean. I was skeptical of the fool proof method for this very reason.

But I think this ultimately is a good thing, as long as you remembering the inferences and not the correct answer. I say this because inferences often repeat throughout test history, so if you memorize a few inferences, there is a good chance that at least some of those will show up again on another test. This is how people beast mode the games and finish with ten minutes to go.

akistotle

@Sami said:
@"Cant Get Right" and I are currently working on a session that talks about what a good form on LG looks like. So let's see how that comes out.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/3925ab4067f267efbc3fd0e3c3d2a64f/tenor.gif

studyingandrestudying

Awesome! Looking forward to it and hoping I can make it to it.