# Colour Neutral Deliberation



## Kirjava (Jan 7, 2012)

I spent some of today daydreaming about CN. With all the buzz about it these days I thought that I would commit my thoughts to the forum. 

I find it quite funny how people say that CN is hard. Or that it's 'especially hard' with Roux. It's extremely easy to be CN, all you have to do is chose CN when you are starting.

Back in mid-2005 I was a CN petrus solver. I remember having a conversation with Paul Nixon, another UK cuber and petrus solver. He told me about how he was colour neutral, but would always extend his 2x2x2 so that his last layer was always either white or yellow. I couldn't understand why you would want to restrict yourself like that at the time.

So obviously at some point I'd switched to Roux. Gilles Roux advises to have yellow/white on L/R for better recognition of block colours. This also seems to help during LSE as tracking UL/UR pieces during EO (or CLLEO) is stupid easy. So I'd made my choice and I am now stuck with it. 

I don't regret it.

I'm not convinced that CN is outright better than non-CN. Is my recognition better than it would've been if I'd've been CN? Maybe. I have less opportunity to build efficient blocks, but perhaps the effect is negligible. Perhaps I'm better at handling bad block configurations as I'm slightly more used to them. 

Anyone wanting to refute the above points will be missing the point of what I was trying to say.

The thing that people find hard about CN is switching to it. This is something that people seem to think is always a good idea. People advocate switching as if it's accepted as a good thing to do. No fast cuber has ever switched to CN and surpassed his nonCN speed. (Fast is a relative term? Let's say sub10 for now.) 

Switching is extremely hard, and will take you a long long time and a lot of effort. At faster speeds it hasn't even been shown to be possible. You may think that it is worth it, but I certainly do not. Why spend a year or more practising something that at very very best will give you some perceived advantage that may or may not exist when you could spend in on... actually getting faster? 

The effort people are putting into CN is way higher than it's value.

This switching discussion applies mostly to people wanting to go from Fixed Cross -> Full CN. I think there are types of switching that are possible that require a lot less effort. 

The modern BOY colour scheme helps faciliate this easier form of switching. With colours that are opposite to each other being 'similar', switching from something like fixed cross to dual cross because a lot easier than going to full CN due to only having to reverse colours. 

I kind of did this very thing. 

For the first few years of my Roux usage, while I would have either white or yellow on the side of my first block, the bottom would always be blue. About two years ago when I started messing with non-matching blocks I had started to make blocks with green on bottom, to allow myself to create pseudo blocks. I was quite bad at it at first, eventually getting to the point where I could sort of do solves on green at a similar sort of speed to blue on bottom. There's an average video of mine from a year ago where just a single solve was with green on bottom. However, OH is quite good for practising this, and I had switched to dual colour U/D in OH at this point that really helped me get used to it a lot. I then went through a period of starting to throw more and more green bottom solves into my 2H solves, occasionally messing up during F2B because my recog wasn't yet up to scratch. Time goes by and those problems are pretty much gone. I still have a slight blue bias, but I can execute solves on green with no problems. I realised that this had happend when I caught that I'd done it without even noticing until after I'd finished the solve. 

Was it worth it? Eh. Sometimes I'll get a random fast solve from solving on an easy block I got used to. 

That also happens when a case comes up that I learned an alg for in 2 mins.


----------



## Muesli (Jan 7, 2012)

Exactly my thoughts on the matter. I'm only CN from simply getting bored of solving green-cross over and over. If I'd have used green-cross throughout my cubing career up to now, however, I don't think spending so much time trying to get CN would improve my times that much.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 7, 2012)

Good points, but I think it is important to note that switching does not take anywhere near a year. If you do it by color pairs as you alluded to it should really only take 3-4 weeks assuming you don't give up. During this time I would advise either never solving white to make sure that you don't get back into the old habit or make sure that you inspect for longer times to make sure that you choose the best cross, not just the comfortable white one.


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 7, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Good points, but I think it is important to note that switching does not take anywhere near a year. If you do it by color pairs as you alluded to it should really only take 3-4 weeks assuming you don't give up.


 
I should think it would take longer than 3-4 weeks to truly become CN if you are already sub-10 with a fixed starting color.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 7, 2012)

uberCuber said:


> I should think it would take longer than 3-4 weeks to truly become CN if you are already sub-10 with a fixed starting color.



To be 100 percent comfortable with it yes, but to be capable enough to al least average the same as you do no. It all comes down to determination. If you do not let yourself slip up, you can change rather quickly.


----------



## Athefre (Jan 7, 2012)

I started with blue corner Roux. Soon after, I switched to orange and would sometimes switch back to blue. With all of the time I spent testing non-matching, I gained early experience with the other two colors. That's not really an accomplishment, but I guess that's why, even though I'm probably considered slow at 15-16s, I don't notice a speed difference among any of those 8 blocks. Any other orientation would take me a long time to feel as comfortable. It doesn't seem worth it to switch now since I already very often find yellow or white pairs in scrambles.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 7, 2012)

I tried being white/yellow on L and R thanks to Richard Meyer and I was doing this for my early Roux solves. But thanks to the habit of white/yellow on D for a few months from Petrus and CFOP, I really couldn't achieve the times that I really wanted. So that's when I did white/yellow on U/D and neutral L/R. Not really regretting using doing this and I feel like I have more blocks to choose from. Looking back at it, I wish that I had gave white/yellow on L/R more chance for the sake of easy tracking, but I'd say that was a worthwhile "sacrifice (not really)" in able to have more blocks.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jan 8, 2012)

The difficulty of switching to CN from either one or opp-colored cross can be compared to going from a very very structured method such as CFOP to something where more intuition is needed.
Doing "always white cross" makes you stupid (I'll vouch for myself here) in terms of processing crosses on other colors, let alone F2L and LL
This is very similar to the profound difficulties in trying to switch from a 'stupid' method such as CFOP to Petrus, Roux, etc. Again, I'll vouch for myself.

It's much easier to go from unstructured and free systems to structured ones. It's part of your structured set. It doesn't work the other way around.

Sure, it might be possible, but you can in no way say it's easy and you can in no way say it's a matter of laziness.
It's a matter of me, Stachu, making myself 'stupid'/structured early on and having to deal with that now.


This is precisely why when I teach someone how to cube, I do so with Petrus or Roux. Force intuition.



Also, jsklyer, you're wrong.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> To be 100 percent comfortable with it yes, but to be capable enough to al least average the same as you do no. It all comes down to determination. If you do not let yourself slip up, you can change rather quickly.


 
There's a diference between switching to colour neutral when you're slow and switching when you're fast. You have no idea how easy it is to switch to CN when you're fast, and I do not think that you should be dictating that you do.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> There's a diference between switching to colour neutral when you're slow and switching when you're fast. You have no idea how easy it is to switch to CN when you're fast, and I do not think that you should be dictating that you do.


 
Neither do you since you have never done it. I , at least, have tried and have attempted to share my triumphs with others rather than say you can't switch quickly.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

You are the one making claims about the switching timeframe, so you need to have an idea, otherwise you're just making assumptions. This is the problem.

No one fast has *ever* switched to CN. If you could do it in a month, it is likely that it would've happened by now. Fast cubers have tried for months and months to switch to no avail.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> You are the one making claims about the switching timeframe, so you need to have an idea, otherwise you're just making assumptions. This is the problem.
> 
> No one fast has *ever* switched to CN. If you could do it in a month, it is likely that it would've happened by now. Fast cubers have tried for months and months to switch to no avail.



I have yet to find a single person who is fast and has actually spent months and months trying to switch. Most try for a few weeks and then give up (Weston) or only try half heartedly for a month and then give up. No one that I know of has ever taken the time to structure themselves a schedule and try to only focus on switching while not doing their main color as I have proposed. I think it is very possible even for those who are fast to switch if they do it right. I did not and do not claim that they can do it and be 100 percent in a month, but I do think they can get to the same times they are at now with all colors if they stick to it 100% and never falter. Please tell me of someone who has truly put in this much time and has not succeeded? The thing is not enough people have tried it to even make a statement like the one you are making. To say that it is impossible is just wrong. Hard yes, tedious yes, but impossible no.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 11, 2012)

Don't make this thread get closed either... Or even lose your access to the private forum.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

Breandan Vallance is a good example. He's still nowhere near CN, practised for months.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

masterofthebass said:


> Don't make this thread get closed either... Or even lose your access to the private forum.


 
Why would MY access be closed? Kirjava started this up be quoting me and I am simply defending myself. Why is it that he can do whatever he likes and not be punished?

Yeah and Breandan probably didn't use my method to switch, I am certain he probably still solves yellow crosses which deters from his learning the filters.

EDIT: This discussion apparently needs to happen so let it, at least this thread is literally made for this type of discussion.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Why would MY access be closed? Kirjava started this up be quoting me and I am simply defending myself. Why is it that he can do whatever he likes and not be punished?
> 
> Yeah and Breandan probably didn't use my method to switch, I am certain he probably still solves yellow crosses.
> 
> EDIT: This discussion apparently needs to happen so let it, at least this thread is literally made for this type of discussion.


 
I'm just warning you two about petty bickering. The private forum is for uncluttered discussion.


Also... Breandan always used yellow cross exclusively, so of course he still solves it.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Yeah and Breandan probably didn't use my method to switch, I am certain he probably still solves yellow crosses.


 
He does not solve yellow crosses when practising CN.

There is nothing special about 'your method' to make it make months of difference. There is no reason why your 'changes' would make multiple months of practise take only a single month.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

masterofthebass said:


> I'm just warning you two about petty bickering. The private forum is for uncluttered discussion.


 
I completely agree, Kir and I will keep this civil, but we have very different views on this and I think we should discuss this in a forum with Color Neutral Deliberation as its title. I, for one, would like to hear his reasoning behind adamantly opposing me.


----------



## Escher (Jan 11, 2012)

Lol. Breandan usually practices untimed and generally only practices using fixed cross just before a competition. The rest of the time he solves with no colour bias at all, or without yellow.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> He does not solve yellow crosses when practising CN.
> 
> There is nothing special about 'your method' to make it make months of difference. There is no reason why your 'changes' would make multiple months of practise take only a single month.


 
For the reason that you allude to in your statement "he does not solve yellow crosses when practicing CN", the reason he doesn't succeed as quickly is because he still takes the time to practice yellow crosses and still practices yellow cross while trying CN solves. This type of practicing Color neutrality won't be conducive to quick switching. If a person where trying to stop drinking alcohol for good would you tell them to take a few swigs a day? No! Not if you ever wanted him to quit in a timely manner. This is the same thing as going CN, you need to stick to CN solves only to be successful. This is what my guide helps you to do. You only do one color, never your original color, at a time to develop those filters. It takes *at least* a month to do this properly.


----------



## Muesli (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I completely agree, Kir and I will keep this civil, but we have very different views on this and I think we should discuss this in a forum with Color Neutral Deliberation as its title. I, for one, would like to hear his reasoning behind adamantly opposing me.



The way I read it, he opposes your assertions that;
A: Your method is original,
B: It's easy,
C: It can be done in 2 weeks, or whatever timescale takes your fancy.

I don't like to put words in Kir's mouth but I think all of these oppositions are important and valid. I've no problem with people learning to be CN but you blow it up to be much more beneficial than it actually is.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> This type of practicing Color neutrality won't be conducive to quick switching.


 
Where is the evidence that the alternative is?


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> It takes *at least* a month to do this properly.


 
This whole thing boils down to you not providing a single shred of evidence for why your "method" works. You posted a way to attempt to become CN, and keep insisting that your opinions are fact without backing any of it up. There is no way for anyone to actually prove that a type of practice will help you become CN quicker, because it is not something that can be proven. Stop arguing for your method as an end-all solution without really proving why it is good.


----------



## asportking (Jan 11, 2012)

Just saying, I'm pretty sure this thread is supposed to be about color neutrality itself, not about some person's "method" on color neutrality.

As for my opinion, I think that if someone started out cubing non-CN, there's no point wasting his time becoming color neutral when he could be improving other aspects of cubing. On the other hand, if someone started out cubing CN, and is used to it, there's really no reason for him to try switching to non-CN.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

Muesli said:


> The way I read it, he opposes your assertions that;
> A: Your method is original,
> B: It's easy,
> C: It can be done in 2 weeks, or whatever timescale takes your fancy.
> ...



If this is the case then I would reply as follows:

1. I never claimed it to be original, I even say in the video that this is just my mixing a few things together to make a better method. What I claim it to be is different and IMO effective
2. Never said it was easy, I said it is easier than most think, but definitely not easy.
3. I believe that it can be done for the average speeded- 15- sup 1 minute in a month, it might take longer for the faster as I say in my response to nay sayers vid. 



Kirjava said:


> Where is the evidence that the alternative is?


 
Logic my dear friend, logic. That and the fact that any other successful habit changing program does just this.


----------



## Muesli (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> 3. I believe that it can be done for the average speeded- 15- sup 1 minute in a month, it might take longer for the faster as I say in my response to nay sayers vid.


 
And your evidence for this is? Here's the problem.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

So your reply to my request for evidence is 'logic'. Not even some actual logic, just the word logic itself.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

masterofthebass said:


> This whole thing boils down to you not providing a single shred of evidence for why your "method" works. You posted a way to attempt to become CN, and keep insisting that your opinions are fact without backing any of it up. There is no way for anyone to actually prove that a type of practice will help you become CN quicker, because it is not something that can be proven. Stop arguing for your method as an end-all solution without really proving why it is good.


 
My evidence is in both the logic and in the multiple posts on google about breaking habits:
http://www.wikihow.com/Break-a-Habit
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/strategies-for-breaking-bad-habits-and-cultivating-good-ones/
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/12934...icted-food-how-break-your-habit/#.TwzkY2NWqRM

In particular, I read about this:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/04/30-days-to-success/
and tried to apply it to speedcubing. I don't claim that my adaption will be perfect, but the logic is sound.



Muesli said:


> And your evidence for this is? Here's the problem.


 
I have not done studies on this if you mean that, how could I since I just shared this with you guys? This is what I hoped to gain by having people try my method, however people tried to jump down my throat the moment I posted the vid. All I have is the logic that studies done by steve pavlina show that a habit can be broken in 30 days if you stick to it. The best way to stick to something is to remove all forms of temptation (i.e. no using white cross), this can be seen in studies done on drug addicts and is simply logical. I took these two thoughts and used them for my "method", I added the color filters because it is an easy way to explain how our minds lookahead and filter out other colors. This is the logic I refer to.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

Colour bias is an attribute, not a habit.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Colour bias is an attribute, not a habit.


 Lets consider their definitions according to websters dictionary.
habit [hab-it]  
Example Sentences Origin
hab·it1    [hab-it] Show IPA
noun
1.
*an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary: the habit of looking both ways before crossing the street.*
2.
*customary practice or use: Daily bathing is an American habit.*
3.
*a particular practice, custom, or usage: the habit of shaking hands.
4.*
*a dominant or regular disposition or tendency; prevailing character or quality: She has a habit of looking at the bright side of things.*
5.
addiction, especially to narcotics (often preceded by the ).


at·trib·ute   [v. uh-trib-yoot; n. a-truh-byoot] Show IPA verb, -ut·ed, -ut·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1.
*to regard as resulting from a specified cause; consider as caused by something indicated (usually followed by to ): She attributed his bad temper to ill health.*
2.
to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc., indicated: He attributed intelligence to his colleagues.
3.
to consider as made by the one indicated, especially with strong evidence but in the absence of conclusive proof: to attribute a painting to an artist.
4.
to regard as produced by or originating in the time, period, place, etc., indicated; credit; assign: to attribute a work to a particular period; to attribute a discovery to a particular country.
noun

It is both, it is a habit that can be attributed to multitude of factors including simply lack of knowledge that doing all colors is more optimal than doing one color first.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

Sure, it can be called a habit in a certain context, but the way your 'evidence' uses the word habit is specifically as the 5th definition, which is not what colour bias is an example of.

(by the way, I was using attribute as a noun - you didn't really understand what I was saying)


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Sure, it can be called a habit in a certain context, but the way your 'evidence' uses the word habit is specifically as the 5th definition, which is not what colour bias is an example of.
> 
> (by the way, I was using attribute as a noun - you didn't really understand what I was saying)


 
Attribute- Noun:
*something attributed as belonging to a person, thing, group, etc.; a quality, character, characteristic, or property: Sensitivity is one of his attributes.*
6.
something used as a symbol of a particular person, office, or status: A scepter is one of the attributes of a king.
7.
Grammar . a word or phrase that is syntactically subordinate to another and serves to limit, identify, particularize, describe, or supplement the meaning of the form with which it is in construction. In the red house, red is an attribute of house.
8.
Fine Arts . an object associated with or symbolic of a character, office, or quality, as the keys of St. Peter or the lion skin of Hercules.
9.
Philosophy . (in the philosophy of Spinoza) any of the essential qualifications of God, thought and extension being the only ones known. Compare mode1 ( def. 4b ) .

I assume you mean the first and in which case it still fits more properly into habit seeing as how it fits 4 of the 5 defs and only 2 of the 9 defs for attribute. 

Getting back onto topic, considering what I have said and why I made the video, and keeping the evidence in mind, do you still feel that switching to color neutrality in a month is impossible even if you are faster?


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I assume you mean the first and in which case it still fits more properly into habit seeing as how it fits 4 of the 5 defs and only 2 of the 9 defs for attribute.


 
*You did not understand what I wrote.* "the way your 'evidence' uses the word habit is specifically as the 5th definition, which is not what colour bias is an example of".


----------



## Muesli (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Getting back onto topic, considering what I have said and why I made the video, and keeping the evidence in mind, do you still feel that switching to color neutrality in a month is impossible even if you are faster?


 
Yes.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

First of all Color fixededness is like an addiction since most people do it and cannot stop themselve, then again so is cubing in general, second, almost all of the definitions of habit are interchangeable and thus still apply. Being color fixed is 1.an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary: the habit of looking both ways before crossing the street. 2.a customary practice or use: Daily bathing is an American habit. 3. a particular practice, custom, or usage: the habit of shaking hands. and 4, a dominant or regular disposition or tendency; prevailing character or quality: She has a habit of looking at the bright side of things. All of these are also descriptions of an addiction for which my sources are used. 

Now can we please just end this? I am not saying that becoming color neutral is easy, because I completely understand that it isn't and it wasn't even that easy when I did it, but it is like learning pll, at first it is really difficult, but you look back at it a few months later it doesn't seem that bad and it totally seems worth it. All I am saying is that if one pushes themselves to stick to a strict regiment which has no temptations and gives them ample time (a month is quite a while, I learned all of Oll and a month!! and doing one color for five days is a lot of time, try doing one color for a day straight and see how much you improve on that color , now try doing it for five times that. ) to change. Please explain how I am wrong here?



Muesli said:


> Yes.


 
Your reasoning and support?


----------



## Muesli (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Your reasoning and support?


 
I believe it to be true.


----------



## asportking (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> at first it is really difficult, but you look back at it a few months later it doesn't seem that bad and *it totally seems worth it*.


This is where I disagree. If you don't start out color neutral, I don't feel like it's worth it to switch when you could be doing other things like improving F2L.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> First of all Color fixededness is like an addiction since most people do it and cannot stop themselve, then again so is cubing in general, second, almost all of the definitions of habit are interchangeable and thus still apply. Being color fixed is 1.an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary: the habit of looking both ways before crossing the street. 2.a customary practice or use: Daily bathing is an American habit. 3. a particular practice, custom, or usage: the habit of shaking hands. and 4, a dominant or regular disposition or tendency; prevailing character or quality: She has a habit of looking at the bright side of things. All of these are also descriptions of an addiction for which my sources are used.



'Addiction' generally requires the activity in question as thought to be addictive to have an overall negative consequence associated with it. Colour bias has not been shown to have an overall negative effect.



jskyler91 said:


> Now can we please just end this? I am not saying that becoming color neutral is easy, because I completely understand that it isn't and it wasn't even that easy when I did it, but it is like learning pll, at first it is really difficult, but you look back at it a few months later it doesn't seem that bad and it totally seems worth it. All I am saying is that if one pushes themselves to stick to a strict regiment which has no temptations and gives them ample time (a month is quite a while, I learned all of Oll and a month!! and doing one color for five days is a lot of time, try doing one color for a day straight and see how much you improve on that color , now try doing it for five times that. ) to change. Please explain how I am wrong here?



You think your limited experience applies to everyone in all situations. This is why you are wrong.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

Muesli said:


> I believe it to be true.


well if that is all one needs to do to have a valid argument then I simply believe I am right and while I am at it I believe that I believe I can fly too. 



asportking said:


> This is where I disagree. If you don't start out color neutral, I don't feel like it's worth it to switch when you could be doing other things like improving F2L.


 

That is simply a matter of opinion, and we aren't talking about if u should switch, I but how to do it.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> we aren't talking about if u should switch, I but how to do it.


 
No. This topic is about if you should switch or not. You're the only person who thinks *how* to switch is important.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> 'Addiction' generally requires the activity in question as thought to be addictive to have an overall negative consequence associated with it. Colour bias has not been shown to have an overall negative effect.
> 
> 
> 
> You think your limited experience applies to everyone in all situations. This is why you are wrong.


My experience is only the icing on the cake, and my logic is till sound and thus my hypothesis is likely true.. As to the negative connotation thing you are just being ridiculous now man, connotations are culturally perceived and not necessarily true, in some cultures where spousal abuse is ok people don't think the word abuse is negative at all. The definition still fits regardless of connotations.. I am not necessarily saying that you have to switch because it is bad, but although I do believe this, but i am just giving a method for switching.



Kirjava said:


> No. This topic is about if you should switch or not. You're the only person who thinks *how* to switch is important.


 The title of this thread is color neutral deliberations, so this discussion fits. Also how can you say your not interested? You came to my thread and started ranting that switching wasn't possible for fast people, completely ruined my thread and got it closed, then you came over here and quoted me trying to insight me into verbal fight.. Those do not seem to be the actions of a man who isn't interested.


----------



## Pedro (Jan 11, 2012)

To jskyler91

I'm a little sleepy, so please forgive me if I say something wrong, but you said in your 2nd video that if you want to quit smoking, you don't just stop, right?

Well, there's a sunday tv show here, with HUGE following, and this famous doctor did a series to help people quit smoking. And the first thing he said was DON'T SMOKE AT ALL. It's tough, obviously, but if you do it, your brain will find it good and won't want to stop.

But in this thread you said "to break a habit, you must avoid all temptation". So I'm confused. Should you smoke less and less or quit right now?


Another thing, you say "I'm not saying you'll be 100% in a month, but you'll be able to do your current times on any color". If being 100% is not exactly that, then what is it?


Also, I don't think CN is that much better. You said you can find easier crosses, have better look ahead and stuff. Well, I do sometimes have bad crosses solving only on white, but I've learned to deal with it.
I don't think you'll have BETTER look ahead with CN, since you have more options to go, and your brain needs to be able to look ahead in more ways. I think using only one color gives you the best look ahead possible, because it's always the same pairs and center-positions.
You said you can have faster TPS because of the easier cross, but...really? Cross is like 4-8 moves. Does it make that much of a difference in TPS?

Other thing. You said one-color solving is "like an addiction since most people do it and cannot stop themselve".
Well, I can stop myself and solve with other colors. It's not like I'll freak out if I'm not allowed to use white. I'll just be slower.
This reminds me of when I thought about switching from ring-finger-OH to pinky-OH. It looks good, but I'm not sure I'd ever get to my current times (around 18-19 in good days), let alone get faster.

Oh, and btw, I've tried solving with other colors, and got times like 14-18 (I average low-11). I'm stuck with my times for a while, and that's probably because I've been cubing too long, and didn't learn it the good way from the beginning. I don't think I'll be able to switch to CN in a month or two, as you state.


The main thing I think about CN is how people choose the cross. "I just do what looks easy", "I go for the easier one"...Well, analysing all 6 colors takes time, even if you're really good. Time which could be spent looking for pairs. So I don't think your claim that "it helps you see the first pair" is totally valid.

I would like to try your "method", but I don't have that much spare time (I do right now, but probably not for long, since I need a job), and I'd rather practice to (try to) improve my times, rather than do something which I'm not sure about the advantages and do-ability.

EDIT

I'll try doing and avg100 with each color and see how it goes, but that's tomorrow. Bed time now.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 11, 2012)

Pedro said:


> To jskyler91
> 
> I'm a little sleepy, so please forgive me if I say something wrong, but you said in your 2nd video that if you want to quit smoking, you don't just stop, right?
> 
> ...


 
Ok, first and foremost, my method was NOT to do avg of 100 with each color, someone else said that. You can see a description of my "guide" in my thread. As to the smoking stuff I don't mean that you should smoke to ween yourself off of smoking I mean you should do nicotine patches or something to change your body slowly. I am proposing a similar method with my vid, you don't ever smoke (use your dominant color) you just use other colors and learn to switch. That is what i mean by my metaphor. 
100% to me means without thought or bais, this is something that does take a longer time to achieve. Just because you can solve CN as well as the rest doesn't mean you can necessarily do it thoughtlessly. Also, these benefits are small, I agree, but they will become all the more useful as you increase. One thing that I completely agree with Kirjava on is that the sooner you change the better because it will only make it easier. If you want more info on my method or my reasons why you should switch check my thread in the how to section. As to whether or not being CN is better I admit that there are good arguments on both sides, but I personally think the good outweights the bad. Whether or not you agree is up to you. Also, and I have stated this a million times, the only way you will know if it will work is to try. Even if you only find that you can solve with one other color well isn't that better?


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> My experience is only the icing on the cake, and my logic is till sound and thus my hypothesis is likely true..



You keep saying that your argument is correct because of 'logic'. Simply saying it is true without explanation does not make it actually true,



jskyler91 said:


> As to the negative connotation thing you are just being ridiculous now man, connotations are culturally perceived and not necessarily true, in some cultures where spousal abuse is ok people don't think the word abuse is negative at all. The definition still fits regardless of connotations.. I am not necessarily saying that you have to switch because it is bad, but although I do believe this, but i am just giving a method for switching.



*You did not understand what I wrote.* Since addiction requires the addictive thing to be negative, colour bias cannot be said to be addictive since it cannot be shown to be a negative trait. *Please note that saying something has not been shown to have an overall negative effect is not the same as saying that it is not negative.* What you said has absolutely no relevance to what I said.




jskyler91 said:


> The title of this thread is color neutral deliberations, so this discussion fits.



*Please read and understand the argument before replying to it.* You said that the topic is not about switching.



jskyler91 said:


> Also how can you say your not interested?



I... didn't? I have no idea where you got this from and it appears that you have made it up.



jskyler91 said:


> You came to my thread and started ranting that switching wasn't possible for fast people



I did no such thing. I have never stated that switching is not possible.



jskyler91 said:


> completely ruined my thread and got it closed, then you came over here and quoted me trying to insight me into verbal fight..



How come when I reply to one of your posts I'm "insighting" a fight, yet when you do it there is nothing wrong?



jskyler91 said:


> Those do not seem to be the actions of a man who isn't interested.



Of course I am interested, why else would I make this topic in the first place. CN is a topic that I have recently been interested in. I have no idea where you go the idea about how I am not interested.



jskyler91 said:


> One thing that I completely agree with Kirjava on is that the sooner you change the better because it will only make it easier.



Yet you think that however different the difficulty is, it will still take the same amount of time.


----------



## Pedro (Jan 11, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Ok, first and foremost, my method was NOT to do avg of 100 with each color, someone else said that. You can see a description of my "guide" in my thread. As to the smoking stuff I don't mean that you should smoke to ween yourself off of smoking I mean you should do nicotine patches or something to change your body slowly. I am proposing a similar method with my vid, you don't ever smoke (use your dominant color) you just use other colors and learn to switch. That is what i mean by my metaphor.
> 100% to me means without thought or bais, this is something that does take a longer time to achieve. Just because you can solve CN as well as the rest doesn't mean you can necessarily do it thoughtlessly. Also, these benefits are small, I agree, but they will become all the more useful as you increase. One thing that I completely agree with Kirjava on is that the sooner you change the better because it will only make it easier. If you want more info on my method or my reasons why you should switch check my thread in the how to section. As to whether or not being CN is better I admit that there are good arguments on both sides, but I personally think the good outweights the bad. Whether or not you agree is up to you. Also, and I have stated this a million times, the only way you will know if it will work is to try. Even if you only find that you can solve with one other color well isn't that better?


 
I've read your thread and your guide, and I never said you told us to do one avg100 with each color...

About the smoking, the doctor seems to disagree with you  He said "just don't smoke and be strong". He never claimed everyone could do it in X time, actually he said many times that was not the goal. The goal was to help people who wanted to quit. Not everyone succeeded, but some did.

About the 100%, please explain to me how much better you can get from doing it as well as your dominant color...if that's not 100%, I don't really know what you mean.

I think everyone agrees that the sooner you switch, the better, that's pretty obvious.



> Even if you only find that you can solve with one other color well isn't that better?


I'm not sure I understood this. Do you mean I should try to switch, and if after a month I can't do it, that's better? Better than what? I already knew I could solve with one color well...and I wasted a month of practicing my color...(*confused)


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 11, 2012)

To add something to this conversation I have decided that I am color neutral now.

To clarify: I am going to approach becoming color neutral the same way I make a change to my BLD solving - I simply make the change in its entirety, cold turkey, and stick with it.

My approach so far has been to examine and plan each cross (untimed, so probably using greater than 15 seconds when I inspect the cube) and to count the number of moves for each cross color without actually applying moves to the cube. I also check to see if any color has an X-cross, and I choose the best X-cross if there are multiple options. I then choose the option with the shortest number of turns. My goal will be to reduce the amount of time taken to less than 15 seconds, and also to get to the point where I can go by gut instinct to choose my cross color, rather than examining the move count on all colors to decide.

I actually kind of like solving on any color so far, it's fun to be doing something new that will, hopefully, pull me out of the OK-Plateau. I expect to hear the argument "Your data does not count, as you're not considered a 'fast' solver", and my response to that is I understand the sentiment, but I don't care. I am curious if I can make the color neutral switch, and for those who are interested I will post about it if I find any significant happenings during this process. I am curious to see if I can overcome 6 years of being white-yellow color neutral by becoming completely color neutral.

I used to be a white cross only solver for about 6 years before I decided to become white/yellow neutral. Now I consider myself 100% white/yellow neutral, but it took about a year for this to become automatic. My prediction is that, assuming I stick with it which so far I plan to, that becoming fully color neutral will take about a year to become completely automatic.

I know this disagrees with some of the arguments presented so far, but this has been my experience so far with changing my degree of color-neutralness.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 11, 2012)

cmhardw said:


> To add something to this conversation I have decided that I am color neutral now.



Teller? Is that you? XD



cmhardw said:


> To clarify: I am going to approach becoming color neutral the same way I make a change to my BLD solving - I simply make the change in its entirety, cold turkey, and stick with it.



I think it'd be more correct to say you are in a state of switching than you are actually colour neutral.



cmhardw said:


> I used to be a white cross only solver for about 6 years before I decided to become white/yellow neutral. Now I consider myself 100% white/yellow neutral, but it took about a year for this to become automatic. My prediction is that, assuming I stick with it which so far I plan to, that becoming fully color neutral will take about a year to become completely automatic.
> 
> I know this disagrees with some of the arguments presented so far, but this has been my experience so far with changing my degree of color-neutralness.


 
In my original post I estimated a year and over. You're agreeing with me. This timescale is much more realistic than a month, and is backed by evidence.


----------



## Sa967St (Jan 12, 2012)

I, for one, will never switch to CN or opposite-CN.
I find that the two biggest advantages of being used to one colour cross is that 
1) I don't ever have to think what the permutation of the cross pieces is, and 
2) PLL recognition is easier for cases that have mirrors. 

When planning the cross I never look at the centers just to check what order the 4 pieces have to be in, I already know the order is green-orange-blue-red. Sometimes I only use a second or two of inspection, because all I need to locate the cross pieces. I don't have to ever think about which one has to go where with respect to each other, because I'm so familiar with it. 

Question for CN/opp-CN CFOP solvers: When solving a void cube, do you have to take a moment to think about the permutation of the cross pieces during inspection, or do you 'just know' where they go with respect to each other?

As for PLL recognition, there are 71x4=284 unique ways the PLL can look (2-side recognition), all of which I am very familiar with. If someone asked me what the missing colour is here given that's it's the Ab perm, I would instantly know it's green, or if someone showed me these (click click) and asked me which one had white LL and which one had a yellow LL, I would instantly know which one is which. Knowing the PLLs this well is especially useful when I preserve blocks during OLL. If I had this case (the 3x1 block stays with R' U' R' F R F' U R), I would know that the PLL is either R(a), G(a), U(b), A(a) or Z, before even performing the OLL, and I could narrow it down even further by looking at the CP.

An interesting thing is, it's not the white I'm so used to, it's the surrounding colours. A cube with the standard colour scheme with 2 opposite colours swapped throws me off so much if I use white cross, but not at all if I use yellow cross. I could probably easily adjust to any colour scheme that has green-orange/yellow-blue-red around the E layer.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 12, 2012)

Sa967St said:


> I, for one, will never switch to CN or opposite-CN.
> ...
> ...
> 2) PLL recognition is easier for cases that have mirrors.



Sarah, that's really interesting. I've seen your site for PLL recognition using only 2 sides, but I never thought about how much easier this would be if you always solved the same, fixed cross color. I can definitely see this as very good argument in favor of single color only cross solving.

I think an implicit argument that people often use for CN solving is one very similar to the one I present here. As Stefan Pochmann pointed out a few years ago, this reasoning is likely flawed when you use it for complete color neutral solving, but it will likely be good as a very rough estimate.

So, for example, if you have an approximately 10% chance of getting a _really_ good cross when always solving the same cross color, then you have very roughly a:
\( 1-(1-0.10)^6 \approx 47\% \)

chance of getting an equally easy cross when choosing the easiest cross color out of your 6 choices. Again, as Stefan pointed out, this may only be a rough approximation of your actual chance for this.

I find it interesting that color neutral solving benefits the beginning of the solve very much, whereas solving with a fixed color benefits the ending (i.e. PLL recognition) very much. Personally, I think that the jury is still out as to which is more of a benefit than the other, or if this varies from person to person.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 12, 2012)

cmhardw said:


> I find it interesting that color neutral solving benefits the beginning of the solve very much, whereas solving with a fixed color benefits the ending (i.e. PLL recognition) very much. Personally, I think that the jury is still out as to which is more of a benefit than the other, or if this varies from person to person.



I don't know if I can completely agree with this assessment. Yes, being CN would hinder Sarah's 2side recognition, but that is far from the norm used for PLL. Also, what constitutes "benefits the beginning of the solve very much"? The 2-3 move benefit that sometimes happens when being CN, in my opinion, does not impact the solve as much as some might think. I think the main benefit to an easy cross is the cross -> F2L transition, which is just made a little easier and perhaps more consistent with shorter crosses, but really does not justify switching to being CN from fixed color cross.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 12, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Maybe not to you, but I know a lot of cubers who would love to be more consistent and have a better lookahead simply by method i.e. by being CN



Except the vast majority of the solve is not the the cross -> F2L transition. That is a very minute part of the solve which is only slightly benefitted from being CN. It is hardly a big enough difference to invest the sheer amount of time necessary to switch to being CN.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 12, 2012)

masterofthebass said:


> Except the vast majority of the solve is not the the cross -> F2L transition. That is a very minute part of the solve which is only slightly benefitted from being CN. It is hardly a big enough difference to invest the sheer amount of time necessary to switch to being CN.


 
I would agree if the cross to f2l transition only affected that particular time in the solve, but it doesn't your cross to f2l transition changes the entire tempo of your solve and, for me at least, determines how fast you can solve it.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 12, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I would agree if the cross to f2l transition only affected that particular time in the solve, but it doesn't your cross to f2l transition changes the entire tempo of your solve and, for me at least, determines how fast you can solve it.


 
I highly doubt that you honestly believe the only thing that affects a solve's time is the cross to f2l transition. I already said that a good transition is aided with CN, but it in no way is so heavily influenced that it is worth switching. People who are fast with fixed cross have the ability to make good transitions, whether that is from lookahead during cross/inspection, or just the ability to find the pieces they need instantly. The burden of switching to being completely color neutral is absolutely not worth the slight benefit that can happen on a few solves.


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 12, 2012)

masterofthebass said:


> I highly doubt that you honestly believe the only thing that affects a solve's time is the cross to f2l transition. I already said that a good transition is aided with CN, but it in no way is so heavily influenced that it is worth switching. People who are fast with fixed cross have the ability to make good transitions, whether that is from lookahead during cross/inspection, or just the ability to find the pieces they need instantly. The burden of switching to being completely color neutral is absolutely not worth the slight benefit that can happen on a few solves.


 
I just did an average of 100 and 73 of those crosses where not white crosses. That seems to be a little more than every few solves. 75% of the time I am saving a few moves over white. That seems to be worth it to me. I am beginning to realize that this is simply a topic that neither side will budge on. Those who are set in non color neutrality will not listen to the logic of why to be color neutral and vice. I think you should just go with whatever you want to do because it doesn't really matter what others say you (not you masterofthebass, but you as in the non listening person in general) are just going to do what you want.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 12, 2012)

Anecdotal evidence of how many solves you did that didn't have a white cross means absolutely nothing. Saving 1-2 moves is in no way possible a valid reason to basically relearn how to solve a cube. I can average sub 12 CN, but the solves are so far off from my white cross that the time needed just is not worth it.


----------



## Pedro (Jan 12, 2012)

Dude, you didn't "prove your points". There's no way to do that. Neither for you or us. 
Saying "75% of the time I am saving a few moves over white" means nothing. Did you actually count all the crosses? Are you sure the white cross wasn't the same # of moves as the cross you chose?


----------



## Pedro (Jan 12, 2012)

Ok, just did an avg100 with yellow:

First 50: 15.67 mean, SD = 2.21
Best avg5: 13.84, Best avg12: 14.35

Total: 15.13 mean, SD = 2.50 (16.5%)
Best avg5: 12.15, Best avg12: 13.99

Some easy solves (three 11s) near the end made the good avg5.

My global avg with white (10739 solves over the past 5 months) is 12.47, with SD 1.75 (14%) so this was about 21% slower.

Here are the graphs from Prisma with this avg100 and my global with white and also the avg100 with blue:
Yellow White Blue Green

------------------------------------------------------The day after---------------------------------------------------------

Avg100 with blue today:

Fist 50: 17.04 mean, SD = 2.08
Best avg5: 14.55, Best avg12: 16.34

Total: 16.66 mean, SD = 2.05 (12.3%)
Best avg5: 14.55, Best avg12: 15.22

16.66 is 33.6% slower than my 12.47 avg with white.

Added the blue avg graph above.

-------------------------------------Jan 16th------------------------------

Did green today:

First 50: 16.39 mean, SD = 2.10 (12.8%)
Best avg5: 14.08, Best avg12: 15.00

Total: 16.41 mean, SD = 2.37 (14.4%)
Best avg5: 13.80, Best avg12: 15.00

16.41 is 31.4% slower than avg with white

Added green graph above.
Best avg5: 13.80, Best avg12: 15.00


----------



## Hammer (Sep 26, 2016)

Should i become CN?


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 26, 2016)

Hammer said:


> Should i become CN?



In short: switching is difficult, but it is totally worth it.


----------



## Logiqx (Sep 27, 2016)

cmhardw said:


> In short: switching is difficult, but it is totally worth it.



Have you looked at how often you solve each cross colour? I have a tendency to pick white / yellow (50% white, 25% yellow) and everything else pretty much evenly. I seem to get equally good times whatever I choose so long as it is an easy cross.

Despite my bias for white / yellow my fastest competition times have been using green and red. I think non-white/yellow solves cause me to turn a little less quickly, resulting in better lookahead.


----------



## Luke8 (May 1, 2017)

Sorry for the bump, but I am about a 30 second solver, is is worth it to learn to be color neutral?


----------



## shadowslice e (May 1, 2017)

Luke8 said:


> Sorry for the bump, but I am about a 30 second solver, is is worth it to learn to be color neutral?


Well recent records seem to suggest so though this might be because those who can be bothered to be colour neutral are those who would put more effort into cubing so it's basically a chicken and egg situation.

Though just to be safe it is probably better to be CN.


----------



## Luke8 (May 1, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Well recent records seem to suggest so though this might be because those who can be bothered to be colour neutral are those who would put more effort into cubing so it's basically a chicken and egg situation.
> 
> Though just to be safe it is probably better to be CN.



Thanks1


----------



## mark49152 (May 1, 2017)

Luke8 said:


> Sorry for the bump, but I am about a 30 second solver, is is worth it to learn to be color neutral?


Read the first post in the thread, it's helpful.


----------



## EmperorZant (May 2, 2017)

After reading through this thread, I've honestly recanted my original opinion that color neutrality is for-sure a good idea; I was of the opinion that even people like Mats Valk should at least try color-neutrality in order to reap is occasional benefits. (I figured people like Valk wouldn't learn color neutrality or really like it, but I still thought everyone should at least give it a shot.)

Now, I think that Valk would probably find the ordeal to be a waste of time... for him. This is because I feel that color neutrality is _not_ like a method; anyone can, and should, put the time into learning the main, big methods in speedsolving. There is no reason not to learn (or at least learn _about_) CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and Petrus (and maybe a few others); they are simply different enough to give you an idea of how the cube can be solved in meaningfully different ways. This allows you to pick a speedsolving method you're comfortable with... or just give up on speedsolving!

Rather, color neutrality is like ZBLL: it's not truly known whether it's faster/more efficient to learn it in its entirety, as both people without ZBLL (like Max Park) and people with ZBLL (like Feliks Zemdegs, Jayden McNeil, and Jabari) have achieved similar, consistently fast times. Sure, we can claim that one is faster than the other because of this or that, but we truly don't know! Only time will tell whether the color neutral solvers or the single-cross solvers will be faster... or if they'll continue to be about the same speed!

I'm always interested to hear what kind of cross-color and method people use nowadays... you never know what kind of solver will get to the top one day.


----------

