How confident are you?

@ashiitaka said
No sane person would participate in this thread.

Rate yourself highly and people place you on the left of the curve.

Rate yourself lowly and people think that you did it on purpose in order to be seen as more competent than you actually are.

By bringing up the Dunning-Kruger effect, you corrupted your own thread and distorted any potential data.

Then you called McHill insane.

No cowardly person would participate in this thread for fear of attacks from the ego bruised. Notice nobody has provided an example of how my self rating of 9 is wrong. That just makes me confident I am right and all of the global warming alarmists on this forum cannot bruise my ego. They are actually boosting it with their baseless attacks. Hilarious!

The post that was quoted here has been removed

What is the average rating? How would you rate me based on my rating?
I do think my chess playing is better than the average chess player. That does not necessarily mean my rating is average on here because players on this website might be better than average. That is why I said it was relative.

Did you notice I said it was relative?

@metal-brain said
Then you called McHill insane.

No cowardly person would participate in this thread for fear of attacks from the ego bruised. Notice nobody has provided an example of how my self rating of 9 is wrong. That just makes me confident I am right and all of the global warming alarmists on this forum cannot bruise my ego. They are actually boosting it with their baseless attacks. Hilarious!

So it appears that one of your debating axioms is “if a claim of yours is not proven wrong to your satisfaction, that fact supports your confidence in the conclusion that you are right.” Then your self assessment of your debating skills is understandable. And you won’t see the flaw in your thinking that brings this about. It depends entirely on whether anyone can convince you that this is a flaw in your thinking!

@js357 said
So it appears that one of your debating axioms is “if a claim of yours is not proven wrong to your satisfaction, that fact supports your confidence in the conclusion that you are right.” Then your self assessment of your debating skills is understandable. And you won’t see the flaw in your thinking that brings this about. It depends entirely on whether anyone can convince you that this is a flaw in your thinking!

Anybody has the ability to quote any of my posts on this forum and the science forum. Furthermore, I have a thread on the science forum called "sea level rise".
Since the vast majority of people who have chosen childish and dishonest insults are global warming alarmists you can all attempt to prove anthropogenic global warming is as significant of a factor as they claim.

In other words, talk is cheap. Gossip isn't proof.
Show I don't debate logically with accurate statements, don't make stuff up like suzianne and others. I remember when she claimed I was outed from the science forum. HA! Never happened. Not even close.

@metal-brain said
I think I play chess better than the average person, but that is a relative thing. I don't think I am all that good compared to a lot of people on here so I'd give myself a 6 or 7.
I think my debating skills are better than that so I'll give myself a 9.

Depends on the group.
Considering general population.
I'd give myself an 8 for chess.
And a 5 for debating.

On this forum.
A 5 for chess.
And an 8 for debating.

@wolfgang59 said
Depends on the group.
Considering general population.
I'd give myself an 8 for chess.
And a 5 for debating.

On this forum.
A 5 for chess.
And an 8 for debating.

Thanks for participating.

I'm curious about one thing. Do you think you could improve your game if you tried harder or do you think you are already trying hard?

@metal-brain said
Thanks for participating.

I'm curious about one thing. Do you think you could improve your game if you tried harder or do you think you are already trying hard?

Most people could improve anything in their
lives by trying harder. Chess is no exception.

@wolfgang59 said
Most people could improve anything in their
lives by trying harder. Chess is no exception.

I didn't mean by studying chess or learning by playing others. I mean not analyzing possible opponent moves in advance to the extent you could.
I get lazy and don't do it as much as I would if I were really determined to win.

@metal-brain said
From the link below:
How well do you think you play chess and how well do you think you debate on scale of 1 to 10?

I think I play chess better than the average person, but that is a relative thing. I don't think I am all that good compared to a lot of people on here so I'd give myself a 6 or 7.
I think my debating skills are better than that so I'll give myself a 9.

Remember Nigel in Spinal Tap: his amp goes up to 11.

So, if you're a 9, then Trump's an 11.

My debating skills? Hardly up for debate in such august company.

PS If you feel like challenging me to a game, kindly wait it till my current game load drops. I would want to devote my full attention to it.

@metal-brain said
Anybody has the ability to quote any of my posts on this forum and the science forum. Furthermore, I have a thread on the science forum called "sea level rise".
Since the vast majority of people who have chosen childish and dishonest insults are global warming alarmists you can all attempt to prove anthropogenic global warming is as significant of a factor as they claim ...[text shortened]... I remember when she claimed I was outed from the science forum. HA! Never happened. Not even close.

Well, IMO, whether climate change is significantly anthropogenic is beside the point, and distracts from the real issue of what, if anything, can and has to be done to ensure our well being on this planet.

However, the object of my involvement in THIS thread is to point out a potential flaw in your thinking. The flaw is in thinking that a failed challenge to a position is itself a rational reason to believe the position is correct. Let’s suppose you are correct when you say that no sound rebuttal of your position has been given so far. That fact may make you FEEL more confident that your position will withstand future scrutiny, but it is not a logical proof that your position will NEVER be disproven.

This is not an attack on your position. This is also true of the opposite position. Either position, anthropogenic climate change or not, carries its own positive burden of proof.

If it really matters.

My own position on what is causing climate change is that discussing it is a waste of time. The discussion should be on what is happening and what if anything can and must be done about it.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I don’t get it. From community>player tables MB can see where he ranks compared to over 8,500 RHP players and easily calculate his percentile ranking, quartile ranking, etc. Just look at the tables like anyone else and use basic mathematics. Granted that the sample may not represent the global population, it does represent a chess-playing population including of course a few cheaters.

@js357 said
Well, IMO, whether climate change is significantly anthropogenic is beside the point, and distracts from the real issue of what, if anything, can and has to be done to ensure our well being on this planet.

However, the object of my involvement in THIS thread is to point out a potential flaw in your thinking. The flaw is in thinking that a failed challenge to a position is i ...[text shortened]... e. The discussion should be on what is happening and what if anything can and must be done about it.

In other words, it doesn't matter if natural causes are the main reason for global warming. You want to take action against that too. How the heck would we do that????

"the real issue of what, if anything, can and has to be done to ensure our well being on this planet."

Then you must be concerned about the next ice age.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/the_next_ice_age.html

After all, that is climate change.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I always figured it was 1200. Am I wrong about that?

How does ignorance of rating average affect my playing ability? It doesn't.
Admitting ignorance is the first step to achieving enlightenment. I feel no shame in admitting ignorance. Nobody is free of ignorance. Wise people acknowledge ignorance despite others attempt to apply the word negatively.