Originally posted by Sam The Shamwilliams and mor are people from that 'room of 70s'. some in that 'room' are not very bright, some are perfectly 'normal' and are possibly never discovered 'retarded', and some are extremely smart like williams & mor. of those three groups we are taught to only think about the first, when we think of people with a low IQ, the ones who can't cope well with the normal life. but all of them test just as bad.
He's autistic, evaluating his IQ is a bit difficult, I'd think. You handed us a stacked deck.
Ever hang around a group of people who have IQ's in the 70's ? Do you think you'd see a difference if you then went into a room full of people who were in the gifted category? I'd say the concept of IQ is a lot more valid than a horoscope, as you claim.
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodIQ tests mostly have very similar patterns, and anyone who has been somewhat involved with mathematics, geometry or even newspaper puzzles would have significantly more chances than let's say, a philosophy professor who has been away from those structures, shapes and patterns. so I think IQ tests really do not prove much.
williams and mor are people from that 'room of 70s'. some in that 'room' are not very bright, some are perfectly 'normal' and are possibly never discovered 'retarded', and some are extremely smart like williams & mor. of those three groups we are taught to only think about the first, when we think of people with a low IQ, the ones who can't cope well with the normal life. but all of them test just as bad.
5 edits
Originally posted by zin23If you know everything about Fischer`s and think him intelligent then (taking into account your idealizing of GMs) I must said that I have strong opinion about your own "intelligence" 😀
I know everything about Fischer's alleged 'moronic' behavior - again you are confusing your dislike and disagreement with someone as 'proof' this person is stupid.
I listened to all his radio interviews - I found them to be quite entertaining.
Last time I checked, this is a chess forum so yes, it should be ok to defend a GM from unscrupulous attacks.
You are idealizing GM`s because you have never met anyone of them. Like you defended Putin in previous thread being so far away from Russia.
For all:
Can someone explain me why GM`s should be idealized more than good specialists in other narrow spheres for example in IT? I have met GMs and also good specialists in other intellectual spheres (good IT specialists, good lawyers etc.) and can say that out of their spheres they all does not differ from other mortals - some of them are very intelligent, but some of them - real freaks.
P.S. But most of them are like you and I
2 edits
Originally posted by KorchBecause grands are humble people, who dont get paid extortanate sums of money for doing a job which would be possible for a normal person to achieve if it was not made difficult for anybody to enter that employment sector.
For all: Can someone explain me why GM`s should be idealized more than good specialists in other narrow spheres for example in IT?
Also, IT types tend to be more nerdy, whereas chess people are more aware of what they do not being perceived as cool and make an effort to live normal lives outside their games.
Lastly, who is to say that on IT forums there are not up and coming computists who idealise the people who have made the changes that have advanced our race so much in such a short space of time?
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexSo your point is - GMs are more fanatic than other professionals? I dont think its reason to idealise someone.
Because grands are humble people, who dont get paid extortanate sums of money for doing a job which would be possible for a normal person to achieve if it was not made difficult for anybody to enter that employment sector.
Also, IT types tend to be more nerdy, whereas chess people are more aware of what they do not being perceived as cool and make ...[text shortened]... ple who have made the changes that have advanced our race so much in such a short space of time?
About IT - I know many IT specialists and can say that stereotypes about their nerdness are exaggeration.
Try find forums in English in which GMs are posting and discussing with others (I know some of them , but these in Russian) - then you will see that about out of chess matters they does not differ too much (only maybe they are not so rude, but it`s because they are not anonymous).
Originally posted by KorchI have never really talked to a grand about anything other then a chess matter - I dont consider it respectful to them to try and talk about normal life where they are just a person.
So your point is - GMs are more fanatic than other professionals? I dont think its reason to idealise someone.
About IT - I know many IT specialists and can say that stereotypes about their nerdness are exaggeration.
Try find forums in English in which GMs are posting and discussing with others (I know some of them , but these in Russian) - then you wi ...[text shortened]... not differ too much (only maybe they are not so rude, but it`s because they are not anonymous).
I know quite alot of IT people too, they are usually fine on their own - but when you get them in a group and they start talking about computing, that is where the nerdiness comes out.
Why do you not like the idea to have something to aspire to in life? It gives a target to reach for.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI have been comunicated with IMs and GMs in "out of chess matters" - and have seen that they are the same as other mortals.
I have never really talked to a grand about anything other then a chess matter - I dont consider it respectful to them to try and talk about normal life where they are just a person.
I know quite alot of IT people too, they are usually fine on their own - but when you get them in a group and they start talking about computing, that is where the ...[text shortened]... do you not like the idea to have something to aspire to in life? It gives a target to reach for.
I`m pretty sure that chess players will seem to be nerds if others will get them in a group and they start talking about chess 🙂
Why do you think that I dont like the idea to have something to aspire to in life?
1 edit
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI dont say that grandmaster cant be good people, but I dont see the point to idealize them - GMs are good in chess (and I would like to play chess like them) but it does not guarantee intelligence or good personal qualities (to say nothing more about success in other spheres of life).
Because you seem to be so opposed to the idea of looking at grand masters as good people, even though you are a chess player yourself.
Originally posted by KorchI have come to the conclusion that life is only long enough for somebody to get good at a few things - so the people who have mastered anything should be the ones deserving of most praise by the others of us.
I dont say that grandmaster cant be good people, but I dont see the point to idealize them - GMs are good in chess (and I would like to play chess like them) but it does not guarantee intelligence or good personal qualities (to say nothing more about success in other spheres of life).
Originally posted by wormwoodOh well then OK you're right, nobody is smarter or stupider than anyone else, we're all exactly the same, there is no such thing as IQ or differences in mental ability and if there were, they couldn't be measured because all tests are meaningless. Happy now?
williams and mor are people from that 'room of 70s'. some in that 'room' are not very bright, some are perfectly 'normal' and are possibly never discovered 'retarded', and some are extremely smart like williams & mor. of those three groups we are taught to only think about the first, when we think of people with a low IQ, the ones who can't cope well with the normal life. but all of them test just as bad.