WhitePawn wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
Ok, thanks; What does that have to do with chess?
Bringing Chess Skills into Real Life
Sort:
yusuf_prasojo wrote:
SyarifH wrote:
You haven't yet realized that those psychological things writen in psychology books are "rubbish".I know(not really. perhaps not) you just browse mindlessly for some interesting threads, drop by in one of them, and write down whatever thoughts popping into your head. You call that thinking? Sorry...(this is NOT an insult)
Do you get it? If you respond to this, then you're affected by what I just wrote, if You don't, you're still affected in that you don't(might not) want others or myself know that you even read these words. If we're now "fighting" whether any of us is "right", then you're definitely going to lose no matter what. Checkmate!
They are? They tend to be based on studies, but perhaps they're flawed in some way? I've never heard of this before.
Elubas wrote:
yusuf_prasojo wrote:
You haven't yet realized that those psychological things writen in psychology books are "rubbish".
They are? They tend to be based on studies, but perhaps they're flawed in some way? I've never heard of this before.
Sort of. A study normally uses statistical measures and generalitation. There is always that bell curve. Such generality do not cover the lower (15%) and upper (85%) percentiles.
yusuf_prasojo wrote:
Elubas wrote:
yusuf_prasojo wrote:
You haven't yet realized that those psychological things writen in psychology books are "rubbish".
They are? They tend to be based on studies, but perhaps they're flawed in some way? I've never heard of this before.
Sort of. A study normally uses statistical measures and generalitation. There is always that bell curve. Such generality do not cover the lower (15%) and upper (85%) percentiles.
About the stuffs in psychological books being rubbish, well, yes and no.
Yes, in that many the so-called intellectuals care more about proving some school of thought rather than the patients' needs.
No, in that some are not, and also some schools of thought actually have some good points.
It depends on the learner, actually.
That's why if we're really serious about learning something, we should learn the concepts, then apply.
Theory, and Lab.
Take chess game, for example. Why are you good at it? Because you first learned about the basics and theories, and then you apply it in the game. You can't expect to be good even if you studied under Mikhail Botvinnik, all his tactics and all. You will learn that some works, some don't, under different circumstances.
And please, don't rely on statistics too much.
It should be noted that in every sentence I wrote there are ALWAYS exceptions, including this one 
Sep 9, 2011
0
#26
I thought you (whilst spreading a rather impressive amount of passive aggressive venom) left to never return to this thread, SyarifH. Under the pretence that you were somehow too strong to succumb to the temptation to write yet again even. Please explain why you failed to be congruent with your own beliefs. :)
SyarifH wroteAnd please, don't rely on statistics too much.
It should be noted that in every sentence I wrote there are ALWAYS exceptions, including this one
You should better say: "Please be careful when interpreting statistics". Because Statistics is very usefull, it is just many people don't know how to use it wisely. May be statistics is useful only when you understand it.
Kasparov himself said he does not attempt to bring chess skills into his life, even though there could be some small useage, life is simply far more difficult and complex than chess, so ultimately it's best to keep them separate... the exact talk is in "Garry Kasparov - My Story" I believe that's where I saw it.
Sep 9, 2011
0
#29
oinquarki wrote:
I apologize for interrupting the thread, but what the heck is an "Emotional Quotient"?
seriously oinquarki...you're too well-read not to know what an emotional quotient is. He's not making it up. People say EQ is a better determinant of success than IQ.
Sep 9, 2011
0
#30
Oh, and I agree that most chess players aren't gaining any life skills from their game play. That would probably be another exercise altogether...taking the lessons from chess and applying them to life - which wouldn't have much to do with playing chess at all.
lolol
AfafBouardi wrote: seriously oinquarki...you're too well-read not to know what an emotional quotient is. He's not making it up. People say EQ is a better determinant of success than IQ.
- Where did you get the impression that I'm well-read?
- I know he's not making it up.
- Yeah but what is it?
vulpesVelox wrote:
I thought you (whilst spreading a rather impressive amount of passive aggressive venom) left to never return to this thread, SyarifH. Under the pretence that you were somehow too strong to succumb to the temptation to write yet again even. Please explain why you failed to be congruent with your own beliefs. :)
I never said I'm leaving, y'know.
Live with it.
Indeed, the two "quotients" are separate things, and, in my presumption, don't necessarily correlate with each other.
oinquarki wrote:
Yeah but what is it?
AfafBouardi wrote: seriously oinquarki...you're too well-read not to know what an emotional quotient is. He's not making it up. People say EQ is a better determinant of success than IQ.
Yeah but what is it?
Yeah I knew what you meant oinquarki. What is it? The answer is important because it can make you a genius or a retard 
oinquarki wrote:
I apologize for interrupting the thread, but what the heck is an "Emotional Quotient"?
+1 (oinquarki beat me to it.)
Sep 10, 2011
0
#37
SyarifH wrote:
Okay, let me get this clear, I don't write this to any of you(aside from the fact that I stated I want to share something in the first place), I write this for myself.
In fact, whatever you wrote, you write it for yourself. Of course what you expect is not learning anything, you expect something else, and that something depends on whatever information you already have.
I cannot help you if you don't let you help yourself(not that I want to help you in any way)
Funny(not really), none of you asked any questions, did you?
You(not all of you. perhaps some of you is wondering but not expressing it, I dunno) must(maybe) think you already know it all, perhaps. What leads you here is not because you want to learn something, but to spit what you "learned" and satisfy some aspects of yourself.
I know(not really. perhaps not) you just browse mindlessly for some interesting threads, drop by in one of them, and write down whatever thoughts popping into your head. You call that thinking? Sorry...(this is NOT an insult)
Do you get it? If you respond to this, then you're affected by what I just wrote, if You don't, you're still affected in that you don't(might not) want others or myself know that you even read these words. If we're now "fighting" whether any of us is "right", then you're definitely going to lose no matter what. Checkmate!
Okay, sorry.
Back on THE REAL topic, whatever I say(read:write) is only information. Symbols! Example: The visual symbol "S" in and of itself has no meaning. But our ancestors wrote it, gave a meaning to it, and the meaning is passed from generations to generations until you were born, your mom/dad taught you alphabet, and they say syllable "essss" while giving you the visual symbol of "S". You, if your brain is not damaged, linked both stimuli and drew conclusion that "esss" means "S".
If I say S is a snake, would you agree? I doubt it.
It's already a pain in the ass understanding these words, bukankah begitu?
Oh, maaf, bisakah anda berbicara bahasa Indonesia?
Watashi wa Ari desu. Anata wa baka desu. gomen ne.
(Never mind those words, they have no meaning for you anyway)
How do you expect you could understand the meaning behind the word's meaning?
You can't, writers know this. They don't expect the reader to fully grasp what they actually mean. In their mind they might see REAL Pearls, Beauty, Flashes of Light floating in the Oceanic Sea of Wonders, stuffs that will keep you in euphoria for days, yet in the reader's mind what projected could be just some sort of blurry lights or something.
This thread is some sort of experiment, honestly. Neither I pull any punches, nor can any of you punch me.
Now, since EVERYTHING is subject to interpretations, let me give you some possible conclusions you could come up with by reading what I just said:
1.I am nuts. A crazy freaked out paranoid asshole that believes nothing is true.
2.I want to show off about what I know in psychology, languages, philosophy, brain technology, chess, and mnemonics, my experiences in lucid dreams, how long I spent my time in the state of nihillistic, and how far did I do self analyzing <-Okay, it's very improbable that you can imply this far(not saying that it's not possible)
3.I'm a big fat skinny awesome liar(no I'm not )
4.I play tricks with you
5.I'm irritated by vuspesVelox's post and some other posts(got you! )
6.I am a nice person that wants you to know the truth(whatever "truth" is)
7.All the above/combinations of these
8.Some other conclusions, I don't have all the variables you know. I'm not God.
Notice that I used the word "I" in almost every point?
Yeah, because for you, YOU ARE the center of the universe. No kidding.
Really, what "sane" person got angry just because someone else put on angry mask while voicing out loud noise to him/her? The "angry" person could just be having a bad(hair)day, or just lost a chess game, it's NOT about YOU! But of course, it's not your fault. You never know that they are not angry about you(or have they ever truly dissatisfied with you, or with themselves? I vote the latter)
In reality, perhaps these conclusions are more probable from my point of view:
1.You get angry because you just got hit by your mom, you lost your keys, you dropped out of school, etc.
2.You're deprived of sleep lately so you cannot think clearly
3.You have learned something that are RELATED(read that? RELATED) to what I wrote. (You learned psychology? Which? Here's a branch of psychology:
http://psychology.about.com/od/branchesofpsycholog1/tp/branches-of-psychology.htm)
Wait, I haven't finished number three yet: You don't(might not) think that what I wrote could be of use for you and/or it threatens what you already "know". Therefore you shut down your learning mode(growth mode) and turn on defensive mode. Possibly.
4.You just lost an important chess game and are in a bad mood. So you want to bring others down into your level.
5.You have some experience with this kind of atmosphere, and this kind of atmosphere brings back the memory of people of throwing tantrum and insults. So you expect this one to end up the same way and want to "contribute" to that end.
(What do I mean by this kind of atmosphere you ask? I can't conceive it with words. I could even write a book about it but you still don't get it)
6.All of that(If this is true, please don't kill yourself)
7.Some other conclusions, I don't have all the variables you know. I'm not God.
Think about it.
(my definition of the word "think" is most likely different than yours, so I don't expect you to.)
One last thing, I promise I won't reply to this thread anymore. I won't even read this thread anymore.(How do you "think" of that? You still have that impulse to reply, don't you? Please, by all means, express it in whatever way you prefer. Either reply, or don't. Or you can come here to Indonesia to kill me for contaminating your mind. )
Really?
Sep 10, 2011
0
#38
I think someone explained it. It's basically being smart about how to handle people and social situations...picking up on what's appropriate/tactful/smooth when dealing with others.
The Art of War by Sun Tzu was promoted as a model for conducting business in the 1980's. Employing the strategic wisdom of a skilled Chinese general was supposed to make you successful in your career.
Critical analysis of any situation in life will usually lead to a more productive outcome than an emotional or rash response. What are your tools for this kind of analysis? There can be many.
The Art of War contains strategic observations that may have some limited value to business people, but there is a huge difference between the realities of warfare and the realities of commerce. A chess game and the resolution of a conflict with another person share some superficial characteristics, but knowing the difference betwen a pin and an X ray attack is not going to help get a raise or make up with your significant other.
I think emotional intelligence can have that nerdiness to it too. Understanding someone's psychology allows you to predict what they will do and like to see and adjust accordingly.
Actually, though, I've read that sometimes critical analysis is in fact worse than an instinctive decision. Particularly in those instances when you can't get to the bottom of something but you try to anyway: in chess, seeing a complicated sacrifice that will remain unclear for 10-15 moves to come, yet you still try to search through it as much as you can; it may well be more productive to judge the general situation in a complicated sacrifice than to go through 5 or 6 semi-forced moves in the hope things will get more clear (this strategy will of course take much longer). Your intuition, on the other hand, although it doesn't analyze everything, it sees the big picture -- what really matters -- this is something you might overlook if too involved in a deep analysis.
If you keep your emotions to yourself in a relationship, you will lose!! A relationship between two close people needs to be honest!!
My thoughts exactly.