Chess-specific intelligence VS General intelligence

@Elubas,

"It's certainly useful, but I think this way of collecting data is a little less conclusive than others. Of course, experiments that involve measuring brain activity are much more scientific."

Good points.  I think that even though this research is less conclusive than the research of other sciences such as physics, factual conclusions can still be made to explain the science of the mind through the research.  For example, the famous Asch Solomon conformity experements (look them up, they're very interesting) may not tell us things about the brain like how a computer scientist could tell us things about a computer, but it does show us undeniable truths.  The truth reveiled in the Asch experiments was that our tendency to conform can compromise our ability to form and act upon rational or logical ideas and beliefs.  By comparing this study with other studies, a competant psychologist will be able to, with reasonable accuracty, determine actual extant to which conformity effects different desisions or ideas in different scenarios.

Uh-oh, looks like we've hit a deep limbic system...

Of course, if we have any sense or life experience at all we've probably already noticed that, and don't need to have it made the basis of a "scientific experiment."

If we learn these things through our life experience then it does not make sense that it wasn't until the 20th century until that these ideas came about and were seem as fact (which they are.)  For example, for the last 3000+ years a person engaging in blind religious faith would have simply laughed or scoffed at the idea that their reasoning abilities were handicapped by their desire to conform.  They might have also been an extremely intelligent person as well.  They would say things like, "if I really wanted to conform that much, then I would be aware of these desires as they plauge me."  Now we know that conformity oporates at a pre-cognitive level.  They might also say, "there is absolutely no evidence that conformity is effecting me as much as you say.  With that said, it seems far more likely that you might be incorrect."  But through the scientific method we have been able to gather evidence to support and learn about conformity.

Hindsight bias is especially deadly when emotional intuition is involved.  This explains hindsight bias in psychology.  In this case, what psychologists have discovered about conformity seems intuitive, and therefore founded upon "common sense" and "life's experiences."  However, one must put into perspective that if psychologists would have discovered the exact opposite thing one could support the conclusion by relating it with their life experiences.  

A person could say, "it is intuitive to say that our conscious reasoning abilities cannot be oventaken by desires that we are completely unconscious of.  If these desires were strong enough to overtake conscious reasoning then they themselves would also be conscious."  And if this view was embedded into our culture and beliefs at a young age, this would seem completely logical and intuitive.  However, it is also completely untrue.

In conclusion, intuition is extremly useful in some life situations, but it has many downfalls when it is the sole vehicle that drives the understanding of the human mind.

"Uh-oh, looks like we've hit a deep limbic system..."

Yes, it is hard to seem like a reasonable person when you are shouting and screaming.  (hehe...)  I've gone back and have gotten rid of the caps.

As Yogi Berra once said " It's Deja-vu all over again ". We had a thread on the go here recently ( yes the famous High IQ thread ) that ended up getting locked presumably because they got themselves in very deep, indeed very very deep. That thread confused me so much that I felt compelled to start a thread for Average IQ people and now I think that I need to go and re-read my thread because reading this thread has left me mentally exhausted ( and boy am I tired now  lol ). 

Why do you think that I am conforming?

haha.  The funny thing is that I'm not even that good at chess (;  

Yeah, I feel mentally exhausted also after posting on this thread and reading other people's posts.

Kudos to GM_Hiceberg for giving us such an interesting topic.

Anybody besides me (& Clifton, I gather) chuckling at how easily debates get started just with linguistic presumptions?  Some word is used to "define" a vague category, touching off a spirited pseudo-logical debate over the "truth" (the "true" definition)?  Somebody sets up a paper tiger and then Challenges Anybody to fight it!  Good way to practice verbal dueling, full of sound and fury, etc.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  Define "angel!" Now, Go!

As a psychologist, I enjoy following how people tilt at windmills and provoke others into vigorously defending the poor windmills.  I might enjoy it even more, Andy, with one of your martinis.

As for an arbitrary demarcation between "hard" and "soft" (read: "social" sciences), it's fun to remember the old rule of thumb regarding academic prestige:

"The prestige of a 'scientific' subject (feel free to debate the definition of 'scientific!') is inversely related to the size of the 'thing' it studies (again, knock yourselves out defining 'thing')."

(physics < chemistry < biology < psychology< sociology < anthropology) (feel free to shoehorn other disciplines in: economics, history, mathematics, puppetry arts, etc.)

There.  That should provide some new debate fodder.   

My work here is done.  

Fear not.  I am always kind to those whose hearts are pure.

Of course, the overemphasis on "scientific experiments" and that sort of thing can create its own biases...

Hear, Hear!  In any science, false assumptions can form the basis of years, even Centuries of bogus conclusions. The Hippocratic theory of the 4 humours (formulated in ancient Greece, accepted into the 1800's); B.F. Skinner's reductionist theories of behavior (based largely on pigeons!); Greenspan's stunningly ignorant assumption that people make financial decisions based solely on rational factors.....

(I could go on, but ... well, I Wish I could go on, but I can't think of any more examples, so I would have to  actually "search the literature" to find them, and that would be "work." )

i don't know any unintelligent people who are interested in chess, or have any skill in chess. most good chess players I've known are intelligent in other areas

ciljettu - you are quite right; political correctness is the opposite of intelligence; it is mindless, frightened, nonthinking, conformity; and unfortunately, it is dominating the world right now.

I would imagine there being correlation, but it seems to me that people like IM Daniel Rensch and IM David Pruess are pretty normal guys that just have a geekiness for chess like the rest of us. They probably had good coaches, and a strong desire to improve, and that might have been more useful than having a 160 IQ. You pretty much have to be interested in mathematics, logic, or science in some sort of way, as chess is very "brainy" like that, but even if you're into that stuff, it doesn't necessarily mean you're a genius or anything.

Elubas - good point - a strong desire to study openings and other aspects of the game could be more important than intelligence - up to a point

I agree, but although I compare chess to mathematics and logic, I don't compare chess players to mathematicians and scientists. Getting really good at a game is a more abstract thing, whereas a scientist or mathematician is clearly defined as such by his specific knowledge of the subject. In other words, you can learn many chess-specific things that apply largely to just chess; things that mainly just increase your "chess intelligence." Although it's true that the experience of getting better at chess must train certain areas of the brain in serendipity, it's on a very general level.

I disagree with that last bit. Math is about a lot more than just memorizing a bunch of stuff (aquiring knowledge). It is very creative. I would say most sciences are very creative also.

higher math is VERY abstract....chess is concrete compared to that stuff