FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
also I sort of think once you get past 130-140, iq points become more and more meaningless. well, maybe that is not putting it exactly right, I just mean to say I don't think there's much significant difference between someone with a 135 and someone with a 146 or something.
and again in trying to determine someone's iq I would think you would have to take into full account all environmental circumstances, conditions which may be adversly affecting someone, making them unable to do what they are indeed capable of doing under other conditions.
Chess does test quite a few areas of intelligence. Apart from spatial perception, there are powers of concentration and the ability to process multiple steps with myriad different permutations. Of course there is memory too.
It is not for nothing that chess is being introduced in schools all over Europe.
Neuroscience is indeed well established but many mysteries remain to be solved.
all other aspects of intelligence involved with chess are necessarily filtered through a person's capacity for spatial reasoning and analysis.
I will assert again that spatial reasoning intelligence is what chess is mostly about and that it cannot be used as a means to determine with any kind of real accuracy whether this person is "smarter" than that person. of course, I am talking about real chess played in real life in real tournaments, not silly internet blitz and bullet video game chess (since using that would be the height of absurdity, of course).
yeah, you're right. to play chess you do need to be able to concentrate. you need firm solid mental ground on which to stand. you can't be, I don't know, having a nervous breakdown because some psychopathic chode is constantly pulling some real effed up bs all around you. engaging in psychological warfare. I don't know, but I sort of think there are lines, and if you cross these lines, it will do real damage to a person's ability to play chess at their full potential. and of course you have real low underhanded dirty people who are always finding new and novel ways and means to destablize their opponent psychologically juuuuuust enough. and with today's technology the sky is the limits! happy day everyone! let's go to willy wonka's house! I've got the golden ticket!
At last, something I can relate to!...
More and more meaningless?
The higher the IQ, the closer to genius. Most people with 170+ IQs are geniuses, if not very close.
"genuis" I think I read somewhere is anything above 140. maybe different people have different numbers, I do not know. my point was I dont' think there's much significant difference between someone with a 166 and someone else with a 183 or something like this.
Yeah, maybe so. (lol)
Spatial reasoning and shapes feature quite prominently in many IQ tests, because they do not require any prior learned knowledge.
Most of the best chessplayers in my junior days did very well at school. Sorry but I do not believe in coincidences.
yes, and there are other things that feature quite prominently in iq tests as well. it's not just spatial reasoning. also there are many people who do very well at school but aren't as good at chess. if they were as closely linked as you seem to want to believe, then it would follow that an oxford phd student would have no trouble at all going toe to toe with an IM or GM. I've seen IM's and GM's come to campuses of very very selective colleges where all the students that showed up got smacked down rather easily.
Some amazing insights here. Great thread! Really really prominent thread! You have hereby earned the official trysts' Seal of Approval:
I don't know, but I sort of think there are lines, and if you cross these lines, it will do real damage to a person's ability to play chess at their full potential.
That is rather the point.
[The following is in accordance with my personal opinion]
I tend to think you're not born with an intelligent ability as much as you are born with a certain passion that results in you acquiring a special ability at an early stage.
For instance, the kids that get good at chess at an early age are probably the kids who get pleasure from learning its hard logic, whereas kids who don't won't be as committed to dealing with the love-hate relationship intrinsic to chess.
As for something "coming naturally": Well, a lot of things in chess come to me naturally that didn't before, since I'm so used to certain ideas, but I wasn't born with those ideas. When I see amazing bullet players, I perceive them as outstanding players; but you know what? I'm not surprised that some of those very high levels of play are plausible. I can see a back rank mate possibility right away, recognizing the not-so-breathable pawn setups around the king that I have seen zillions of times. The main difference between me and those players is that they have this sort of familiarity to a much higher degree than I do; simple as that.
And for why some newcomers will "start with a higher rating" than others? Certainly, there are some activities that will help you with others. For instance, I could argue that my experience with algebra (among other possibilities, like chess) actually made me "talented" in foreign verb conjugation because that particular activity, like math, is all about following all the rules (add an e, take out the ir, this stuff). I could definitely imagine certain activities being easier if I have developed some of the fundamental skills pertinent to those activities prior.
Psychology is not really a science in the precise definition of the term.
What in your opinion is the precise definition of the term?
totally agree with you there.
neurons count, deemed to be negative numbers , as well.
You are making hasty generalizations about the defining traits of things such as physics and things such as psychology.
Let's compare physics and psychology:
There are many facts in physics, but also many ideas that are being disputed today that professionals disagree upon. The prescription is to conduct research until a truth is formed and the dispute is settled.
There are many facts in psychology, but also many ideas that are being disputed today that professionals disagree upon. The prescription is to conduct research until a truth is formed and the dispute is settled.
Psychology is a field that is packed full facts--an incomprehensible amount of facts--facts that lead to other facts--facts that are controversial--facts that are on the verge of being discovered through emperical study--facts that have been known for centuries--and even facts that butt heads with incorrect theories (but are still facts nonetheless.) And all of these facts teach us of the wondorous conscious mind, or psychology.
Here are a few.
These are scientific facts! For the most part, they are indisputable. They are also based on research and experimentation.
There are many things that are disputable among psychologists. As a science, psychology is not as developed as things such as biology or chemistry, and therefore has more disputions and unknowns in comparison However, this is irrelevant.
According to Google's dictionary, science is, "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"
If you tell me how psychology is not a science according to this criteria, and if your arguments can defeat mine, then I will personally give you my debit card numbers with 100 dolars in the account.
But all of what I have said so far is not as important as what I am about to say now.
The classification of psychology as a science is also a social issue. The belief that psychology is not a science is a view that goes hand-in-hand with the view that our consciousness is not caused or controlled by qualities of the brain. Decending from this age-old view is often met with harsh opposition. Most people don't like to hear that their deep, spiritual, and emotional experiences can be explained away by neural activity in the brain. They also don't like to hear that the mind is caused by the physical components of the brain and not by something that is supernatural.
However, if society cannot realize that consciousness is caused and controlled by the physical components of the brain then it will resist medical practices that treat the brain in order to treat the mind. For example, society will resist things like surgical practices on the brain to treat the mind, brain imaging and its use in psychiatry and psychotherapy, the rise of neurofeedback (look it up if you haven't heard about it), and there is already an unhealthy fear of medication in our society.
I think what ciljettu is referring to is stuff like dream interpretation, where a lot of your theory is based more on what intuitively feels warm, but not based on objective experimentation.
Moreover, a lot of psychology experiments are based more on surveys and watching people react to things and looking for correlation -- "50% of the participants were told a pill would make them feel more energized; half that it wouldn't. Most of the people that were told positively felt more energy, even though the pill itself did not cause any physiological changes."
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.