Nobody's better at sucking at everything than me 
Chess talent.
Sort:
Some of them suck at everything except their one talent to the point of being mentally handicapped. Some have just one talent, and are just average in everything else. Some are multi-talented, and yet mentally handicapped in every day activities to the point of needing nursing care. People on here need to watch this. Interesting.
So it's basically saying that everyone is not exactly the same, I would imagine 
.
Look, obviously, there are people out there, even people the same age as me (I'm pretty young) who have way higher IQ's than me, better memory, better... anything.
However, does that mean that such people will be able to understand certain chess concepts that I don't? I'm not so sure -- every chess combination I have ever seen, whether I found it or not, I have been able to, eventually, make sense of. After all, there are always logical building blocks behind any good idea, even if sometimes it doesn't seem like it.
So in other words, I don't think there is necessarily some concept in chess that is beyond all learning, something that isn't possible for me to understand. There might be certain chess concepts I don't understand, but I don't see why, if I logically break them down, I can't eventually figure them out, depending on how much I work on them.
I think, for there to be a real barrier effect, for something in chess to not make sense no matter how hard you try at it... there is probably a cutoff point, but that cutoff could be anywhere -- it might even be as low as 80 IQ.
It's not that I deny natural talent, I just think that people overestimate its significance. I think it only gives a very small boost, and nothing more. I think that practice is just way more important, and can almost replace what we define as talent.
The reason why people who don't like "nerdy" things often never get good at nerdy things is because they have no motivation to put passion into such things. Maybe they'll try it once or twice and just move on to something more interesting. They won't break down the logical ideas in chess, because they simply don't want to go through something like that, if it ends up taking too much work, and if it doesn't bring them any satisfaction.
It seems like I am being accused of something unethical, but let me make it clear now that, whatever message you interpreted from my post, I completely agree with every single one of those reasons, and I think it makes my point that it's not all about pure innate skill, but rather, interest as well.
I might go as far to say that perhaps you have a prejudice against me, assuming that, because of how big of a deal I make about the game, that I automatically have a problem with people who don't have any such interest. I have to say, I don't like it when people try to make me out to be the bad guy, because I have complete and utter respect for what anyone does, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Even if someone actually found "typing quickly" to be an "art," I would respect that too, because we all get pleasure from different things.
Here's one example among many. They featured a pinball wizard who became number 18 in the world after only a few months of playing. Quickly surpassing other contenders who had been playing years longer than him. Their brain experiments showed he had a talent for recognizing the trajectory of fast moving objects, beyond the ability of most other people. People's brain are wired differently, giving them different talents. Some may be better at pattern recognition, others may be rapid calculators or calendar calculators. etc. etc.
Fair enough, woodshover.
They even said that how your brain is wired determines what you get pleasure doing. Also of course what your interests are.
Elubas will never take 10 words to say something when 100 words would suffice.
AnthonyCG wrote:
Elubas wrote:
...The reason why people who don't like "nerdy" things often never get good at nerdy things is because they have no motivation to put passion into such things. Maybe they'll try it once or twice and just move on to something more interesting. They won't break down the logical ideas in chess, because they simply don't want to go through something like that, if it ends up taking too much work, and if it doesn't bring them any satisfaction....
Why don't you explain this so that I can understand then?
Sure. When I say something like this I am thinking about, for example, kids in school who hate math, and, even with good teachers, end their education, still not liking math (although they might not be bad at it), because it's simply not what they like.
I'm saying that these kinds of people might not be bad at such things because there is some kind of mental "lack of talent," but rather, because they are simply not as interested in it. If they are not as interested in it, then they won't spend as much time with it, and put less effort into it, and as a result, will remain without expertise in that area. And that couldn't be any more fine, because we all like different things.
Of course, I was addressing something people often think about when talking about talent, people who "just aren't meant for it," or are "just bad at it," which are terms I don't like. I'm saying you need a certain motivation in order to improve yourself, not just "talent."
AndyClifton wrote:
Elubas will never take 10 words to say something when 100 words would suffice.
It's just that when you say a simple sentence like "It's all about practice," or "You're born with it," it's too simple to convince someone of the opposite opinion. The problem is that there are plenty of arguments for each. I think it's hard not to put out the fire of counter arguments unless you address them, and that often makes my posts thorough.
With that said, any amount of words are rarely good enough to convince anyone of anything in any open-ended question
Elubas wrote:
AnthonyCG wrote:
Elubas wrote:
...The reason why people who don't like "nerdy" things often never get good at nerdy things is because they have no motivation to put passion into such things. Maybe they'll try it once or twice and just move on to something more interesting. They won't break down the logical ideas in chess, because they simply don't want to go through something like that, if it ends up taking too much work, and if it doesn't bring them any satisfaction....
Why don't you explain this so that I can understand then?
Sure. When I say something like this I am thinking about, for example, kids in school who hate math, and, even with good teachers, end their education, still not liking math (although they might not be bad at it), because it's simply not what they like.
I'm saying that these kinds of people might not be bad at such things because there is some kind of mental "lack of talent," but rather, because they are simply not as interested in it. If they are not as interested in it, then they won't spend as much time with it, and put less effort into it, and as a result, will remain without expertise in that area. And that couldn't be any more fine, because we all like different things.
Of course, I was addressing something people often think about when talking about talent, people who "just aren't meant for it," or are "just bad at it," which are terms I don't like. I'm saying you need a certain motivation in order to improve yourself, not just "talent."
Usually if a kid hates math, it's because they suck at it. I've never seen anybody who HATES a subject they are good at, or don't have any trouble with. Maybe they aren't as interested in it as they are something else, but they don't hate it.
Elubas wrote:
...that often makes my posts thorough.
lol...yes, that's the "glass is half-full" adjective.
Of course Andy, I don't drink out of a broken glass like you do :)
Hey, I use the bottle. Glasses are for sissies!
Andy Clifton is a CRITICAL JUNKHEAD!?
Perhaps...but I must say that I do prefer Hamburger Head.
[COMMENT DELETED]
I'm watching a series of documentaries on the the Science Channel right now, called "Genius Minds" that prove what I've been saying all along. They have learned through experimentation that different brains do indeed function differently giving people different talents. Even brain injuries can bring about talents that have never been there before.