Check out the case of the Polgars. The father set out to prove that he could train his daughters to become geniuses by motivating them to become exceptional at Chess. By IQ measurement, he failed in his objective, but did succeed in training all 3 of them to be exceptional Chess players.
Does being good at chess make you 'smart', or does it just make you good at chess?
Sort:
blueemu wrote:
BlissieBearrie wrote:
blueemu: DID YOU NOT READ WHAT I TYPED? "I SAID THAT I JUST COPIED IT AND PASTED IT HERE FROM A SCIENTIFIC SITE!" MEANING, I DID NOT "OMIT" ANYTHING! I ALSO LOOKED IT UP ON TWO DIFFERENT ENCYCLOPEDIAS THAT SAID THE SAME THING! SO THEN, EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC SOURCES ARE ALL "RUBBISH"! YOU WOULD KNOW BETTER THAN ALL THESE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES BY PEOPLE EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT!
Please don't pretend that you are dispensing Gospel that has been handed down by God. All you are doing is copy-and-pasting text from one internet site to another.
If "all scientific sources agree" on these nine types of intelligence, why is it that Howard Gardner himself (the scientist who DEVELOPED this theory back in 1983, remember) abandoned the "nine types" dogma more than 20 years ago?
Doesn't he count as a scientific source?
In point of fact, the majority of POP SCIENCE sources (which have no connection to actual science, their specialty is mass entertainment) agree on the "nine types" theory. They probably aren't even aware that it was abandoned before many of their copy-writers were born... and they likely wouldn't care if they DID know that. Informing people isn't their job. Their job is generating internet traffic on their website.
blueemu: I DID NOT POST THIS INITIAL COMMENT TO "PRETEND" I WAS "DISPENSING" SOMETHING "THAT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY GOD."!!! AS I SAID!!!!!!! TWO ENCYCLOPEDIAS SAID THE SAME THING -- AND I DOUBLE-CHECKED WITH OTHER RELIABLE EDUCATIONAL SOURCES (ENCYCLOPEDIAS) -- NOT NOT NOT FROM MAIN STREAM MEDIA OR SOCIAL MEDIA -- I SAID "ENCYCLOPEDIAS" AND HARVARD UNIVERSITY AND THE NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SAYS THE SAME THING!!! HENCE, COMING FROM MANY EDUCATIONAL SOURCES -- NO, NOT JUST 1 OR 2 OR 3 DIFFERENT RELIABLE SOURCES, BUT MANY, I JUST THOUGHT TO POST IT HERE!!! AND JUST FOR THAT, YOU ACCUSE ME OF "PRETENDING" TO "DISPENSE" SOMETHING "THAT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY GOD"?!!!!!!! WOW -- WHAT A ATTITUDE!!!!!!!
CraigIreland wrote:
Check out the case of the Polgars. The father set out to prove that he could train his daughters to become geniuses by motivating them to become exceptional at Chess. By IQ measurement, he failed in his objective, but did succeed in training all 3 of them to be exceptional Chess players.
Yea this is to be expected. A human is very capable of learning difficult tasks over time even if their iq and initial understanding isn't the best. Iq is a boost tho and you start higher and learn faster.
What I'm interested in tho is the super grandmaster level. I'm sure you can't get there without an exceptional iq level as there are plenty of hard workers who will never get there. The Hikaru iq test where he scored an average score on stream is a strange one, but I'd assume it's a sum of doing something for the first time on stream that put him off a little.
CooloutAC wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
CraigIreland wrote:
Check out the case of the Polgars. The father set out to prove that he could train his daughters to become geniuses by motivating them to become exceptional at Chess. By IQ measurement, he failed in his objective, but did succeed in training all 3 of them to be exceptional Chess players.
Yea this is to be expected. A human is very capable of learning difficult tasks over time even if their iq and initial understanding isn't the best. Iq is a boost tho and you start higher and learn faster.
What I'm interested in tho is the super grandmaster level. I'm sure you can't get there without an exceptional iq level as there are plenty of hard workers who will never get there. The Hikaru iq test where he scored an average score on stream is a strange one, but I'd assume it's a sum of doing something for the first time on stream that put him off a little.
According to Fischer you need exceptional memory and spatial vision. I'm not sure IQ really plays a role. Many GM's have low iq's. I think this comes from the traditional association of chess with intellectuals. Your example of HIkaru is pretty much confirmation of that. I think you are believing a myth lol.
I guess people who are good at math do usually have a natural ability to see patterns and angles, and are good at puzzles. But i'm not entirely convinced that is even something that is common among them. What is common is their photographic like memory.
Yea I would place memory higher up the list in the long run nowadays. I don't know much about Fischer but I believe he was an actual intellectual and his understanding was way above the rest at the time. The difference today is that so much info and theory is available that pure memorization has a bigger role now than back in the day.
It's a fact that chess has features that favor someone with high iq, understanding complex patterns, seeing the big picture and prioritizing right things. But how much memory, learning and hard work compensate for that in the long run? Maybe enough so that average or slightly above iq is sufficient even at the highest level. Someone should force Hikaru to take a couple more tests to put this one to bed lol.
"What I'm interested in tho is the super grandmaster level. I'm sure you can't get there without an exceptional iq level as there are plenty of hard workers who will never get there." The Polgar sisters all achieved Grandmaster ranking, the highest being world number 10. Perhaps not quite Super Grandmaster but very close. It's an extreme experiment which I think will never be repeated and is the best you're going to get. If you absolutely need IQ data for a Super Grandmaster the you'll find very detailed information on Kasparov's IQ testing, who again, was well below genius level on the IQ metric.
From my understanding, I have to conclude that IQ is weakly correlated with chess ranking, but that playing chess trains the mind in a very specific way. Whereas IQ testing is designed to seek untrained problem solving ability.
Well, chess is a mental game, it involves practical gameplay which is connected in the way of life, specifically on decision making in our lives. Also mental game obviously uses the brain and if you apply how you think in chess in life, but the only the difference are the rules, chess has different rules and so is life. But how we can use our brain efficiently in this board game will definitely help us to think efficiently on life as well.
Also, don't get too addicted to chess as that would lead to being unproductive on certain certain areas of your life, you can use it for mental training only.
CraigIreland wrote:
From my understanding, I have to conclude that IQ is weakly correlated with chess ranking, but that playing chess trains the mind in a very specific way. Whereas IQ testing is designed (but necessarily fails) to seek untrained problem solving ability.
BlissieBearrie wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
That means there must be ten and one consists of knowing how many different types of intelligence there are. No wait, that's another one so there are eleven .....
Personally I would never believe someone's idea of "how many different types".
Optimissed: THIS IS NOT "SOMEONE'S IDEA" THAT THERE ARE NINE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INTELLIGENCE. THIS COMES FROM ALL SCIENTIFIC SOURCES AND ALL ENCYCLOPEDIAS AND ALL EDUCATIONAL SOURCES!!! I DID NOT MAKE IT UP! I JUST COPIED IT AND PASTED IT HERE FROM A SCIENTIFIC SITE! LOOK IT UP YOURSELF! TYPE "HOW MANY TYPES OF INTELLIGENCE ARE THERE" IN YOUR BROWSER SEARCH AND CHECK OUT ALL THAT COME UP! TELL THAT TO ALL THE EDUCATIONAL PROFESSORS IN THE WORLD! WOW!!!
Yes, thanks BlueEmu, I didn't notice this drivel, at the time.
BlissieBearrie wrote:
blueemu wrote:
BlissieBearrie wrote:
blueemu: DID YOU NOT READ WHAT I TYPED? "I SAID THAT I JUST COPIED IT AND PASTED IT HERE FROM A SCIENTIFIC SITE!" MEANING, I DID NOT "OMIT" ANYTHING! I ALSO LOOKED IT UP ON TWO DIFFERENT ENCYCLOPEDIAS THAT SAID THE SAME THING! SO THEN, EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC SOURCES ARE ALL "RUBBISH"! YOU WOULD KNOW BETTER THAN ALL THESE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES BY PEOPLE EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT!
Please don't pretend that you are dispensing Gospel that has been handed down by God. All you are doing is copy-and-pasting text from one internet site to another.
If "all scientific sources agree" on these nine types of intelligence, why is it that Howard Gardner himself (the scientist who DEVELOPED this theory back in 1983, remember) abandoned the "nine types" dogma more than 20 years ago?
Doesn't he count as a scientific source?
In point of fact, the majority of POP SCIENCE sources (which have no connection to actual science, their specialty is mass entertainment) agree on the "nine types" theory. They probably aren't even aware that it was abandoned before many of their copy-writers were born... and they likely wouldn't care if they DID know that. Informing people isn't their job. Their job is generating internet traffic on their website.
blueemu: I DID NOT POST THIS INITIAL COMMENT TO "PRETEND" I WAS "DISPENSING" SOMETHING "THAT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY GOD."!!! AS I SAID!!!!!!! TWO ENCYCLOPEDIAS SAID THE SAME THING -- AND I DOUBLE-CHECKED WITH OTHER RELIABLE EDUCATIONAL SOURCES (ENCYCLOPEDIAS) -- NOT NOT NOT FROM MAIN STREAM MEDIA OR SOCIAL MEDIA -- I SAID "ENCYCLOPEDIAS" AND HARVARD UNIVERSITY AND THE NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SAYS THE SAME THING!!! HENCE, COMING FROM MANY EDUCATIONAL SOURCES -- NO, NOT JUST 1 OR 2 OR 3 DIFFERENT RELIABLE SOURCES, BUT MANY, I JUST THOUGHT TO POST IT HERE!!! AND JUST FOR THAT, YOU ACCUSE ME OF "PRETENDING" TO "DISPENSE" SOMETHING "THAT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY GOD"?!!!!!!! WOW -- WHAT A ATTITUDE!!!!!!!
Whoops! there!! was!!! more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sure you were misundersanding. It was just someone's theory that there are nine types. It cannot be more than a weak hypothesis at best, because a real theory requires proof. It isn't fact, so don't think it is.
blueemu: DID YOU NOT READ WHAT I TYPED? "I SAID THAT I JUST COPIED IT AND PASTED IT HERE FROM A SCIENTIFIC SITE!" MEANING, I DID NOT "OMIT" ANYTHING! I ALSO LOOKED IT UP ON TWO DIFFERENT ENCYCLOPEDIAS THAT SAID THE SAME THING! SO THEN, EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC SOURCES ARE ALL "RUBBISH"! YOU WOULD KNOW BETTER THAN ALL THESE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES BY PEOPLE EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT!
Please don't pretend that you are dispensing Gospel that has been handed down by God. All you are doing is copy-and-pasting text from one internet site to another.
If "all scientific sources agree" on these nine types of intelligence, why is it that Howard Gardner himself (the scientist who DEVELOPED this theory back in 1983, remember) abandoned the "nine types" dogma more than 20 years ago?
Doesn't he count as a scientific source?
In point of fact, the majority of POP SCIENCE sources (which have no connection to actual science, their specialty is mass entertainment) agree on the "nine types" theory. They probably aren't even aware that it was abandoned before many of their copy-writers were born... and they likely wouldn't care if they DID know that. Informing people isn't their job. Their job is generating internet traffic on their website.