Does chess increase violence?

i remember a teacher saying that if you play with statistics you can make it look like ice cream increases violence because when ice cream sales are up so are violent crime. but this isn't the case at all! the increase in these two activities is because of a third thing: it's summer and it's hot and sticky and that makes people frustrated and angry or it makes them crave ice cream. maybe chess is violent in that way. all i know is that if you play grand theft auto you're going to become a criminal and if you play doom you're going to go haywire and kill people. so stay away from video games.

lol sceneassasin.

 sceneassassin makes a good point. The activity you choose will affect you. Statistics are often used to make a subjective argument seem quantitative, and therefore factual. Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. If you choose chess, perhaps you see it as a nonviolent thinking contest. Where you play has an effect. One effect is meeting chess players. Often it is a way to meet the players of other games. In some cases, that means meeting more slime than found among chess players. Games often involve gambling and cheating. Players may be financially cheap or desperate. Others may be psychologically cheap. This was true in the Flea House (see my article "Mating the Tuna in the Flea House of the August Moon"). The owner, who liked to say things like, "I'm the proprietor, what are you?", had rules. One rule was no money on the table. Another was no discussion of religion or politics (sound familiar?). Your character counts, but so does the character of the places where you play chess.

   What about Fischer...?...did he become mad from chess?

chessfanforlife wrote:    What about Fischer...?...did he become mad from chess?

---

RetGuvvie98 has a series of videos on Fischer. You can decide for yourself if chess caused his madness.

What mental state do we expect of people that leave school at 14 become incredibly famous and join a church of rip offs, find out he was swindled and ummm whatever else.. late for work again damn it!

 

Chess leads to chessboxing, so yes!

i think some people are bad sports and take loses way to seriously.some throw the chess board across the room! lol.

lol chessfun....still people to get ticked off by losing...i flipped the board when my dad(i was a newy to chess)made a grand pin...I was so ticked.....

GreenLaser wrote: shakje, Global warming blamed on human activity is supported "because of something they do not want to stop doing" which is supporting a fad. You question both the integrity of scientists and questioning the integrity of scientists. The scientific community resembles the religious professionals with its true believers, reformers, and false messiahs. As for academics being insulted, often scientific papers with six authors are done by one or two in reality. That way a whole group gets named on all the papers any of them have done. It is up to the public in a democracy to evaluate scientific claims and make policy decisions.

---

"shakje, Global warming blamed on human activity is supported "because of something they do not want to stop doing" which is supporting a fad."

No, it is based on strong evidence. The refutations of such evidence have been rebutted many times in many places, and are generally quite weak.

"You question both the integrity of scientists and questioning the integrity of scientists."

No, I just think it's stupid to suggest that the vast majority of scientists (by vast, I mean vast) have no integrity, and that a tiny minority are the only ones with integrity. Generally, it works the other way around in every other walk of life. I was questioning the integrity of an open survey, which has been shown circumstantially to be incredibly flawed, and, even if it wasn't, to represent an extremely small section of the academic communiy. Using the figure 31,000 seems grand, which is why I feel duty bound to show that the survey does not really add anything meaningful to the debate.

In a related note, there was a show on UK telly last night by a man called Derren Brown called The System. It tracked one woman, who, on Derren's advice, won money on 5 horse races in a row by betting on the winner each time based on his recommendations. The odds of this are ridiculously high. He did this by selecting 8000 odd people, splitting them into groups of six, and having each group bet on a different horse in the first race, so that one group would have to win. Then he split the winners into another six groups, so that once again, one group had to bet on the winning horse. And so on, until there were six people left, each betting on a different horse, and each having won 4 races previously. The stunning face value of someone winning 5 races in a row, is defrauded as a single person in a clever system. The figure of 31,000 in the scheme of things is insignificant as that one person, although presenting it as you did makes it seem as important as being lucky enough to win 5 races in a row. If you can agree that the survey is useless in any context other than showing that a small group of people agrees with your point of view, can we drop it?

"The scientific community resembles the religious professionals with its true believers, reformers, and false messiahs."

So does politics. So does art. So does law. This is a completely pointless statement.

"As for academics being insulted, often scientific papers with six authors are done by one or two in reality. That way a whole group gets named on all the papers any of them have done. It is up to the public in a democracy to evaluate scientific claims and make policy decisions."

All six authors will make contributions to the paper, but only three (it's two or three, I'll consult the wife later) are named, the rest are put down as 'et al'. Anyway, if the scientific community is as corrupt as you say, why would they let other people put their names on papers without contributing anything? Surely they would rather all the plaudits themselves?

 In short, this is what your post has done. I have shown the survey to be no representation of scientific belief in any context. There's probably enough academics in Ireland on its own who would be able to sign that paper. Now scale that up to America, and then the world. Other than this, I showed that there's a high probability that not all the names on the survey even come from scientists. Now, also bear in mind that a fair number of those signing the paper probably have no experience in environmental science. You have responded by calling massively supported scientific opinion "a fad" (this is akin to calling believing that the holocaust happened "a fad"), trying to attack my argument because I feel that a survey is badly constructed and used as evidence, but want to defend the integrity of academia in general, compared science to religion (for no apparent reason), and then attacked the way in which papers are submitted, which is completely irrelevant to climate change and affects those who prove your point of view as much as the others.

"It is up to the public in a democracy to evaluate scientific claims and make policy decisions."

Yes, it is, but you missed a step, it's up to the government to listen to the public and make policy decisions. From Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927113150.htm):

"Pessimism about the health of the natural environment is strongly related to beliefs about global warming, he added, noting that 84 percent of Americans believe that global warming is occurring-compared to 85 percent in 2006. "

So why aren't policy decisions being made?

 Have you looked at the evidence for climate change? Have you looked at the rebuttals of the arguments which you use? Have you evaluated claims based on what the papers you mock are actually saying? Have you talked to any scientists who believe in climate change and put forward your arguments? Do you drive a 4x4?

chessfanforlife wrote:

does chess increase violence?

---

 Oh yes, definitely. Just look at all the mobs of chess hooligans roaming the streets of the capitols of Europe after a big tournament tipping cars and burning buildings.<sarcasm off>

 

Please. Grow up. How can chess increase violence? Children who learn chess tend to have better grades and are better behaved in school than other children and grow up to be better people, generally. If anything chess decreases violence. 

If the liberal left-wingers want my King.... They'll have to take it from my cold, dead hands.

hondoham wrote:

If the liberal left-wingers want my King.... They'll have to take it from my cold, dead hands.

---

My bishop has a Swiss Army Knife.

GreenLaser wrote: timmaylivinalie, The Patriot Act reduces freedom in response to actual attacks threats. This is always the case. If we lived in paradise, we wouldn't even think to have a written law against murder. Laws are often responses to recognized problems rather than philosophizing. Then the actions of those who break existing laws often leads to more restrictions on those who follow the laws. This happens in chess as well. You may not disturb others or cheat in tournaments, but others who did have caused organizers to restrict or ban electronic devices, such as cell phones. Since terrorists use cell phones for communication and to cause explosions, even democracies are forced to resist their methods.

---

 but when your government is perpetrating these attacks to fuel the war machine and than imposing this USAPA on its citizens, one can't help but think that the proverbial wool is being pulled over the eyes of a nation. north of the border we're not much better though. we're all fed lies.

Oh come now, Timmay, that's not true. The Harper government said I was good looking.

I believe people act out according to their heart.  If a person is violent, they will act violent.  If they blame chess, then they like to make excuses and don't like to take responsibility for their actions. 

There isn't one perfect person among us, but if I decided that since I got beat at a game that I was going to act a fool, then I already was like that in the first place.  Chess is abstract.  It does not command anyone, or implant thoughts in their heads.  It is a game.  Chess does not have a subjective command that tells you to act irrational.  People who blame chess for violence like to pawn off issues on something that is easy to target. 

Chess has helped me to grow as a person.  I have learned to respect people's manner of thinking, to respect my opponent whether I win or lose, to enjoy my wins and learn from my losses.  It has taught me to think before I act.  Not just chess, by the way, but I have used it as a positive tool for my life.

shakje, you still want to select who has integrity. Fake credit on papers starts at the university level for prospective scientists. Then there IS a money trail supporting global warming, just as there was for global freezing 30 years ago. The earth has usually been getting warmer for the last 18,000 preindustrial years due to the variation in the sun's activity. Computer models used to predict weather for a few days are not bad, but not perfect. Climate models are bad, especially at understanding moisture and clouds. Other variations include the earth's polarity, position in the galaxy, the angle of the tilt of the axis, among others. Computer models use an insufficient number of variables with insufficient understanding of the variables used and not used. The main issue is not warming or cooling, but human activity affecting that.

timmaylivinalie, do you think what you refer to as "your government" perpetrated the 911 attack and the assassination of Robert Kennedy? Why not add Pearl Harbor? Meanwhile, your government regards freedom of speech as "an American concept" that is not applicable to identifying or dicussing the enemy.

No, I don't want to select who has integrity. I was merely suggesting that you are saying that every scientist who believes in global warming is a fraud. Do you realise how many scientists that is? If you're going to take that line, how can you say that the anti-climate change scientists are not frauds?

For this to be the situation, it would require literally millions of scientists perpetrating the hoax for the last forty years, without a single person offering a shred of proof that they had been lying. Note that I'm not talking about evidence to counter what they are saying, evidence that they falsified results to make money, or that they lied to make money. Do you understand the plausability of this?

I'm not even going to touch your "fake credit" argument again. I've made my point about it, and you can accept it, properly rebutt it, or ignore it. There is no "fake credit" conspiracy. I have to say that you just sound plain bitter about something on this point.

Global cooling was made famous by articles in Newsweek and TIME. From USAToday:

"Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."

From Huddler again:

"The lesson to be learned from this myth is that it's important to get our scientific information directly from scientists, rather than filtered through the media.  Media bias is one of the most common causes of misinformation with regards to global warming even today.  Some articles are too sensationalist, and others provide misinformation stemming from a political agenda.  This is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is such a critical organization, and why it won a Nobel Prize."

I don't want to go into detail about causes for climate change, as there is a lot of scientific detail in there and it's easily accessible here:

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-and-climate-change-causes

The Royal Society deals with the computer models argument here:

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6232

The important thing to remember with computer models is that climate change is a large effect over a long period of time, hurricanes move miles every couple of hours, predicting where they'll be and predicting a slow change at a general level are two very different things. Predicting daily weather is difficult as there is a short timescale from start to finish, while predicting global climate is actually easier. You have millions of years of data showing trends leading up to the present day. Put it this way, say I flip a coin and ask you to guess heads or tails, it's impossible for you to say for certain which it is. If I flip it a million times, the trend will approach 50% for each, and you can say from observing the trend towards 50% that as you carry on, the percentage of heads and tails will further approach 50%.

As to your last point, I have to reiterate, there is NO issue. Scientists as a whole agree that humans are causing climate change, with a tiny minority complaining. From Huddler:

"A nice compilation of the various groups which are in agreement about man-made global warming is available at Logicalscience.com.  Every so often, certain parties will attempt to compile lists of scientists who disagree with some aspect of the theory in an attempt to disprove the consensus.  The two most oft-cited lists are the Oregon Petition and Senator James Inhofe's list of 400.

In both cases, the lists were not limited to people with expertise in climate science, but essentially allowed anybody with any college degree (in the case of the Oregon Petition) or any scientific degree (in the case of Inhofe's list) to sign.  In the example of Inhofe's list, it included botanists, chemists, mathematicians, economists, and political scientists, to name a few.

When considering how many scientists work in these fields, 400 is a fraction of a percent and certainly does not disprove a scientific consensus on the subject.  Particularly since many on the list have no expertise or experience in climate science research.  The Oregon Petition has been found to be fraudulent, and a new version was recently circulated."

Once again I'd like to point out that you still haven't rebutted a single argument I've made against your points, and either changed tack, or put in arguments that are popular misconceptions perpetrated by the media. The media HAS blown climate change out of all proportion by suggesting that there's any real opposition to it, and fuelling beliefs that are wrong, uninformed, unsubstantiated, and misleading. I beg you to read the links I have posted with an open mind, free of prejudice against academia, and just accept it for what it is. If you have a serious point to put across afterwards, or a question, or a serious rebuttal of what I have said without returning to the "most academics are just in it for the money" argument, I will be quite happy to continue debating.

Interesting fact... a New Zealand weather man got grilled for saying something about global warming by the national meterolgical (sp?) associaton or whatever.  I can't remember the exact details but I found it facinating. 

The New Zealand government funded weather people say there is no global warming.  Does that make it New Zealand governments belief? the entire situation confused me as to what was going on with NZ government.

 

Kinda off topic but as has been said the topic is a silly one.

Global warming is off topic, as exiled canuck states. The thread is about violence and chess. I pointed out that all human activities require external controls. shakje's view of scientific agreement free of financial and political coercion is wrong. He does not explain why all the ice on the land melted to bring the last ice age to an end, not to mention all previous ices ages. This is with "millions of years of data." Discussing hurricane movement was used as deflection and decoy in chess. It does not support the claim that long term forecasting is more accurate than short term. I did not say most academics are a fraud. It is commonly held that there is more politics in academia than in politics. The point is that how workers in any field are evaluated and paid affects them. Police who are evaluated based on writing tickets tend to have their mission distorted by their supervisors. Teachers who are judged on passing percentages are pressured to lower standards. Scientists are not immune from concerns about money, contracts, credit, and job security. shakje points out that the media has erred, but by suggesting there is opposition to his point of view, but the media is largely on the other side. Schools down to the elementary school level are teaching global warming, but not inculcating students in the scientific method. Some current science teachers got their credentials by being able to regurgitate what they were told, but do not have the ability to evaluate their subject matter. Here is a short term prediction - at 3 pm tomorrow it will be warmer than at 3 am the next day. The sun is a major suspect in day to day changes and in changes throughout the earth's history. The world is not a pinball machine or video game that was at rest until a human put a quarter into the slot. There were changes before human history.