You demonstrate your superior EQ by dousing the forum with gasoline and throwing in a match?
How superior of you.
EQ vs IQ : More reasons to ban chess
Sort:
The truth is never well received but ignoring it does not make it go away.
Feb 15, 2016
0
#4
First of all I want to mention that I don't think anything at all should be banned in any society. I think banning anything is unethical and the government has no business telling people what to do.
That said I actually generally happen to agree that chess can have a negative, or at least undesirable, effect on players. I play chess casually and haven't played competitively as a kid. But over the last year I've met some players, watched hundreds of videos on YouTube, read about chess players from USSR and United States. While almost nobody is as anti social as the most famous chess player of the 20th century, quite many are as cold and often rude as you describe.
Those who are not cold or unsociable can still be arrogant toward others. From what I watched and largely from the forum posts I've read in chess dot com forums alone many chess enthusiasts seem to think they're some kind of superior members of society. Either they convince themselves of that because they actually feel chess has few social benefits, or maybe because of its social stigma. I don't know. But I don't know how many times I've seen a comment like "as chess players we are the intellectual elite of society." Or "it makes me so much smarter than others." Or "We chess players can think more logically in general therefore our opinions are more often objectively right."
As for how many of them marry or have romantic lives that are successful. I am skeptical that chess players may have that issue specifically because they play chess. They are probably drawn to chess because they care less about other activities. If is not an activity that women who are interested in romantic relationships would find interesting at all. I mean you sit, you're silent, and you look at the board. Women want you to talk to them, give them stuff, tell them jokes, and assert yourself in social situations in their presence. They also want you to not be a fat slob. I am not at all saying that all chess players are fat slobs. That is generally an issue with men who don't like to or just don't exercise. I am not a fat slob yet, but I definitely don't like to exercise. I just think that the less social life and romantic life a guy has starting in his teens and throughout his life the more likely he is to gravitate to activities like chess and similar to chess. Video games for example. Books. Watching lots of movies. Spending many hours in forums. Stuff like that. I don't see a cause and effect relationship between chess and social life here but rather a correlation.
Given what I wrote I still think that if a person desires to play chess a lot and gets enjoyment from it to make them happy, then no authority like school or government has the right to tell them not to play chess. This would probably apply to chess in school mostly.
I think chess players, especially teens, will benefit a lot from teachers, parents, or other chess players reminding them that they must make conscious effort not to ignore other aspects of their life whether these are intellectual aspects like academics, socialization like hanging out with friends, and some degree of physical activity.
I've been addicted to video games in my late teens. I am 32 now and I look back at it and it boggles my mind what a huge waste of time it was and I think of what I could have done instead in all those hours spent in front of the computer playing some game. Now since I began playing chess again about year and a half ago I perceive this activity with suspicion because just like video games this is a never ending rabbit hole so to speak. You cannot "win" the game or hope to become a GM. Even as a GM you won't be satisfied. In video games too you have never ending content and new games. They all look more or less different, have unique music, unique graphics, unique situations. People only delude themselves if they suggest that chess is that much better than video games when it comes to effects on the participant.
That said I actually generally happen to agree that chess can have a negative, or at least undesirable, effect on players. I play chess casually and haven't played competitively as a kid. But over the last year I've met some players, watched hundreds of videos on YouTube, read about chess players from USSR and United States. While almost nobody is as anti social as the most famous chess player of the 20th century, quite many are as cold and often rude as you describe.
Those who are not cold or unsociable can still be arrogant toward others. From what I watched and largely from the forum posts I've read in chess dot com forums alone many chess enthusiasts seem to think they're some kind of superior members of society. Either they convince themselves of that because they actually feel chess has few social benefits, or maybe because of its social stigma. I don't know. But I don't know how many times I've seen a comment like "as chess players we are the intellectual elite of society." Or "it makes me so much smarter than others." Or "We chess players can think more logically in general therefore our opinions are more often objectively right."
As for how many of them marry or have romantic lives that are successful. I am skeptical that chess players may have that issue specifically because they play chess. They are probably drawn to chess because they care less about other activities. If is not an activity that women who are interested in romantic relationships would find interesting at all. I mean you sit, you're silent, and you look at the board. Women want you to talk to them, give them stuff, tell them jokes, and assert yourself in social situations in their presence. They also want you to not be a fat slob. I am not at all saying that all chess players are fat slobs. That is generally an issue with men who don't like to or just don't exercise. I am not a fat slob yet, but I definitely don't like to exercise. I just think that the less social life and romantic life a guy has starting in his teens and throughout his life the more likely he is to gravitate to activities like chess and similar to chess. Video games for example. Books. Watching lots of movies. Spending many hours in forums. Stuff like that. I don't see a cause and effect relationship between chess and social life here but rather a correlation.
Given what I wrote I still think that if a person desires to play chess a lot and gets enjoyment from it to make them happy, then no authority like school or government has the right to tell them not to play chess. This would probably apply to chess in school mostly.
I think chess players, especially teens, will benefit a lot from teachers, parents, or other chess players reminding them that they must make conscious effort not to ignore other aspects of their life whether these are intellectual aspects like academics, socialization like hanging out with friends, and some degree of physical activity.
I've been addicted to video games in my late teens. I am 32 now and I look back at it and it boggles my mind what a huge waste of time it was and I think of what I could have done instead in all those hours spent in front of the computer playing some game. Now since I began playing chess again about year and a half ago I perceive this activity with suspicion because just like video games this is a never ending rabbit hole so to speak. You cannot "win" the game or hope to become a GM. Even as a GM you won't be satisfied. In video games too you have never ending content and new games. They all look more or less different, have unique music, unique graphics, unique situations. People only delude themselves if they suggest that chess is that much better than video games when it comes to effects on the participant.
i tried an experiment a couple of months ago. i asked my subconscious to lose all interest in chess. it seems to have worked, fingers crossed. i want to thank the chesscom for showing the effects of chess on people to me so clearly in the forums.
Drawgood wrote:
First of all I want to mention that I don't think anything at all should be banned in any society. I think banning anything is unethical and the government has no business telling people what to do.
I agree. I like murdering people just as much as the next guy, and to hell with any government that tries to stop me from doing it.
i think iamdeafzed found the flaw in Drawgood's post, fkey. notmarktwain and RouteToGm are trolling, but thats about it.
@ RottingGM ...thanks for proving my point
@ Frankie....what the blazes do you mean by ' fundamentally flawed' !!??
@ Drawgood ....thanks for your lengthy response, you are clearly a well balanced individual with a superior mind despite a small weakness for wasting time but we all have our flaws I once punched a guy at a chess tournament. Trophy coming your way.
Sitting-Duck hat geschrieben:
Only 13% of GM's have success at marriage while a staggering 95% own pets for the simple reason that dogs can't tell you just how annoying you are.
I am sure you have a link to the abovementioned study. My curiosity is almost unbearable regarding how "success at marriage" is measured.
On the EQ vs. IQ debate, the opening post rather supports my thesis that the former is an invention of those who lack the latter.
RouteToGM wrote:
Ah i forgot, Sitting-Duck, you are not a spiritual person, you are a just another irrelevant moron. Quaack quaack.
I refer you to the very first sentence of this thread. You will not believe this but it can be tough being right the whole time.
Rumour75 I suggest you read up on what EQ is before commenting. Success in marriage though is measured in ' divorced, left your wife in Russia to persue chess in the US and of course happily married'. I hope this relieves the unbearability of you situation.
i only do a few tic tacs now while logging in for the chit chat, no more chessgames, i only see it as an artform.
@Fkey ...Madam I am both a prophet and a pastor ,I don't take my message to those who already believe ,I prefer the front lines that is just the type of guy I am, a leader, I am here to bring the lost sheep back. It is a thankless job
@rottingGM thanks for supporting and proving my views. You are putting in a lot of effort for somebody you consider 'an irrelevant moron' it is commendable.
you are into gardening!!??
Rumo75 wrote:
Sitting-Duck hat geschrieben:
Only 13% of GM's have success at marriage while a staggering 95% own pets for the simple reason that dogs can't tell you just how annoying you are.
I am sure you have a link to the abovementioned study. My curiosity is almost unbearable regarding how "success at marriage" is measured.
On the EQ vs. IQ debate, the opening post rather supports my thesis that the former is an invention of those who lack the latter.
EQ is a useful concept in that (clearly) possessing high IQ itself isn't sufficient for life success. Necessary for certain careers/endeavors, perhaps? Probably. But enough counterexamples exist to show that high IQ alone isn't enough for 'life success' (whatever that is, exactly). People are emotional beings, and anybody with sense has to have some appreciable recognition of their emotional (i.e. irrational) self.
That stated, the biggest problem EQ has that IQ doesn't is the fact that EQ isn't easily quantifiable/well-defined, while IQ is. People can complain all they want about IQ tests being biased/unfair/etc. (and plenty do), but the bottom line is good/heavily g-loaded IQ tests basically measure a person's ability to quickly discern patterns. By and large, this is pretty easy to measure in an individual.
By contrast, EQ does not have nearly as objective of criteria for determining what constitutes "good" versus "bad". In particular, what's the "correct" reaction one is supposed to have after getting angry over something? Such basic questions as this, nobody's figured out the definitive answer to. Probably, in part, because the "correct" response tends to be pretty context dependent.
Feb 15, 2016
0
#17
@iamdeafzed
You clearly do not know what a ban means. It is very different from a law. It is illegal to murder(not the same as kill) people because they have a right to their life. This is a law in most civilized countries of the world. A ban can be formal or informal prohibition of some persons or some activity in some place. It is not the same as criminally punishable offenses.
Did you really think you were writing such a clever response by suggesting that people don't kill others because there is a "ban" on murder?
Drawgood wrote:
@iamdeafzed
You clearly do not know what a ban means. It is very different from a law. It is illegal to murder(not the same as kill) people because they have a right to their life. This is a law in most civilized countries of the world. A ban can be formal or informal prohibition of some persons or some activity in some place. It is not the same as criminally punishable offenses.
Did you really think you were writing such a clever response by suggesting that people don't kill others because there is a "ban" on murder?
I was poking fun at the fact that you used rather sloppy language to express your (intended) point. Apparently you didn't get that.
SittingDuck, firstly, what EQ score do you give yourself for insulting everybody here?
Secondly, as you come as the saviour of all, do you promise to find a woman for the 87% you have such pity for and guarantee a happy marriage in each case? If yes, where do I send my money to?
Feb 15, 2016
0
#20
@Fkey You've no basis for calling sitting duck a troll. You just happen to not like his post because you know it will produce many disagreeing responses. That doesn't automatically make him a troll. He described his reasoning pretty well and spent time writing the post. Why would you say he isn't sincere and means what he wrote?
Your responses to him on the other hand are dismissive jokes that poke fun at what he wrote. Is that mature? Isn't that what trolls also allegedly do?
Literally the only topic no-one on cc can dispute is the consistent and high level of insulting and arrogant behavior displayed by the vast majority of members during games and in the forums.
This has in recent years become a quality synonymous with chess.
The reason is simple of course: while chess requires a certain level of IQ it requires absolutely no EQ ( Emotional quotient or emotional intelligence)
Chess actually goes one step further in that it will reduce your level of EQ over time as you spend more and more time removed from real life.
It is also clear to see how a higher rating goes hand in hand with a reduced level of acceptable communication, explaining why titled players will often belittle and insult anything they deem unworthy of the false image they have of themselves ...which is pretty much everything. Except for that nobodyreally dude, he is very cool. And possibly Jeremy Silman.
Being trapped in their own heads explains why chess players can't cut it in real life where communication is required and they inevitably end up as miserable, bitter and lonely individuals.
Only 13% of GM's have success at marriage while a staggering 95% own pets for the simple reason that dogs can't tell you just how annoying you are.
Even guys with average IQ's do infinitely better in real life than the most talented chess player. It also explains why Windows is so crap, but still Bill Gates is a billionaire.
Undoubtedly the fallacy that chess is some special and/or superior game will of course be promoted and held as gospel by every chess player that has advanced beyond wood pushing patzer status ( i.e. >1600) because nobody likes to admit they are spending many hours on a daily basis turning themselves into social failures.
As a spiritual person I share this truth for if I can but rip just one person from the fire of lowered EQ I will deem myself blessed.
( All the above exclude women, except for a few cases, because generally speaking women are less inclined to waste time for the sole purpose of becoming socially dysfunctional chess nerds)