Thank you for the Article! Its an interesting read. Especially i liked the part where he said: "Mike! You got it all wrong!" I am used to more subtle thinking process. But i guess in money world its important that one person gets other person's message clearly and correctly. There's no time for opinions and theories. Going straight for the horns of a bull! But to be honest, thats what i was expecting - disregarding rest of the goals and focusing on those 5 circled. I would have said it in a calmer manner. I agree that this is a good idea, but i dont know how people find 25 carreer goals to write. Do many people have this much goals?
@Patience-Hamburg said in #11:
> Of course you can agree with TurtleMat, but I think he has misunderstood him completely.
TurtleMat's objection might be a bit dramatic but I see why he dislikes the post. It is essentially an advertisement, as the whole thing leads up to the link at the bottom where you can sign up for his coaching program. It's reasonable to question whether the posts on the front page should be used to help certain people sell their courses, since I'm sure there are a lot of coaches out there who have services, classes, or courses they want to sell.
Now whether or not the content of the article itself is "capitalist drivel" or whether it promotes "discrimination and abuse" is debatable... personally I think that's a bit extreme but either way I don't really think Buffett is the best example as he was a guy who had a very favorable start in life (son of a highly successful congressman and businessman), so it should be noted that his success was at least in part due to this and not solely due to his supposedly incredible time management skills.
That said, it is pretty obvious that if you focus all your time and energy into 1 goal, you will improve more than if you split that time and energy among 10 different objectives. So I guess in that sense the article does make a valid point, albeit one that is pretty much just common sense.
> Of course you can agree with TurtleMat, but I think he has misunderstood him completely.
TurtleMat's objection might be a bit dramatic but I see why he dislikes the post. It is essentially an advertisement, as the whole thing leads up to the link at the bottom where you can sign up for his coaching program. It's reasonable to question whether the posts on the front page should be used to help certain people sell their courses, since I'm sure there are a lot of coaches out there who have services, classes, or courses they want to sell.
Now whether or not the content of the article itself is "capitalist drivel" or whether it promotes "discrimination and abuse" is debatable... personally I think that's a bit extreme but either way I don't really think Buffett is the best example as he was a guy who had a very favorable start in life (son of a highly successful congressman and businessman), so it should be noted that his success was at least in part due to this and not solely due to his supposedly incredible time management skills.
That said, it is pretty obvious that if you focus all your time and energy into 1 goal, you will improve more than if you split that time and energy among 10 different objectives. So I guess in that sense the article does make a valid point, albeit one that is pretty much just common sense.
@Patience-Hamburg said in #11:
> Of course you can agree with TurtleMat, but I think he has misunderstood him completely.
I can assure you I have a realy clear understanding of what is at stake here. I didn't misunderstand anything about this.
I don't mean that coaching in itself is a bad thing. Chess coaching, and, *if done properly* life coaching, can be really beneficial to people. But especially when it comes to life coaching, there are huge traps to avoid. People without a degree in psychology should stick to chess coaching, and avoid giving life advice alltogether because they usually work with a sample of 1 (themselves, see survivorship biais) and demonstrate over and over again that they have no idea about the complexity (and I mean complexity, not degree) of struggles the society produces (see structural violence).
So coaching, Yay, go for it, I love it. Life advice from people without any idea of sociology and psychology GTFO, that's dangerous.
> If someone has many years of professional experience in showing a way, as here in chess, and they want to earn money with it, they can at least offer their services. Just because there is an offer doesn't mean you have to accept it. The experience he has gained in his field didn't fall from the sky, but he has worked for it, taken lessons himself, etc. It is an offer, no more and no less, and everyone can decide for themselves whether they want to accept it and follow it or not.
That's exactely what I criticise. Posts like 99% of what avetic writes is a perverse way to create demand for their product via making people feel inadequate. If their product (coaching) would be good enough, they wouldn't have to resort to this kind of ugly agressive and manipulative advertisment.
> To condemn it and make a mountain out of a molehill is, in my opinion, too much hot air.
Well, it's one "molehill" per week. it adds up. And it's a really concrete and real problem that i'm tackeling, and sure, avetik is only one example among millions, but it doesn't make it OK. Also, this problem is omnipresent in our world, so making people aware of it here also allows them to see it on these million of other instances. This exact rethoric used in avetiks posts is used big scale to shit on "weak socio economical classes" and justify gross innequality.
@cyc_ses said in #13:
> Now whether or not the content of the article itself is "capitalist drivel" or whether it promotes "discrimination and abuse" is debatable... personally I think that's a bit extreme (...)
I completely understand how one can see my expressed views as extreme. I would probably seen them as such a couple of years ago. But I ́ve come to study the mechanisms at work, and can honestly say, they are EVERYWHERE, and that is the reason why they are so destructive. Actually, it's these mechanism that are extreme, but they are so anchored in our habits that questioning them seems extreme.
> Of course you can agree with TurtleMat, but I think he has misunderstood him completely.
I can assure you I have a realy clear understanding of what is at stake here. I didn't misunderstand anything about this.
I don't mean that coaching in itself is a bad thing. Chess coaching, and, *if done properly* life coaching, can be really beneficial to people. But especially when it comes to life coaching, there are huge traps to avoid. People without a degree in psychology should stick to chess coaching, and avoid giving life advice alltogether because they usually work with a sample of 1 (themselves, see survivorship biais) and demonstrate over and over again that they have no idea about the complexity (and I mean complexity, not degree) of struggles the society produces (see structural violence).
So coaching, Yay, go for it, I love it. Life advice from people without any idea of sociology and psychology GTFO, that's dangerous.
> If someone has many years of professional experience in showing a way, as here in chess, and they want to earn money with it, they can at least offer their services. Just because there is an offer doesn't mean you have to accept it. The experience he has gained in his field didn't fall from the sky, but he has worked for it, taken lessons himself, etc. It is an offer, no more and no less, and everyone can decide for themselves whether they want to accept it and follow it or not.
That's exactely what I criticise. Posts like 99% of what avetic writes is a perverse way to create demand for their product via making people feel inadequate. If their product (coaching) would be good enough, they wouldn't have to resort to this kind of ugly agressive and manipulative advertisment.
> To condemn it and make a mountain out of a molehill is, in my opinion, too much hot air.
Well, it's one "molehill" per week. it adds up. And it's a really concrete and real problem that i'm tackeling, and sure, avetik is only one example among millions, but it doesn't make it OK. Also, this problem is omnipresent in our world, so making people aware of it here also allows them to see it on these million of other instances. This exact rethoric used in avetiks posts is used big scale to shit on "weak socio economical classes" and justify gross innequality.
@cyc_ses said in #13:
> Now whether or not the content of the article itself is "capitalist drivel" or whether it promotes "discrimination and abuse" is debatable... personally I think that's a bit extreme (...)
I completely understand how one can see my expressed views as extreme. I would probably seen them as such a couple of years ago. But I ́ve come to study the mechanisms at work, and can honestly say, they are EVERYWHERE, and that is the reason why they are so destructive. Actually, it's these mechanism that are extreme, but they are so anchored in our habits that questioning them seems extreme.
@nossing said in #4:
> Get this capitalist-humping drivel off of my lichess.
snitch, so yes, very Commie.
> Get this capitalist-humping drivel off of my lichess.
snitch, so yes, very Commie.
<Comment deleted by user>
great article brother, that's all you wrote, it's really true
Grandmaster is not a goal for me, but getting to Level 2000 (on Lichess) is a goal, is it an important goal?
No, it's not the most important as I will not die if I don't reach it.
For me, there are more important goals that my future will depend on, like my career, the never-ending education in the IT industry, and so on.
Does that mean I need to stop playing chess altogether?
I do not think so, life does not need to be only a goal-chasing grind in a never-ending loop, we need to set time aside for fun as well, for me chess is fun, I might not be very good at it, but damn I love it.
No, it's not the most important as I will not die if I don't reach it.
For me, there are more important goals that my future will depend on, like my career, the never-ending education in the IT industry, and so on.
Does that mean I need to stop playing chess altogether?
I do not think so, life does not need to be only a goal-chasing grind in a never-ending loop, we need to set time aside for fun as well, for me chess is fun, I might not be very good at it, but damn I love it.
<Comment deleted by user>
Nice!
I propose that Lichess make an official certification for certain bloggers (those whose blogs will appear on the menu).
This kind of article is boring. there are trade links. Of course, I don't want to be too mean, because it is obvious that the author makes his living thanks to online courses/coaching and that he wants to have a wide audience. That's great.
But it's quite annoying to see this on an open source site like Lichess: chess for free for everyone, but still allows people to put advertising-type commercial links.
it is not ethnically compatible, not that one or the other is bad, but that one and the other cannot coexist. What will it be next time? a quote from Elon Musk with a link to investing in crypto to be a better chess players ?
tolerating such articles is one thing, it's not the content that bothers me so much,
these are also the links at the end, with the promotional offers, how nice... and inappropriate. This is called seeking clients on behalf of an acquaintance. This is not charity but hidden commerce.
I encourage the author to continue writing, as I do not wish to blame the time he spends writing. If he wants to continue advertising Chessbase (which is a noble cause too), I encourage him to create/search for another platform that would be beneficial for him and the community. you can even use the Lichess source code if you don't have the money or time. chessbase is a famous site, there is no need to remind us of it on a weekly basis.
at some point it's good, but we need to know things clearly, if coaches and streamers have verified profiles, I don't see why bloggers wouldn't have them and especially if there would be specific legislation to put in place in place regarding for-profit links that are not of the charity type. because the problem is that this does not have a direct link with the host site. I don't see why promoting your own team or tournament hosted here would be more dishonorable than encouraging people to click away from Lichess and go to a site where the policy is different.
This kind of article is boring. there are trade links. Of course, I don't want to be too mean, because it is obvious that the author makes his living thanks to online courses/coaching and that he wants to have a wide audience. That's great.
But it's quite annoying to see this on an open source site like Lichess: chess for free for everyone, but still allows people to put advertising-type commercial links.
it is not ethnically compatible, not that one or the other is bad, but that one and the other cannot coexist. What will it be next time? a quote from Elon Musk with a link to investing in crypto to be a better chess players ?
tolerating such articles is one thing, it's not the content that bothers me so much,
these are also the links at the end, with the promotional offers, how nice... and inappropriate. This is called seeking clients on behalf of an acquaintance. This is not charity but hidden commerce.
I encourage the author to continue writing, as I do not wish to blame the time he spends writing. If he wants to continue advertising Chessbase (which is a noble cause too), I encourage him to create/search for another platform that would be beneficial for him and the community. you can even use the Lichess source code if you don't have the money or time. chessbase is a famous site, there is no need to remind us of it on a weekly basis.
at some point it's good, but we need to know things clearly, if coaches and streamers have verified profiles, I don't see why bloggers wouldn't have them and especially if there would be specific legislation to put in place in place regarding for-profit links that are not of the charity type. because the problem is that this does not have a direct link with the host site. I don't see why promoting your own team or tournament hosted here would be more dishonorable than encouraging people to click away from Lichess and go to a site where the policy is different.