Chess performance and I.Q. • page 7/8 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

Ad hominem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Ad hominem is an attacking move. ;)
the only "ad hominem defense" is a logical and well prepared argument. However, even that can falter under the power of an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Ad hominem is an attacking move. ;) the only "ad hominem defense" is a logical and well prepared argument. However, even that can falter under the power of an ad hominem attack.

MeepMonster

#62

@mdinnerspace I suspect you are the "anonymous" who has been writing these quotes, hehe. :p

Jacob531

#63

@Acoffe

"One of the points I wanted to discuss was: "given two individuals with similar play time (or that have been equally coached under specific conditions), is the one with higher Rating usually smarter?" I just cannot wrap my mind around people who'd answer "no" here."

I answer yes. However, the practical significance of this is close to nil. For example, in order to use chess to determine who (between two people) has better spacial intelligence, one would need to keep track of all of their interactions with chess - all - in order to ensure that their exposures to chess are as similar as humanly possible. Thus, this type of experiment would only work for people who have never played chess before, since people who have played chess before said experiment would not have kept track of exactly how much time they took playing chess, as well as the quality of that chess experience.

So....you're right, but it would be very difficult to find any useful info from your theory, because of the number of unknown variables (many of which are unquantifiable as well).

@Acoffe "One of the points I wanted to discuss was: "given two individuals with similar play time (or that have been equally coached under specific conditions), is the one with higher Rating usually smarter?" I just cannot wrap my mind around people who'd answer "no" here." I answer yes. However, the practical significance of this is close to nil. For example, in order to use chess to determine who (between two people) has better spacial intelligence, one would need to keep track of all of their interactions with chess - all - in order to ensure that their exposures to chess are as similar as humanly possible. Thus, this type of experiment would only work for people who have never played chess before, since people who have played chess before said experiment would not have kept track of exactly how much time they took playing chess, as well as the quality of that chess experience. So....you're right, but it would be very difficult to find any useful info from your theory, because of the number of unknown variables (many of which are unquantifiable as well).

SummerSparkle

#64

@Acoffe They displayed anti-evolutionary ethics. They displayed a war mindset. They displayed a cannibalistic mindset. Extremely primitive thinking. They showed that they considered "sawing off the arm to save the hand" as being a great idea where if everyone REALLY thinks about it, it's ACTUALLY a good idea.

Nasst

#65

"I answer yes. However, the practical significance of this is close to nil. For example, in order to use chess to determine who (between two people) has better spacial intelligence, one would need to keep track of all of their interactions with chess - all - in order to ensure that their exposures to chess are as similar as humanly possible. Thus, this type of experiment would only work for people who have never played chess before, since people who have played chess before said experiment would not have kept track of exactly how much time they took playing chess, as well as the quality of that chess experience."

Not only that, but its likely there are other skills might have some degree of translation to chess-playing strength (experience with other turn-based deterministic board games, for example), so you aren't measuring only who is smarter.

"I answer yes. However, the practical significance of this is close to nil. For example, in order to use chess to determine who (between two people) has better spacial intelligence, one would need to keep track of all of their interactions with chess - all - in order to ensure that their exposures to chess are as similar as humanly possible. Thus, this type of experiment would only work for people who have never played chess before, since people who have played chess before said experiment would not have kept track of exactly how much time they took playing chess, as well as the quality of that chess experience." Not only that, but its likely there are other skills might have some degree of translation to chess-playing strength (experience with other turn-based deterministic board games, for example), so you aren't measuring only who is smarter.

mdinnerspace

#66

"The dumb keep getting Dumber" ....Anonymous

SummerSparkle

#67

My buddy in MENSA assures me that chess skills are not part in parcel with intelligence. As paradoxical as this is...I'd take his statement at face-value.

MeepMonster edited

#68

@mdinnerspace #51 I like the quote but I would revise it to say
"never underestimate the stupidity of a chess player who claims to be smarter than you, just because they play chess".

@mdinnerspace #51 I like the quote but I would revise it to say "never underestimate the stupidity of a chess player who claims to be smarter than you, just because they play chess".

Acoffe edited

#69

@SummerSparkle Ok, that's terrible, I'll agree they are likely not very intelligent.
I do not agree and would be interested in knowing why he thinks that (otherwise, for me, since I don't know him, it would be more "argument from authority" than anything else).
Thanks for the response!

@Jacob531 @Nasst Yes, I completely agree. Thank you both for your responses!

@MeepMonster It was a joke haha
I attempted a more relaxed answer given my confrontation on the previous one. Since this topic is dying out, I'll comment what I was originally going to:

Ad hominem is a fallacy that happens when one person attacks another person's instead of her/his arguments.
Since there were no arguments for me to rebut (my position and arguments were already explicitly stated, while her/his/its counterarguments were, in fact, explicitly "ad hominem", as it can be easily seen by reading her/his/its first post), I could have not committed this fallacy.
What I did do was defend myself from an ad hominem attack by explicating the troll's incompetence. I could very well claim to have been offended by more than one post she/he/it made, since they are explicitly of offensive nature, qualifying with top marks as an ad hominem "argument".
I gave arguments, she/he/it attacked me. I responded to other people as they commented, she/he/it took an even more passive-aggressive approach (qualifying as an attempt of bullying) and did it again. I ignored. She/he/it did it again, never making counterargument. I ignored [...]. She/he/it specifically requested for my answer. I answered (since it was mentioned, gave a broader philosophical definition of Intelligence, which was not responded to), explicating her/his/its incompetence, but not doing what was attempted by the she/he/it (maybe I shouldn't have answered after all).
Making such a confusion is shady to say the least.

I never intended for this to haven taken such a putrid course. As with most here, I was intrigued by a topic and thought it could lead to interesting discussions, I was polite and coherent with my answers from the beginning and I despise bellicosity.
Farewell.

@SummerSparkle Ok, that's terrible, I'll agree they are likely not very intelligent. I do not agree and would be interested in knowing why he thinks that (otherwise, for me, since I don't know him, it would be more "argument from authority" than anything else). Thanks for the response! @Jacob531 @Nasst Yes, I completely agree. Thank you both for your responses! @MeepMonster It was a joke haha I attempted a more relaxed answer given my confrontation on the previous one. Since this topic is dying out, I'll comment what I was originally going to: Ad hominem is a fallacy that happens when one person attacks another person's instead of her/his arguments. Since there were no arguments for me to rebut (my position and arguments were already explicitly stated, while her/his/its counterarguments were, in fact, explicitly "ad hominem", as it can be easily seen by reading her/his/its first post), I could have not committed this fallacy. What I did do was defend myself from an ad hominem attack by explicating the troll's incompetence. I could very well claim to have been offended by more than one post she/he/it made, since they are explicitly of offensive nature, qualifying with top marks as an ad hominem "argument". I gave arguments, she/he/it attacked me. I responded to other people as they commented, she/he/it took an even more passive-aggressive approach (qualifying as an attempt of bullying) and did it again. I ignored. She/he/it did it again, never making counterargument. I ignored [...]. She/he/it specifically requested for my answer. I answered (since it was mentioned, gave a broader philosophical definition of Intelligence, which was not responded to), explicating her/his/its incompetence, but not doing what was attempted by the she/he/it (maybe I shouldn't have answered after all). Making such a confusion is shady to say the least. I never intended for this to haven taken such a putrid course. As with most here, I was intrigued by a topic and thought it could lead to interesting discussions, I was polite and coherent with my answers from the beginning and I despise bellicosity. Farewell.

MeepMonster edited

#70

@Acoffe
You all can go back and read this word for word if you don't believe me. The posts I used are not changed in any way.

Sources are easily googled. 1000's are available for both sides. As I mentioned, studies are bought. Results are foregone. It is more a matter of what is believed to be true. There are very few truly independent studies made. Studies need funding, the parties donating the funds expect certain results. If the result contradicts their premise, it never sees the light of day. (mdinnerspace) They have not said anything to intentionally insult you

Acoffe edited 1 day ago #58
@mdinnerspace In my conception, Intelligence is the pursuance of self-actualization through synergistic heuristics , going against the Universal tendency of positive Entropy. More simply, it can be regarded as the pursuit of order, instead of disorder.

However, this broad definition does nothing for human intelligence. For us, realizing that there is one single most powerful underlying factor explaining the variance in virtually every mental activity ever measured, may, just may, be the way to go.
Of course, if one fails to understand the scientific method, then one's definition must be concocted on the basis of purely verbal-argumentative structure, one that coherently fits our overall perception of human interactivity.

If one then decides intelligence is to vague of a term, then, sure, my initial post focused on I.Q., not on intelligence. I.Q. can be much more easily defined.
However, if one simply does not understand psychometrics, then we're running out of things that one understands.

That was pretty embarrassing; you did it on purpose, didn't you? The "has shown to be a fallacy" line. That was great!

But okay, bias occurs.
If you insist on not acknowledging scientific studies on this matter, the discussion can be - as it was originally intended; that's why there were no sources initially - merely "philosophical"; I'll warn you, though, it's not looking good so far.

No one claimed to be smarter here. It seems, ironically, that you were the first one to make a statement resembling such a comparison.

((((((This rises the question: what are you so afraid of?
This is one post from an Internet forum, and yet you just cannot stop yourself from commenting, most of the time not bringing anything to the table.
I, as a gentleman, did not feed the troll until the troll specifically begged for my attention.))))))

(((((ad hominem)))))((((((As his post was completely reasonable and on topic, they are not a troll, just because their opinion differs from yours doesn't name them a troll)))))))

Accordingly, this will be your first and last meal; do not behave, and starvation will ensue. ((Threats))

Grow up and learn to be well-mannered. ((Insults, calling them rude and immature))

By any standard this is a form of ad hominem.

You, also outright admitted to this:

CONFESSION
Acoffe edited1 day ago #60

"@MeepMonster I'm guilty.
Of course, after my efforts to promote interesting discussion and the troll stabs - also ad hominem; little/none was actually in the form of civilized conversation - at me directed, explaining myself was not enough.
At best, it could be called "ad hominem defense"."

@Acoffe ******You all can go back and read this word for word if you don't believe me. The posts I used are not changed in any way.****** Sources are easily googled. 1000's are available for both sides. As I mentioned, studies are bought. Results are foregone. It is more a matter of what is believed to be true. There are very few truly independent studies made. Studies need funding, the parties donating the funds expect certain results. If the result contradicts their premise, it never sees the light of day. (mdinnerspace) **They have not said anything to intentionally insult you** Acoffe edited 1 day ago #58 @mdinnerspace In my conception, Intelligence is the pursuance of self-actualization through synergistic heuristics , going against the Universal tendency of positive Entropy. More simply, it can be regarded as the pursuit of order, instead of disorder. However, this broad definition does nothing for human intelligence. For us, realizing that there is one single most powerful underlying factor explaining the variance in virtually every mental activity ever measured, may, just may, be the way to go. Of course, if one fails to understand the scientific method, then one's definition must be concocted on the basis of purely verbal-argumentative structure, one that coherently fits our overall perception of human interactivity. If one then decides intelligence is to vague of a term, then, sure, my initial post focused on I.Q., not on intelligence. I.Q. can be much more easily defined. However, if one simply does not understand psychometrics, then we're running out of things that one understands. That was pretty embarrassing; you did it on purpose, didn't you? The "has shown to be a fallacy" line. That was great! But okay, bias occurs. If you insist on not acknowledging scientific studies on this matter, the discussion can be - as it was originally intended; that's why there were no sources initially - merely "philosophical"; I'll warn you, though, it's not looking good so far. No one claimed to be smarter here. It seems, ironically, that you were the first one to make a statement resembling such a comparison. ((((((This rises the question: what are you so afraid of? This is one post from an Internet forum, and yet you just cannot stop yourself from commenting, most of the time not bringing anything to the table. I, as a gentleman, did not feed the troll until the troll specifically begged for my attention.)))))) (((((ad hominem)))))((((((As his post was completely reasonable and on topic, they are not a troll, just because their opinion differs from yours doesn't name them a troll))))))) Accordingly, this will be your first and last meal; do not behave, and starvation will ensue. ((Threats)) Grow up and learn to be well-mannered. ((Insults, calling them rude and immature)) By any standard this is a form of ad hominem. You, also outright admitted to this: ****CONFESSION**** Acoffe edited1 day ago #60 "@MeepMonster I'm guilty. Of course, after my efforts to promote interesting discussion and the troll stabs - also ad hominem; little/none was actually in the form of civilized conversation - at me directed, explaining myself was not enough. At best, it could be called "ad hominem defense"."