Nerdy image of Chess • page 5/7 • Off-Topic Discussion • lichess.org

As for the rest of it, you're preaching to the choir! thumbs up

As for the rest of it, you're preaching to the choir! *thumbs up*

Gah... It seems the only way for most people to raise the importance of intelligence is to redefine the word "nerd" in something attractive and fashionable. Good for majority, but simultaneously superficial:
"Some measures of nerdiness are now allegedly considered desirable, as, to some, it suggests a person who is intelligent, respectful, interesting, and able to earn a large salary. Stereotypical nerd qualities are evolving, going from awkwardness and social ostracism to an allegedly more widespread acceptance and sometimes even celebration of their differences" — Wikipedia.
Conscious people, who use their own brain, do not need fashion and common tendencies to understand the importance of unimportance of something.
If someone, thereby, is using his own brain, he will not (in most cases) mention this common tendencies and fashion in his words either express anthow following of them.

Gah... It seems the only way for most people to raise the importance of intelligence is to redefine the word "nerd" in something attractive and fashionable. Good for majority, but simultaneously superficial: "Some measures of nerdiness are now allegedly considered desirable, as, to some, it suggests a person who is intelligent, respectful, interesting, and able to earn a large salary. Stereotypical nerd qualities are evolving, going from awkwardness and social ostracism to an allegedly more widespread acceptance and sometimes even celebration of their differences" — Wikipedia. Conscious people, who use their own brain, do not need fashion and common tendencies to understand the importance of unimportance of something. If someone, thereby, is using his own brain, he will not (in most cases) mention this common tendencies and fashion in his words either express anthow following of them.

Chesstroll_Ingot

#43

importance OR unimportance*

Sad, isn't it?

When a discussion turns into subjective. Yes.

Dionysus_god

#46

I guess you would like to talk only of mathematics all day?

"When a discussion turns subjective" lol... Go read Ayn Rand.

I guess you would like to talk only of mathematics all day? "When a discussion turns subjective" lol... Go read Ayn Rand.

Dionysus_god

#47

All discussions are subjective.

Chesstroll_Ingot

#48

Thank you, I'm reading Iliad now.

"Subjective":
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective
The first definition:

"placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric". The key is "excessive".

Opposite to objective.

Objective:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased".

Though everything is relative, there are some frames that define the sense of words. So, almost all statements have something subjective. If it's even an objective position, it still has a very little of subjectiveness (as subjective has something of objective). But in spite of it you can't call it subjective. Because words have their frames.

So, no, not every discussion is a subjective one.

It's acceptable, when a person tries to be objective and does mistakes in the meantime. But when he is subjective and doesn't try to improve or argue his position using some accepted knowledge or sources, a discussion becomes worthless.

Thank you, I'm reading Iliad now. "Subjective": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective The first definition: - "placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric". The key is "excessive". Opposite to objective. Objective: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective - "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased". Though everything is relative, there are some frames that define the sense of words. So, almost all statements have something subjective. If it's even an objective position, it still has a very little of subjectiveness (as subjective has something of objective). But in spite of it you can't call it subjective. Because words have their frames. So, no, not every discussion is a subjective one. It's acceptable, when a person tries to be objective and does mistakes in the meantime. But when he is subjective and doesn't try to improve or argue his position using some accepted knowledge or sources, a discussion becomes worthless.

Dionysus_god

#49

"So, no, not every discussion is a subjective one. '

Not if you're strictly using dictionary definitions, but if you would think outside the box for a few minutes you'd see a broader truth to the idea!

"So, no, not every discussion is a subjective one. ' Not if you're strictly using dictionary definitions, but if you would think outside the box for a few minutes you'd see a broader truth to the idea!

Dionysus_god

#50

All of your posts in the thread seem to be reactionary retorts with dictionary definitions by your side to somehow undermine my subjective interpretation of the topic of "The nerdy image of chess players". You haven't added much of your own interpretations on this topic, but you seem intent on pointing out that my perspective is subjective, posing as an arbiter of objective truth, as if I claimed that my view of this topic was anything but my own.

What are you driving at, exactly?

All of your posts in the thread seem to be reactionary retorts with dictionary definitions by your side to somehow undermine my subjective interpretation of the topic of "The nerdy image of chess players". You haven't added much of your own interpretations on this topic, but you seem intent on pointing out that my perspective is subjective, posing as an arbiter of objective truth, as if I claimed that my view of this topic was anything but my own. What are you driving at, exactly?