/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10250095]

>every chess GM has started playing the game when they were like 5 years old

this settles it. genes are a spook, nurture wins everytime.
you could have been the next newton but your parents decided to let you eat sand in the sandpit instead of teaching you physics

[Anonymous No.10250526]

IQ has very little to do with playing chess in contrast to experience. After playing thousands of games chess players’ minds are able to recall to past games. Cringe and bluepilled

[Anonymous No.10250552]

>>10250095
>this kills the genelet

[Anonymous No.10250558]

it's always a combination of both that help you succeed. Nurture is probably more important, but comparing playing a strategy game to Newton advancing human intelligence makes everyone here realize your parents failed you in the nurture category and dropped you on your head one too many times.

[Anonymous No.10250562]

Chess has nothing to do with intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10250566]

>>10250095
Why would we have evolved chess genes?

[Anonymous No.10250575]

>>10250095
why do you think they all happen to have high iq's and to come from high iq parents? frogposting retard

[Anonymous No.10250598]

>>10250575
>they all happen to have high iq's and to come from high iq parents?
source?

[TubaJam No.10250605]

>>10250095
>>10250575
fun fact: the IQs of chess GMs are average or slightly above average.

[Anonymous No.10250722]

you actually can't be good at chess if low IQ unless lucky at guessing too

[Anonymous No.10250855]

>>10250605
source: your ass

[Anonymous No.10250949]

Nurture plays a huge role imo. My elder brother is like wicked smart, the guy represented my country at an international olympiad, while I was solving stoichiometric problems at the same age. The difference between us was that I grew up with a computer since I was like 5 and spent all my time banging video games, he only came in contact with that stuff later but still maintained some distance from all the tech and the internet.

[Anonymous No.10250991]

>>10250095
Shitty ass cargo cult thinking.

He started at 5 due to his ability and interest through his genes. The same genes in his parents led to the home where he could do this.

[Anonymous No.10251097]

>>10250991
>started at 5 through his genes
By definition, nobody would just happen upon chess due to genetics, it's a game that REQUIRES outside influence to be taught the rules. There's not a single person who naturally happens upon chess at 5 years old because at 5 years old the only way to be introduced to chess is through the deliberate acts of parents

[Anonymous No.10251117]

>chess
>not math or science

[Anonymous No.10251121]

>>10250095
>this settles it. genes are a spook, nurture wins everytime.
>coping this hard
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

[Anonymous No.10251126]

>>10250095
>this settles it. genes are a spook, nurture wins everytime.
What if their genes made them play chess?

I also started playing chess very young and I am pretty awful at it.

[Anonymous No.10251150]

Fun fact: it takes significantly less effort to become a gm than to become part of an equivalent top percentile of a popular competitive esports userbase, anyone can do it with a few hundreds to thousands of hours

[Anonymous No.10251153]

>>10251150
Can you retards stop posting bullshit facts with zero sources?

[Anonymous No.10251158]

>>10251153
No.

[Anonymous No.10251372]

Chess requires a high IQ to be good at. A higher IQ lets you see more moves ahead. Higher IQ brains can filter out useless moves better, narrow down possibilities in moves an comfortably handle the useful possibilities available to them and quickly make value judgments.

[Anonymous No.10251394]

>>10251121
It's your parents fault you became a shitposter instead of something useful

[Anonymous No.10251399]

>>10250095
those who are born with high IQ will not eat the sand from the sandpit and instead will master chess with or without parental guidance

[Anonymous No.10252216]

>>10250095
Yasser Seirawan.

[Anonymous No.10252259]

>>10250095
Everyone who's good at anything started at a very young age. It's very difficult to reach top level when you start as an adult. For instance, no one ever in F1 didn't start in carts as a child.
But then again, lots of people who did never got good enough for F1. So genes/personality do play a role

[Anonymous No.10252260]

>>10252216
>started at 12
>GM at 20
>probably teached by experts the whole time
this is the best you could do to prove me wrong? lmao

[Anonymous No.10252270]

>>10252260
I gave you a counter example.

[Anonymous No.10252307]

>>10251121
>Everyone who doesn't share my opinions is a leftist
sound_of_billion_pussies_drying_out.mp3

[Anonymous No.10252452]

>>10252270
12 is still young. human brains arent fully developend until the 20s

[Anonymous No.10253537]

>>10250526
This has been contested recently. And not surpriaing since we know a few IQs of chess world champions and they are all genius.

>>10250949
You only share 50% of your DNA with your sibling so you cant justify such a statement.

>>10252259
Depressing but true. But literally both are necessary. I think when you start to assume a given amount of opportunity equally available though then genes come more into it.
And even the propensity to practise it or keep it up as a kid probably has some significant genetic component.

[Anonymous No.10253642]

>>10253537
not depressing at all if you're not obsessed with getting paid to play sport or whatever equivalent it is. You don't need to be top level to be good at something

[Anonymous No.10253743]

>>10251121
>let me recite you the bombs of my people
Take your anarchist primitivist terrorist with you.

[Anonymous No.10254296]

>>10253642
But dont you need parents nurturing you from a young age so you develop the skills to not be a NEET? plus the genes?

[Anonymous No.10254350]

>>10250095
your behavior is not only at the mercy of your genes, but your genes are also at the mercy of your behavior

if a parent or other figure forces a kid to play a game, and they're talented, they will probably be geared towards playing that game more and getting good at it. Their brain will undergo changes that even make them better at it.

sometimes a neglected or slow-developing kid can break through walls and force themselves at some skill by themselves, but it's really hard. I think a smarter person is more likely to do something like this independently. But either one is going to be stunted by the lack of a directing force in their life, even if the smarter kid will probably proceed faster when on the right track.

I think natural intelligence is very important but I think regardless of that, developing a keen interest in something and pushing for it is of the utmost importance, and having a guiding force in your life to help you find a path is a major factor for success. Even if there are differences between two people in their ability to form and maintain new synaptic connections or do other neuronal remodeling, they have to have the opportunity and stimulation or it's basically nothing

[Anonymous No.10254367]

what is it with liberals and their genes meme? is it because liberals cannot think from the scholars that they worship?

[Anonymous No.10254404]

>>10251121
too cringe; didn't read

[Anonymous No.10254452]

Omly genius children can comprehend chess well enough to improve at 5 y/o. The average 5 year old will just move the pieces around and hardly grasp the rules.

[Anonymous No.10255134]

>>10254350
do you think the difference between say caruana and carlsson is nature or nurture then?

[Anonymous No.10255370]

>>10250095
>tfw newton started studying at 19

[Anonymous No.10255452]

>>10252259
Newton learned math at 19. It’s very rare that the greatest scientists were child prodigies. Albert Einstein wasn’t good in school at first.

[Anonymous No.10255457]

>>10252452
I started learning math and physics seriously at 14 desu. My mum is pretty smart and my brother is even smarter naturally (grasps mathematics very easily). What are my chances of making it as a physicist?

[Anonymous No.10255494]

>>10251121
Based sole voice of reason