2 ms·

>Roger Penrose.. Showing outliers just proves there are outliers not that the averages are uselesss. >Those that play chess will note that excellent Rapid or

by Tenoke 5y ago

>Roger Penrose.. Showing outliers just proves there are outliers not that the averages are uselesss. >Those that play chess will note that excellent Rapid or standard players can be terrible Bullet or Blitz players. I play chess and those are definitely highly correlated, I suspect at least r of 0.7 especially for those who have put decent time into the different controls.

usgroup 5y ago
I didn't mention Penrose because he is an outlier. I mention him as an example where tool use disproportionally effects resultant performance, or conversely as an example of where a specific link in a reasoning chain effects the outcome. I think that is more close to normal than not. I.e. you can often patch people, and they become better at something. Regarding chess, research suggests you're wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1469029219300901 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14690... https://hvandermaas.socsci.uva.nl/Homepage_Han_van_der_Maas/Publications_files/papers/chesspaperfinal3.pdf https://hvandermaas.socsci.uva.nl/Homepage_Han_van_der_Maas/...
- Tenoke 5y ago
  The correlations in the graph in the second paper were between 0.4 and 0.9 so I'm not sure if I was that wrong.