4 ms·
I don't find it threatening, just contradicted by life experience. My background includes chess at a reasonably high level, and it's always always the same: jus
by somenameforme 3y ago
I don't find it threatening, just contradicted by life experience. My background includes chess at a reasonably high level, and it's always always the same: just an absolutely obscene amount of work that gradually yields emergent skills, that includes things that many people think are "natural" like visualization and memory.
For instance the 'trick' of casually memorizing games you play isn't a feat of some super-human memory. It's, inadvertently, the exact same 'trick' that memory competitors use. When a reasonably strong player looks at a chess board, it begins to tell an often vivid story of what's happened and what will happen. And stories are really easy to remember for everybody. So memorizing your games isn't really like memorizing a series of arcane moves, but instead more like recounting a familiar tale.
We can even cheat, because so long as you remember all the key points of a game, you can generally reconstruct the filler in between - again, just like telling a story. It's why it can be much harder to remember games against weaker players than your peers - their moves, and thus stories, often don't make as much sense, and so it gets pretty fuzzy pretty quickly. This is also why you might often notice things like strong players able to relatively easily replay 80 distinct moves of an arbitrary game, but have difficulty remembering the exact date the game was played.
'Talent'/genetics obviously plays a role, but mostly only in determining what your peak potential is. But the fact that the overwhelming majority of people (including e.g. grandmasters) will never get anywhere remotely near to their genetic potential in anything makes it largely inconsequential in practice. In any case, we certainly aren't carbon copies. These 'tricks' I'm mentioning here only really emerge after many years of concerted and dedicated study of something. The overwhelming majority of people will never do anything like this, so whether ones brain is an 'alien mind' or not becomes largely a matter of semantics.
- growingkittens 3y agoIt is only contradicted by your perception of the life experience of others, which is guided by what you are already familiar with. You are also not psychic, but you draw conclusions about the minds of others that you cannot know. The human mind is ambiguous, and you have created a comforting narrative to explain it. This is a very human response to the threat of ambiguity.
- drdeca 3y agoAre you not also making assumptions about other minds by saying this?
- growingkittens 3y ago>by saying this? It is not clear which part 'this' refers to. We as humans know very little about our brains. The original commenter assumes there is little variation in the human mind based on a narrow observation about memory feats in chess, then generalized that idea to the entirety of humanity.
- drdeca 3y agoI was mostly referring to the "you have created a comforting narrative to explain it" (but also, a little bit, as a joke, kind of referring to the "you are also not psychic" part, but only as a joke)
- growingkittens 3y agoAh, okay. I meant to use 'comforting' as a descriptor of the narrative they wrote.
- 7thaccount 3y agoAlthough you're correct that this occurs (and is likely the case of those with these abilities greater than 9/10 if I had to guess without any data), there are definitely savants out there like Kim Peek unusual brains that allow them to do all kinds of things. I think that's all the other commenter was talking about.
- Isamu 3y agoAgreed, and research agrees also, that the largest determining factor in skills is the time and effective work put into developing that skill. Unknown factors are a much smaller component and can give someone an edge at the highest performance levels. But for some reason people don’t want think that the largest component is lots of work.