|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-15-09 | | angslo: Alex, other day on carlsen forum, your ideas about genius , Einstein etc i found very interesting. just wanted to understand your thinking a little more about it if you have time. here it is :
In today's times , we have stephen hawkins as one of the greatest minds in physics. If Einstein were born today , don't you think he would be up there with hawkins? thnx! |
|
Apr-15-09
 | | alexmagnus: You mean Hawking? As I saifd, hard to say. It is IMO <impossible> to predict how Einstein's brain would react to modern times. Would it be easier or harder for him to get along with all the information flood? Also, Einstein was apparently not the best when it came to maths (the mathematical part of the relativity theory was worked out with the help of a friend of him who was a mathematician. "When mathematicians took up on my relativity theory, I stopped understanding it myself" - Einstein). Also, as I said, the random plays a great role. Even assuming he would have no problems with today's science itself, would he be "directed" to the modern scientific problems? Or was he "born" for the discoveries he made during his life and nothing else? That is impossible to say. Another thing is - many of Einstein's discoveries were completely new to physics (as many of physical discoveries in early 20th century). Today it looks as if physics has nothing new to suggest. There unexplained phenomena, but there don't seem to be phenomena which <we don't even think they exist>. Einstein's theory was about such phenomena - something which was hardly possible to verify in its entirety just because it was a purely theoretical construct. Maybe that <is> what Einstein was the best at - going completely new ways. But are there still new ways in physics? I don't know. Nobody knows. But at least it the moment I cannot even imagine what it can be (I wonder if professional physicists can). |
|
| Apr-15-09 | | angslo: thanks, alex, for your thoughts.
very interesting.
so, it occurs to me that what you saying is kind of like this : <einstein> was 'genius' with regards to certain kind of thinking which was required in his times . 'genius' of that kind of thinking might or might not have great success in physics of our time. am I getting you right, alex?
<the direction where i am taking this conversation is (and i want to understand your thoughts about that):
do you think there is a thing called objective IQ (never mind how to measure it. some ways of measuring IQ might be flawed)? and some geniuses like einstein and hawking have had very high IQ ?> -------
P.S. yeah that was typo - i meant hawking :) |
|
Apr-15-09
| | alexmagnus: I'm against IQ tests anyway, despite having a quite high IQ myself. The problem with IQ tests is, they measure speed in simple problems and not depth in difficult ones (and even in measuring speed they completely fail when it comes to people with certain medical conditions). Even if we replace IQ by the abstract term "intelligence", the concept i flawed. IMO there s no such thing as intelligence. There are <talents> in certain <extremely narrow areas> which may or may not correlate with each other. Not only someone good in physics may be bad in maths but also someone good in f.x. mechanics may completely fail in, say, electrodynamics (or other way around). There are thousands of narrow talents which themselves can be possessed to different degrees. Some people never discover the fields they are best talented in, some do. And some have so many such fields that they don't even need to discover anything, it seems they are successful anything they take on. Einstein was extremely talented in the field he worked in. But nobody can say how talented he was in the fields physicists research now. Maybe he would show genius in them. Maybe not. And maybe it would be even far above his level. Nobody knows as during his lifetime he didn't have a take on those fields. As for Hawking, I'm barely familiar with his work. |
|
| Apr-15-09 | | angslo: <Even if we replace IQ by the abstract term "intelligence", the concept i flawed. IMO there s no such thing as intelligence. There are <talents> in certain <extremely narrow areas> which may or may not correlate with each other.> that is very interesting, <alex>. and in a way very useful also because some people think they lack intelligence (i am talking about normal people - people with normal brain in physical/physiological sense)and hence are limited. so , your kind of view is sort of liberating and helpful. ok, thanks for sharing, alex. if i do some more reading on the subject of 'intelligence' and have something more to ask you or discuss/share with you, i will see if you have time for that at that time. have a nice day, friend :) |
|
| Apr-19-09 | | frogbert: dcp23, i wanted to make a little comment about one more thing, but i didn't think the carlsen page was the right place for it. i assume you might be able to find this comment (and i guess alexmagnus doesn't mind me posting it here - if you do, alexmagnus, then just delete it and let me know): <You are nailed here, frogbert, I'm sorry to say. Admit that you were wrong just for once! Or else continue arguing it over and thus admit that you're totally incapable of admitting your mistakes.> it's completely possible to nail me for mistakes, i do them all the time, even if trying hard not to. however, i'd like you to consider the following points: 1) i'm a rating nerd - i knew both svidler's and leko's top placements before i even checked today. 2) i hate sloppiness with facts, that's why i usually correct myself if i happen to write something that is wrong, but later discover that i forgot about something or simply was wrong in the first place. (i can dig up examples on cg.com for you, if you think that's important.) 3) you're right that i don't like being wrong - that's the reason why i strongly prefer to <know> things instead of guessing, and the reason why i typically double check even when i know, or know something "roughly" - just to be on the safe side. that's why i looked up the rating records of both peters before i even posted my first reply about svidler and leko on the carlsen page. 4) i'm seldom wrong about facts, but when i am, i normally have no problem admitting it - i <want> to be told when i'm wrong about facts, because i like to know what's correct. when i don't know, i don't make a guess - i typically say that i don't know. <Admit that you were wrong just for once!> this implies that i never have admitted to being wrong. that's grossly incorrect. usually i know very well what i'm talking about, and hence i'm seldom wrong about "simple" things like facts. but there are several examples (also on cg.com) where i clearly admit to being wrong about something. do you really need me to dig up examples for you? <Or else continue arguing it over and thus admit that you're totally incapable of admitting your mistakes.> this is a logical fallacy, and i guess you know. there's absolutely no relation between your conditional and your consequent here: IF you continue to argue over it (p)
THEN you're totally incapable of admitting your mistakes. (q) p certainly does not imply q - you just used a simple rhetorical trick here. however, a person that is totally incapable of admitting his/her mistakes, would probably argue no matter what - but that implication goes the other way. i think that what is at the bottom of this issue, is the notion (or misconception) that all people are right and wrong about things in an equal amount of their statements, and hence should admit to being wrong an equal "number" of times. the thing is that people are very different in terms of how sure they need to be about something in order to make a statement about it. an individual's "inherent" sloppiness about facts will typically decide how often one makes a "wrong" statement. hence, if somone is guessing or speculating most of the time, he/she is likely to be wrong a lot, and hence (if confronted with the fact) will need to admit being wrong quite a lot too. but people who "guess" a lot usually don't care very much about being right, either, so it's no big deal to them. people who care about having their facts right, however, are much more seldom wrong, and will much more seldomly need to admit being wrong, too. it follows that counting the number of times people admit being wrong, is a rather futile and meaningless exercise. personally i don't know anyone who never admits being wrong, including myself. :o) |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | DCP23: <1) i'm a rating nerd> frogbert, to say that you're a nerd is, like, an understatement of the century. Or of the millennium. You're the nerdest nerding nerd to ever nerd.
<2) i hate sloppiness with facts> So do I!
And the bit <both peters have peaked at 4th-5th place> is an example of fact sloppiness :P |
|
Apr-20-09
| | alexmagnus: <Almost -- because while (like I've already said) mathematically your position on this issue makes perfect sense, there is more to the phrases (even number-containing phrases) that we use in our everyday life than just mathematics, and thus they cannot be judged by mathematical principles only. This is the point where we disagree.> To me, as long as a phrase is mathematically correct, it <is> correct. This is ho propaganda is made - not, as the popular opinion says, by lies, but by phrases which are correct but could be formulated otherwise to support the opposing side. Actually this kind of formulating the correct but "good/bad sounding" statements is very useful in debates. You don't distort the truth with it, you just look at it from a different angle... |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | DCP23: <alexmagnus: This is ho propaganda is made - not, as the popular opinion says, by lies, but by phrases which are correct but could be formulated otherwise to support the opposing side. Actually this kind of formulating the correct but "good/bad sounding" statements is very useful in debates. You don't distort the truth with it, you just look at it from a different angle...> I hope you do understand that this is exactly an argument against your position, not for it. |
|
Apr-20-09
| | alexmagnus: Well, not really. If one wants to point out something, one may say it in a different way. Example: Carlsen in Biel 2008. Imagine, someone who for the first time hears about Carlsen reads "a 17-year-old performed 2740 in a chess tournament". His reaction would surely be <wow>. On the other hand, for Carlsen fans like me that tournament was a complete disappointment after a series of Carlsen's 2800+ performances. The headline "Carlsen lands his worst performance of the year" would be correct too. And again, for someone not knowing who MC is it would sound as if he did really horrible. In fact, he did there quite "middy" for his standards, not too bad but of course not good. So, we have three completely different points of view on Carlsen's Biel 2008 performance - and, IMO, all three are correct. |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | DCP23: <alexmagnus> Let me rewrite your last post for you according to your standards of correctness, just for you to fully appreciate your own position. <Well, not really. If one-two wants to point out something, one-three may say it in a different way. Example: Carlsen in Biel 1936-2008. Imagine, someone who for the first-second time hears about Carlsen reads "a 17-36-year-old performed 2740-3550 in a chess tournament". His reaction would surely be <wow>-<oh>-<doh>-<huh?>-<@#$%>. On the other hand, for Carlsen fans like me that tournament was a complete-partial-not at all a disappointment after a series of Carlsen's 1200+ -2800+ performances. The headline "Carlsen lands his best-worst performance of the year-century" would be correct-incorrect too. And again, for someone-something not knowing who MC-AB-GF-XY is it would sound as if he did really horrible.
In fact, he did there quite "middy" for his standards, not too good-bad but of course not bad-good. So, we have one-three-five completely different points of view on Carlsen's Biel 2008-2009 performance - and, IMO, all zero-three are incorrect-correct.> |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | DCP23: Oh, and make that <billiards-poker-chess-softball- weightlifting-rock climbing-stone throwing-pants pissing tournament> of course instead of simply <chess tournament>. |
|
Apr-20-09
| | alexmagnus: Hehe, that would be incorrect in terms of the emotion. One normally points out the range which underlines own statement. For a positive report abvout Carlsen's performance, extending the age doesn't make it positive. Same, extending his previous performances to 1200 loses the point about them being much better than 2740 and therefore the following "worst performance" doesn't make sense anymore. Your rewriting has simply no information in it, despite being correct. It's like saying "I played lottery and won an amount of money", which is correct but one doesn't know whether the win was 2,50€ or 5000000€. Though this sentence has at least a small sense: one knows he didn't go out of the lottery empty-handed. Extending good to "bad to good" simply makes the sentence lose its informational background, be it positive or negative. A sentence must bring information with it. But <what> this information is, depends on the sayer (as I wanted to point out in different ways of describing the selected Carlsen's performance - as you see, depending on the word choice it was both horrible and excellent) ;) |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | DCP23: <alexmagnus: Hehe, that would be incorrect in terms of the emotion.> Very good, we actually make some progress here.
Now you should surely see why <4th-5th place> isn't the same as just 4th. |
|
Apr-20-09
| | alexmagnus: Well, 4th to 5th at least brings much miore information than your "rewriting" - we know it was either 4th or 5th and we know it was not better than 4th. |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | DCP23: <alexmagnus: Well, 4th to 5th at least brings much miore information than your "rewriting" - we know it was either 4th or 5th and we know it was not better than 4th.> Exactly! But we still do not know the truth -- that [it was not better than 4th AND it was not worse than 4th]. |
|
Apr-20-09
| | alexmagnus: Sometimes one simply doesn't know the exact number (but knows the range). It was not the case in frogbert's post but often it is. Actually if I were asked about Svidler's best placement ever I would come up with, believe it or not, exactly with that answer - 4th to 5th. |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | DCP23: Like you said, frogbert, unlike you, knew for a fact that Svidler was 4th. What would someone say if asked when that someone doesn't know for sure is irrelevant, sorry. |
|
Apr-20-09
| | alexmagnus: Also, in frogbert's post the worst place didn't matter as he wanted to show "not better than... " (his intention was to show Svidler will never dominate). |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | DCP23: Are you saying that in order to better show one's point, one is allowed to intentionally twist facts into propaganda-like statements? |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | frogbert: <And the bit <both peters have peaked at 4th-5th place> is an example of fact sloppiness> i disagree! :o)
if anything, it's an inaccuracy concerning what i wanted to say - the fact bit is exactly as intended. svidler's and leko's "surges" towards the top have usually stopped at 4th or 5th place - those are their best local maxima in terms of ranking. the latest local maxima for both of them are 5th place, actually. consider this list: svidler
-------
january 2003: 16th (min)
january 2004: 4th (max) *
april 2005: 10th (min)
january-april 2006: 4th (max) *
july 2006: 5th (min)
october 2006: 4th (max) *
january 2007: 12th(min)
april 2007: 9th (max)
july-october 2007: 12th (min)
january 2008: 5th (max) *
january 2009: 20th (min)
leko
----
october-january 2001: 5th (max) *
july 2001: 7th (min)
october 2001: 5th (max) *
april 2002: 11th (min)
april-july 2003: 4th (max) *
october-january 2004: 10th (min)
april 2004: 4th (max) *
october 2004: 6th (min)
april-october 2005: 4th (max) *
january 2006: 7th (min)
april 2006: 5th (max) *
october 2006, april 2007: 8th (min)
october 2007: 5th (max) *
what i actually referred to with <both peters have peaked at 4th-5th place> were the lines/points above marked with stars. i didn't spend time or place expressing this in much detail, though - partly because some people tend to go on about too long posts of mine. making shorter posts, though, invariably reduces the amount of detail and accuracy. but no harm done, i suppose - at last it should be very clear what i actually meant. :o) |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | frogbert: i intended to have leko's latest min-point too on my list: july 2008: 10th (min) |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | frogbert: <one is allowed to intentionally twist facts into propaganda-like statements?> it wasn't propaganda, i considered it "information" - as just explained. it only was a bit on the brief side - which is very unusual for me. :o) |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | frogbert: or, put another way, <both peters have peaked at 4th-5th place> didn't refer to <a single peak> for <any> of the players, but each of the players' significant peak<s>. |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | DCP23: <frogbert: <one is allowed to intentionally twist facts into propaganda-like statements?>
it wasn't propaganda,>
frogbert, please keep it simple by answering only those of my posts that are addressed to you, not those that are part of the discussion with <alexmagnus>. <but no harm done, i suppose - at last it should be very clear what i actually meant. :o)> My statistics course at the university was some time ago so I'm unfortunately not up to par with all the terminology you use / may use. However, if I understood correctly, you're now saying that 4th AND 5th places are the so-called 'local peaks', as opposed to an absolute maximum, right? In that case, your original statement should have qualified them as such. The word 'peaked' without a qualifying statement obviously means the one, and only, maximum and not one of many peaks like that found on a graph. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
