Both sides are just people with interests, i never understood the smart/dumb distinctions, there's just interests, dedication and morals
I was once interested in time travel. My dedication was boundless and my morals were questionable. I only got smart enough to know I'm too dumb to make it work.
Good news, I figured out the secret to time travel. I'm now travelling forward in time by a second, every second! Pay $999 to learn My secret!
Clearly you have never met stupid people. Lucky you.
Lots of upvotes, but that's simply not true. It is true that people can be gifted in one area and not in others, but those people can excel in those areas more than someone even more passionately interested could ever hope to.
I knew a guy named Joe Rohde. You can look him up, he ended up being a head of imagineering at Disney. When I knew him, he was a high school art teacher, and then just starting at Disney. His aptitude for art was off the charts, and his mom said that was true when he was four and able to draw 3D renderings when his peers couldn't do stick figures. Sure, he practiced and developed skills, but his ability to hold a 3D image in his mind, tweak and rotate it, and then put it on paper, is something innate. He was absolute crap at math.
I spent 40 years at a company that mostly made rocket engines for NASA and the DoD, working with literal rocket scientists. I met all sorts of very smart people. Some were the stereotypical scientist that were geniuses in a particular area but had no skills outside of it, but others were just simply brilliant at anything they turned their mind to. Many of them defied the stereotype and also has great social skills.
It might be nice to think that anyone can be truly great at anything they put their mind to, but I've seen too many people who are truly great at things to believe it. Some people are just wired differently.
Edit: and none of the above mentions gender because gender doesn't factor into it.
The reason chess is a segregated sport is because the male players couldn't cope emotionally with co-ed.
Not only was their the sex-pest harassment stuff, but men who lost to women would become hysterical, hostile, and aggressive.
Women just needed clam, rational, and stoic people to play with, so they had to exclude men.
May be a gross oversimplification, simply because, ignoring everything else around professional chess, the world championship is technically open for all genders...
But considering how FIDE makes women gain ELO by taking it from other women in mixed tournaments, its 2023 ruling on transgender players, and how former World Champion Garry Kasparov reacted to losing to a women, it might as well be the truth.
In Kasparov's eventual defense, he did say this after losing to Polgar:
“I was wrong about women playing chess. I gave an opinion a long time ago that I no longer believe.”
and later in his book wrote:
‘I won’t hide from the fact that I did make regrettably sexist remarks about women in chess around this time. In that 1989 Playboy interview I said men were better at chess because “women are weaker fighters” and that “probably the answer is in the genes”. The possibility of gender brain differences aside, I find it almost hard to believe I said this considering that my mother is the toughest fighter I know.’
I especially like playing chess with clam people.
I like to play chess with people which are way better than I am in it
I like to play chess and stare at boobs
When my sister was on the chess team in highschool she would always wear a low-cut top with ample cleavage to the tournaments. She said it was very effective when her opponents spent more time staring at her chest than the board!
Yes, almost every sport where men are actually at an advantage allows women to compete in the "men's" leagues as well. Only when they actually start winning against the men do the rules start excluding them
Thank goodness online adaptations allow people to play without having to consider the identity of their opponent (because I don't mind who I play against).
The selection is already biased. High ELO ranked chessplayers are not all that stable to begin with.
There are a few comments here that are sexist as shit, misandry and misogyny both. It boggles me that intelligent people who know that sweeping generalizations are bad when it comes to race and nation lose their fucking mind when it comes to biological sex.
Wait until you learn about "generations".
Woman certainly have a different brain organization (emotionalº) due their biological rol, but this has nothing to do with the intellectual capabiliities. All the mentioned prejudices that are confirmed are caused by traditional education where girls are always put in their shema with toys that reinforce this expected role of them, the same with boys (dolls vs toy cars).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o7nJknQkOU
º "Women which gain weight live healthier than the man who mencioned it"
Was on-meta in my high school to have >4.0 GPA. Assumed colleges wouldn't take less. If you didn't have at least one honors class the teachers kind of assumed you were never gonna drop out of Stanford.
'Biological sex' as opposed to the kind enabled by Hitachi?
Spatially smart
the school system grades you on conformity, not wisdom and neither of these people are correct and most ivy league grads are literally just there because theyre epstein-class legacy members
theyre just two people with different interests and goals, thats it
Yeah making this into a man vs woman thing is stupid, I took the original post just as a person saying "people can have different kinds of intelligence, everything should be respected"
Also, a lot of "stupid" behavior people do is a direct result of them being stressed, scared, tired, hungry etc. The more stuff you have on your mind to begin with because the world sucks the harder it is to pay attention to what you're doing.
and children have these emotions amplified 10x and dont know how to control it and the school system thinks that they forget stuff and dont get good grades because theyre EVIL
Not the towers of hanoi!
you won't believe this but I bet the guy on the right could write a Python script to solve it in 4-6 business weeks
It says "chess enthusiast" on the left, but shows a chessboard on the right. Sounds like these two have more in common than they see.
It also says chess enthusiast on the anime boy. Might just be a watermark.
I ship it
Well you see, KNOWING ABOUT chess is superior to PLAYING chess, as chess is just a silly little toy.
It's different because... Umm... ~~the creator of this meme is pointlessly trying to divide people into anything but a class war~~ wait uhhhh ~~is rage bait~~ reasons.
Works hard kind of smart
vs
lazy, doesn’t try for more than 5 minutes, gets repeatedly told “you have so much potential if you would apply yourself” kind of smart
hardworking = easily exploitable
note: I meant that when modern society says work hard", they really mean "let yourself be easily exploited"
especially in school, universities, work, etc
Me, offscreen to the right: internet argument smart
Somehow i don't see the meme as sexist until i read the comments
I think the original post/image kinda was, but the response/retweet doesn't seem like it
Looks to me like it's saying there two types of chess enthusiast and I'm not sure it's saying one is better. If you're trying to make the woman look dumb, would you include 110/100 grades..?
What kind of smart am I if I'm not particularly good at academia, or math puzzles, but, like, I really wish I was smart while still holding the exact same beliefs.
Oh, oh honey, no. Academia requires years of dedication, hard work, and money. Lots and lots of money.
Somewhere in the multiverse, there's a version of this meme that's exactly reversed, captioned with a tweet that says "stupid woman thinks she's smart because she's a chess grandmaster, but little does she know I graduated middle school"
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Meta Post Tags
Rules
If you are here asking: "Is this a science meme?"
Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn't need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why or how.
Science isn't a filing cabinet of facts, it's a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what's under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.
We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged, but keep it in good faith and never punch down.
