Teaching Kids Chess - one approach to solving the world's problems

reply to post by CommanderCraCra

There is no "blank slate". It mostly comes down to genetics.

Who said there was a "blank slate"? Babies are born with propensities and talents, interests and intolerance...and each one is different. I've worked with hundreds of babies - I know what I'm talking about.

It comes down to nurture and upbringing and adapting to the environment JUST AS MUCH as it comes down to "genetics".

Originally posted by wildtimes
It comes down to nurture and upbringing and adapting to the environment JUST AS MUCH as it comes down to "genetics".

I think that's a fair, yet incomplete, assessment. 50/50 is as good as any other number, since it seems unquantifiable.

The point I was trying to make was what you seemed to be hinting at. That putting chess in the curriculum would improve everyone's abilities. I think that's a false assumption not evidenced.

Some would enjoy it, learn, and develop intellectually. Some would not enjoy it so much, not learn much, and not have much if any intellectual development from it. Still more would question why they had to "waste" their time on it. They would not only hate it, but perhaps even regress intellectually.

Some people it's best to teach chess. Other students are best to do something else. It really just depends.

The point he has is that it in no way teaches social skills, and may or may not help someone develop their thought processes.

reply to post by wildtimes

Originally posted by wildtimes
I've never met an Armenian, but they sound like they have their stuff together.

Indeed they do.

I have known many...and from several generations. I still don't have it fully figured out, but they seem to me anyway disproportionately intelligent.

Whether it's their genes...the water....or the culture...something is definitely working there. Of course, history has not been kind to the Armenians. I've often thought if they had had better geography, they might have been more prominently featured upon the world stage, so to speak.

But perhaps it's because of their historical misfortune that such intelligence and creativity seem so common among them.

Fascinating group of people. Love 'em.

reply to post by loam


Though I'm pretty ignorant of the history of Armenian's, I do recall hearing about the Armenian genocide some time back.

Armenian Genocide

My thought is that in those people who had to struggle more to survive, the most fit will have remained.

The opposite holds true. Where a country has had several generations to get fat, sit idly, and not do much, they will regress.

This may explain the intellectual superiority of the Jewish people to some extent, as a whole group.

reply to post by CommanderCraCra

The point he has is that it in no way teaches social skills, and may or may not help someone develop their thought processes.

I disagree. It certainly teaches social skills to take responsibility for one's mistakes and consider the point of view of the opponent. To think through problems and foresee the consequences of any action taken.

And it can't help but stimulate thought processes!

reply to post by wildtimes


I trust you understand that these "social skills" you speak of could easily be directed in a Machiavellian kind of way.

They are socially neutral, yet do teach skills.

reply to post by wildtimes

I would also like to add that Chess is a good tool for teaching young peoples minds to pay attention. It is those lapses in attention that make for bad Chess play. Maybe if more kids learned to play attention garnering games like Chess there would be less attention deficit?

reply to post by CommanderCraCra


Yes, these are fascinating possibilities.

reply to post by CommanderCraCra

I trust you understand that these "social skills" you speak of could easily be directed in a Machiavellian kind of way.

They are socially neutral, yet do teach skills.

Yes, I do understand. I'm not advocating "war games" - but the repression of impulsive moves (whether on the Chess board or in Military strategy). Taking a step back and thinking things over is imperative to 'social skill'. True, if one uses this sort of "strategery" toward bad ends, that's horrible. BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, teaching people to THINK about consequences before acting can't be detrimental.

Originally posted by wildtimes
BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, teaching people to THINK about consequences before acting can't be detrimental.

Of consequence to whom

I'll meet you half way.

Don't teach impulse control = higher probability to become petty criminal.

Teach impulse control = higher probability to become mastermind criminal.

At either which case, the control is the underlying criminal.

It comes outside of the scope of learning chess. Sorry.

It's socially neutral.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

People touting chess as a marvelous way to develop thinking or social skills makes me laugh harder than people who promote video games as a wonderful way to develop eye/hand coordination.

Obviously you don't know how to play Chess and have an issue with people who do. Laugh it up, bud!!

What do you know about kids' brains? You a parent? Sociologist? Neuroscientist?

Only one of my degrees is in Sociology, so I can't really consider myself a sociologist. But you don't have to be an expert to smell nonsense.

Hey, here's one. Licking ice cream cones trains children's tongue muscles so they have better verbal communication skills! It also makes them happier, giving them higher self-esteem and better social skills, and if you use it as a reward, you can motivate them to study harder. Did I say studying? Now there's a way to develop a kid's mind I'm sure nobody has ever thought of!

Here's another interesting correlation. In all the years that chess was considered an elite game and trainer of brilliant minds, how many massive and significant wars were fought? Why, throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries, when chess was considered the hot game, the world was constantly engaged in huge wars. So a person could make a good argument that chess deludes people (especially soldiers and politicians) into thinking that combat is a game, and that superior strategy will win it. Which is a load of crap. It encourages an over-inflated and annoying sense of elitism, reckless aggression and foolish over-confidence.

The thing is, chess is a game like any other game. Yeah, some kids or adults might learn something from it, if they're predisposed to it. But for the most part, it's just a way to wile away idle time until our inevitable deaths.

reply to post by Happy1

I'd like to add that chess is very popular in prison - the convicts love it, and spend hours perfecting their thinking.

Interesting.
Do most inmates know how to play before arriving in prison? Or do they learn it there?
This brings up the Machavelian thing, too....
yes, I do not dispute that figuring out how to outsmart or predict someone on the chess board CAN BE a tool used by psychopaths to destroy their enemy.

reply to post by Blue Shift

Only one of my degrees is in Sociology, so I can't really consider myself a sociologist. But you don't have to be an expert to smell nonsense.

Well, only one of my degrees is in Social Work (the Master's), the other is in cultural competence in regards to Spanish language/culture/literature.

It's not nonsense.
You have something against the Armenians? You a psychologist or clinical psychotherapist?

reply to post by CommanderCraCra

Of consequence to whom

The logical answer would be to both 'players'.

reply to post by wildtimes


Are we still on the social tidbit?

I think that would be, "playas".

reply to post by CommanderCraCra



Point taken.
I do get it. I do. So, do you suggest that only some children who already show a propensity for peace-keeping should be taught?
Hmmmm..... I had no idea this little thread would make me think so much!

reply to post by wildtimes


No. I simply observe. No children of my own. No clue what is best.

It seems we are all individuated, whether we choose to realize this, else play someone else's version of "good guy".

I'd say that in those who are not so diplomatic, that they should be taught through a constellation of activities which focus on the end goal of not helping to solidify a psychopathic child into adulthood.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes to mind. We shouldn't be messing with the problem solving rung, when these kids are likely to be lacking somewhere further down the totem pole.

reply to post by CommanderCraCra

It seems we are all individuated, whether we choose to realize this, else play someone else's version of "good guy".

I'd say that in those who are not so diplomatic, that they should be taught through a constellation of activities which focus on the end goal of not helping to solidify a psychopathic child into adulthood.

Totally agree with you.
Having prisoners (convicted offenders) play Chess is different from teaching 3rd graders Chess, though.
So, do you think that kids of certain "dispositions" should not be taught Chess? Then we have the issue of the classroom environment, where the kids are playing opposite their 'classmates and (presumably) 'friends'.

No argument that it can be used for nefarious purposes. There are plenty of psychos loose in the world who are brilliant at outwitting their victims.
Brings in a whole 'nuther aspect!

reply to post by wildtimes


I think the war on drugs is a failure.. as in, you can't keep someone away from something they have a good chance of being exposed to, if the will is strong enough.

So whether or not someone is pushed to play is kind of irrelevant. If they are brilliant enough to master the game, they're brilliant enough to focus on it as soon as it enters their awareness. That's just what prodigies do.

If an average mind that has issues is what we're talking about, then still, it depends. Suppose they have yet to connect with anything or anyone because they don't get to clobber someone without having people tell them they're defunct. Now you show them how to bring an inherently antisocial game (chess is brutal whichever way you look at it), into the socially accepted arena. They may form their first bond with their teacher. They may learn that there is some sort of objective rule set which can be used to best maneuver in the world. If not for the sake of morality, then for the sake of survival without the chance of being locked up.

Really, there's far too many possibilities to give standard answers to complex situations. I think it would likely be best to not think much about chess, and deal more about if they are being abused, are hungry, or need someone to confide in.

Reply to post by wildtimes

This been going on in non us schools like Russia, India and China. So what's new ? Maybe us need to wake up and smell the coffee.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com