I would fundamentally disagree that being good at chess doesn’t help you with being good at maths.
Maths is an incredibly broad field, and a lot of the skills necessary for being good at maths at a higher level (visualisation, pattern recognition, mental stamina, etc.) are developed in chess.
This is only considering causation, but in the original meme all that’s required to explain the assumption being made is correlation, which there absolutely is. I ran a chess club when I was at university studying maths, and the vast majority of attendees were STEM students.
If I can put this in terms you’ll be happy with: the conditional probability that someone’s favourite subject is maths given they enjoy chess is much higher than the unconditional probability that someone’s favourite subject is maths.
As such, the remark made in the meme is entirely sensible, and thus the validity of the plot stands. The defense rests.
They said maths was their strongest subject not their favourite. Supposition of preference due to capacity is a mistake. Also you’ve fallen into the trap of conflating correlation and causation you even noted you had to for your point to be relevant. Capacity for mathematics doesn’t presuppose either a capacity or preference for chess, but for logic.
Actually what I said was, I was unusually good at math, not that it was something I really enjoyed. And, actually, my strongest subject was English, not math which is why I became an English major. Even if chess is logic and presupposition, those skills are highly mathematical like music or spatial recognition. The math isn’t always blatant or apparent but there is some math involved. And anyway I was only making a point about a talent in one area not necessarily defining talent in another. All this argument over supposition of preference vs capacity is WAY overthinking what I was saying.
I was talking about the meme. Might be good at maths but that English comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
And considering my original post was a joke, the one taking it too seriously is you… are you sure that reading comprehension is up to scratch? I sure hope it wasn’t your best subject.
Oh yeah I’m very proficient at English. I scored the only perfect SAT scores in both math and English in my high school. And I’ve since gone on to have several short stories published, plus two poems in Persian and one in Russian, and I have won a statewide playwriting contest. My English abilities are unparalleled. But it does take some wit and intelligence to see that.
And you can’t stop being a total anus to other people. I have no time for your bigotry and smallness today, I don’t expect someone like you to be able to comprehend what I’m saying at all.
You have the literary capacity of a child. You’ve incorrectly used the word bigotry. You’re the one engaging with someone else’s statement and through lack of cognizance and capacity failed to comprehend the joke in my OP.
For someone so willing to flex some imaginary aptitude for English you sure wield it with the skill of a troglodyte.
My English abilities are unparalleled to that of an educated adult.
You have a delightful stink since I’ve aroused your childish capacities for anger. I like it. I enjoy our little exchanges. I’d like to get to know you better. I like to know what you smell like inside.
![An unexpected side to gay porn [SFW]](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/fd09c490-b762-4d90-8579-914863cec6f6.jpeg){kind=link}
I would fundamentally disagree that being good at chess doesn’t help you with being good at maths.
Maths is an incredibly broad field, and a lot of the skills necessary for being good at maths at a higher level (visualisation, pattern recognition, mental stamina, etc.) are developed in chess.
This is only considering causation, but in the original meme all that’s required to explain the assumption being made is correlation, which there absolutely is. I ran a chess club when I was at university studying maths, and the vast majority of attendees were STEM students.
If I can put this in terms you’ll be happy with: the conditional probability that someone’s favourite subject is maths given they enjoy chess is much higher than the unconditional probability that someone’s favourite subject is maths.
As such, the remark made in the meme is entirely sensible, and thus the validity of the plot stands. The defense rests.
They said maths was their strongest subject not their favourite. Supposition of preference due to capacity is a mistake. Also you’ve fallen into the trap of conflating correlation and causation you even noted you had to for your point to be relevant. Capacity for mathematics doesn’t presuppose either a capacity or preference for chess, but for logic.
Actually what I said was, I was unusually good at math, not that it was something I really enjoyed. And, actually, my strongest subject was English, not math which is why I became an English major. Even if chess is logic and presupposition, those skills are highly mathematical like music or spatial recognition. The math isn’t always blatant or apparent but there is some math involved. And anyway I was only making a point about a talent in one area not necessarily defining talent in another. All this argument over supposition of preference vs capacity is WAY overthinking what I was saying.
I was talking about the meme. Might be good at maths but that English comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
And considering my original post was a joke, the one taking it too seriously is you… are you sure that reading comprehension is up to scratch? I sure hope it wasn’t your best subject.
Oh yeah I’m very proficient at English. I scored the only perfect SAT scores in both math and English in my high school. And I’ve since gone on to have several short stories published, plus two poems in Persian and one in Russian, and I have won a statewide playwriting contest. My English abilities are unparalleled. But it does take some wit and intelligence to see that.
And yet you can’t read…
And you can’t stop being a total anus to other people. I have no time for your bigotry and smallness today, I don’t expect someone like you to be able to comprehend what I’m saying at all.
You have the literary capacity of a child. You’ve incorrectly used the word bigotry. You’re the one engaging with someone else’s statement and through lack of cognizance and capacity failed to comprehend the joke in my OP.
For someone so willing to flex some imaginary aptitude for English you sure wield it with the skill of a troglodyte.
FTFY.
You have a delightful stink since I’ve aroused your childish capacities for anger. I like it. I enjoy our little exchanges. I’d like to get to know you better. I like to know what you smell like inside.