To me it is chess. I know how the piece move but that is it.
Structurally I know how things should work, but sometimes trying to program it tho…
There are different kinds of smart. A person can be quick and creative at something (math, mechanics, music, marketing …), and less so at everything else.
If the something is -complicated-, then a lot of learning is needed, and a good qualified teacher will help you sort out what is really important to know. Chess is complicated, and you need to learn basic strategies of how to move and not get eaten alive. There are some books that can help with that. But a human teacher can get you there a lot faster. If you’re really motivated but you’re not remembering enough? it may not be your ‘something’ !
Reading a book that explains a book I don’t understand and failing to understand either at the end.
Sounds like at least one of the books in question is shit
Or the subject matter is advanced.
I’ve read a lot of material on quantum physics and it’s still mostly word salad to me.
Right, I was expecting the earlier one to be a work of fiction
No no philosophy :(
A lot of people who present quantum mechanics to a laymen audience seem to intentionally present it to be as confusing as possible because they like the “mystery” behind it. Yet, it is also easy to present it in a trivially simple and boring way that is easy to understand.
Here, I will tell you a simple framework that is just 3 rules and if you keep them in mind then literally everything in quantum mechanics makes sense and follows quite simply.
- Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory where, unlike classical probability theory, the probabilities of events can be complex-valued. For example, it is meaningful in quantum mechanics for an event to have something like a -70.7i% chance of occurring.
- The physical interpretation of complex-valued probabilities is that the further the probability is from zero, the more likely it is. For example, an event with a -70.7i% probability of occurring is more likely than one with a 50% probability of occurring because it is further from zero. (You can convert quantum probabilities to classical just by computing their square magnitudes, which is known as the Born rule.)
- If two events or more become statistically correlated with one another (this is known as “entanglement”) the rules of quantum mechanics disallows you from assigning quantum probabilities to the individual systems taken separately. You can only assign the quantum probabilities to the two events or more taken together. (The only way to recover the individual probabilities is to do something called a partial trace to compute the reduced density matrix.)
If you keep those three principles in mind, then everything in quantum mechanics follows directly, every “paradox” is resolved, there is no confusion about anything.
For example, why is it that people say quantum mechanics is fundamentally random? Well, because if the universe is deterministic, then all outcomes have either a 0% or 100% probability, and all other probabilities are simply due to ignorance (what is called “epistemic”). Notice how 0% and 100% have no negative or imaginary terms. They thus could not give rise to quantum effects.
These quantum effects are interference effects. You see, if probabilities are only between 0% and 100% then they can only be cumulative. However, if they can be negative, then the probabilities of events can cancel each other out and you get no outcome at all. This is called destructive interference and is unique to quantum mechanics. Interference effects like this could not be observed in a deterministic universe because, in reality, no event could have a negative chance of occurring (because, again, in a deterministic universe, the only possible probabilities are 0% or 100%).
If we look at the double-slit experiment, people then ask why does the interference pattern seem to go away when you measure which path the photon took. Well, if you keep this in mind, it’s simple. There’s two reasons actually and it depends upon perspective.
If you are the person conducting the experiment, when you measure the photon, it’s impossible to measure half a photon. It’s either there or it’s not, so 0% or 100%. You thus force it into a definite state, which again, these are deterministic probabilities (no negative or imaginary terms), and thus it loses its ability to interfere with itself.
Now, let’s say you have an outside observer who doesn’t see your measurement results. For him, it’s still probabilistic since he has no idea which path it took. Yet, the whole point of a measuring device is to become statistically correlated with what you are measuring. So if we go to rule #3, the measuring device should be entangled with the particle, and so we cannot apply the quantum probabilities to the particle itself, but only to both the particle and measuring device taken together.
Hence, for the outside observer’s perspective, only the particle and measuring device collectively could exhibit quantum interference. Yet, only the particle passes through the two slits on its own, without the measuring device. Thus, they too would predict it would not interfere with itself.
Just keep these three rules in mind and you basically “get” quantum mechanics. All the other fluff you hear is people attempting to make it sound more mystical than it actually is, such as by interpreting the probability distribution as a literal physical entity, or even going more bonkers and calling it a grand multiverse, and then debating over the nature of this entity they entirely made up.
It’s literally just statistics with some slightly different rules.
That’s a helpful perspective. I appreciate it.
I still have a lot of work on the underlying math because I didn’t put in near the effort I should have in any of my actual classes, but I do genuinely want to get over the hump.
Oh you think you’re smart? Name every chess move
En passant is all you need
one of the smarter folks of western civilisation history said “i know that i do kot know” so maybe asking yourself whether you are or are not smart is all it takes
Chess is all about pattern recognition: you don’t spend time actually comming up with your answer to the question(best move), 99% of the questions are already solved, most of the time it’s about figuring out what question is the board asking and giving the answer.
Because others have gone out if their way not to be reliant on me specifically.
People never let me plan things, people treat me like a child, people always ask other to double check only my work, etc…
The worst thing is its a positive feed back loop. People think you’re dumb and don’t give you any opportunities, less opportunities means less experience, less experience means you appear less competent, being less competent makes people believe you’re dumb.
I don’t know which people you are talking about, but if it’s adults and you are a kid, then there are some reasons behind that… :)
My kid planned a trip to Croatia with his friends and they managed to book flights that made them spend the entire night at airports, because they wanted the cheapest price.
Counting in that they had to buy airport food and hardly slept at all, and came home wrecked and had to sleep all day, meant that not only did they pay more for the trip than directs flights would have cost, they also lost a day when getting back to sleep and rest…
I mean, it’s fine, but it shows inexperience and unwillingness to listen to adults who may have good ideas… :)
At the same time though, this kind of thing is the best sort of learning. Take your assumptions and make a theoretical model, go out and test it, and learn first hand what elements you didn’t account for.
My opinion is that once your kids hit a certain age, your role is more support and providing guidance to avoid/recover from really bad outcomes (see: if your son’s plan had a flaw that would’ve left them stranded. They made it there and back, if exhausted and slightly [but from the sound of it not unrecoverably] poorer. Shitty, but they probably learned some valuble lessons.)
Edit: This may just be copium from my own “I’m gonna move to the middle of a different province with my homies” adventure that left me with just enough cash for a bus ticket to supportive family if I survived on Corn Flakes for two weeks. Ah, to be 19 and know everything again…fuck that would suck.
I agree :) And I let them make this mistake for that reason too. Just like you say, it’s best to go out there and try things and sometimes fail.
I still fail when I go my own way but I prefer it, because when I succeed, it’s also my own win!
I know how chess pieces move, other than the rare en passant, but will lose to anyone willing to challenge me and I don’t think I could get much better than mediocre with any amount of practice. However, I got full marks on a Mensa IQ test so I’d say I’m intellingent in a way but with my mild autism, likely ADHD and lack of practical skills, it’s hard to tell. I have done lots of stupid decisions IRL, often repeatedly.
Would I say I’m “smart”? Depends. Intelligent, probably. Wise, hell no.
The answer to the “chess” thing is “yes, you will get better if you play it for long enough”. It’s a lot about pattern recognition and the things you’ve seen in the past. There are certain rules to follow that help a lot - but someone needs to teach them to you first. It’s like saying “I suck at crosswords, I will never be good at them” - yes you will, with enough done you’ll start to see repeating “crossword words” that keep being used over and over.
Edit: also for the life thing - it’s the difference between wisdom and intelligence.
You’re probably right. My biggest flaw is that I fail to notice forks, guarded pieces and other obvious patterns, and don’t know any nuances in the general strategy other than “exposed king bad, having more pieces good, K>Q>R>N>B>P”.
You have to study strategies, that’s how people get good. You won’t be a match for anyone read.
What is smart… I mean, most of us Lemmy tech people are good at computers but completely useless and may even despise other activities such as dancing, singing, acting, psychology, and so on.
Never forget that the school system evaluates how good of a worker you can be, not how good of a human you can be. The entire system is just built for economic growth, not your happiness. In fact, you consume more when you are feeling like shit.
A bit of a side note, I know, but it’s all connected to a bigger picture, so…
Not really an answer to your question, just wanted to say intelligence isn’t a one-dimensional thing. You can practically be a master on any one field but lack basic abilities in accomplishing what other people do every day. Or the other way around, you’re not particularly good at one thing that’s commonly attributed to intelligence, like chess or maths, but be highly intelligent or skilled in other things. And for me that includes social intelligence, being able to remember a lot of stuff, being handy or having a grasp for music, or anything. I think I’m alright in various things. But I regularly observe people being very good at something. Like scientists and I can barely read what the math even does. Or the lady at the bakery who remembers things about the personal lives of like >200 grandmas and which kind of bread they buy every week. In turn, I know like a 200 facts about Linux networking. But I couldn’t do what she does, even if I tried.
Chill man. There’s loads of types of smart. Some people are great at chess, others have an intuitive feel of how a ball moves in the air, or how musical notes harmonize, or how equations collapse into simple forms, or how color or smell evokes emotion, or how ingredients work together to create pleasant texture and flavors, or how materials fold under the strike of a hammer, …
Point is, while you may not be smart in one area, there’s always areas to explore. Who knows, you may be a savant in your field. Enjoy the journey and appreciate the diversity.
Some people are very smart at writing smart things like you !
Thanks, friend. I really needed that in light of the recent news.
I hate that people don’t recognize the depth of what intelligence can be. You alluded to athletic intelligence, but there’s so many more. Emotional intelligence is a big buzzword, but just being a kind person is a reflection of that type.
Some of the most insufferable people I’ve ever met are “smart” but holy shit would I prefer to spend my time with someone else.
I don’t think there is a great way to quantify intelligence, but IQ and MENSA ain’t it. And chess is just boring. I’m not good at it because I don’t want to be.
I don’t think I’ve ever met a genuinely smart person that wasn’t kind. Most insufferable people I’ve met weren’t outstandingly smart. But maybe that’s just the bubble I live in and a little bit of luck.
Or I’m just very tolerant and have a high ceiling for what I’d describe as insufferable.
I think intelligence brings with an awareness of the scale of all knowledge, and that imbues a sense of humility. It’s the people who let it get to their head, maybe because they solved one problem within their locus, or managed to monetize one thing that puts them at an economic advantage, and it ruins their character.
I know I’m not smart because I seem to have trouble retaining and/or recalling information. I’ll understand the concepts then, but fuck me if I try to recall it months later. Also I remember things wrong, my partner (who has an excellent memory) calls me out on it all the time.
Intelligence is not easily quantifiable (dont you dare get me started on IQ) so its pointless to worry about how you stack up in one area. Ive met a genius nurse who cant spell restaurant without spell check. I know engineers who cant visualize a 2D drawing in to 3D space. I think im pretty smart, lots of conceptual thinking comes naturally to me but I hate chess. It doesnt make sense to me. I suggest thinking about what you are good at, rather than what you’re not.
You don’t. If you’re even entertaining the thought that there is more to learn than what you already know you are displaying intelligence. Stupid people “know” they’re NOT stupid and intelligent people constantly question their own intelligence. This is why a grown adult with the reading age of a 12yr old can spend twenty minutes online and become the world’s foremost authority on… 5G, vaccines, international geo politics, chemtrails, why the Nazi party were “ackshully” socialist etc. etc.
Everyone is smart about something but dumb about most things
