Which makes no sense because chess is a logic and presupposition game, not mathematical. And someone’s capacity for logic doesn’t determine their ability to translate that between mathematical logic and positional logic.
I get that it’s just a lead in to a gay porn, but they could at least have their basic understanding of logical deduction and individual capacity correct.
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.
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.
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.
![An unexpected side to gay porn [SFW]](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/fd09c490-b762-4d90-8579-914863cec6f6.jpeg){kind=link}
Which makes no sense because chess is a logic and presupposition game, not mathematical. And someone’s capacity for logic doesn’t determine their ability to translate that between mathematical logic and positional logic.
I get that it’s just a lead in to a gay porn, but they could at least have their basic understanding of logical deduction and individual capacity correct.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
And yet you can’t read…
Removed by mod
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.