Spatially smart
Somehow i don’t see the meme as sexist until i read the comments
I don’t know if it is. The tweet message seems to be the only sexist part of this equation and yet people are overanalyzing the shit out of that picture.
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.
First why is this gendered. Also, not a good way of portraying “logic smart”, This is basically knowledge vs iq and maybe include some stuff with experience but if you have one what is “intelligence” you’ll also get knowledge easier and getting to a point where you get a lot of that proves at least some “intelligence” (quoted cuz there ofc more to what intelligence is i am just being unspecific/lazy) or a lot of effort which is also admirable… I’m not saying if you’re like “smart” you don’t need to put in any effort but I would say there’s an inverse correlation or whatevs idk. Anyways, this of course does not consider capitalism, neurodivergense and other stuff but is probably generally correct? idk, idk why i am even commenting anymore tbh.
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
Well, depends on what you put effort into and how you’re born and all ig. In some cases people need to let themselves be exploited to survive in the first place. There’s also the luck factor and you can also work hard and be independent but… I give up these are too many factors to consider I am not doing this.
How is your life going for you so far?
pretty good
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”.
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?
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”
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.
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!
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.’
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.
Habing chess separated for gender is a huge red flag… i feel like both women and men are ok with it for some reason cause otherwise i dont know how this is still a thing in 2026I stand corrected
Chess is not segregated by gender. There are women’s tournaments and there are open tournaments. There are no men’s tournaments. Men are way overrepresented at all the open tournaments, but women do compete in all of them.
Women’s representation is increasing at the top levels but it’s a gradual process. Judit Polgar and Hou Yifan (侯逸凡) are so far the only women to reach the top 100 players in the world and regularly compete with success at the top open tournaments.
The main world championship and title of GM is open to everyone, so it’s not truly split.
There are FIDE women only tournaments but that’s due to there being less participation of women. When you have something like this where the skill distribution is gaussian, if you have like 50 women compete and 1000 men, you will notice that it’s extremely unlikely for a woman to ever reach 1st place just due to statistics. Replace women and men with brown hair and blond hair and you’d see the same phenomenon.
The tail of the statistics where you see extreme deviations of improved skill would be dominated by the population with much larger participation.
To counter this, they have women only tournaments so that you always have a woman in 1st place in some tournament, basically to improve participation and convince more girls to play when they’re young.
There are of course probably other factors but these things improve participation and are meant to help get more women in chess, not separate them out.
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…?
Both sides are just people with interests, i never understood the smart/dumb distinctions, there’s just interests, dedication and morals
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.
True, and it actually makes up the majority of the skill as well, i just don’t like to look at people as gifted or lucky because it’s unfair, it’s kind of sad hahaha
I get easily conquered by defeatism if it’s done through pure logic and there’s no doubt about luck being a huge factor in skill! And in life in general, So i just kind of look away and continue grinding what i enjoy, because it’s the only thing you can do to enjoy competitive activities
Even more so, luck is a big component of success. You can have both skill and hard work and not be successful at something. Likewise, some of the people who are successful aren’t the most skilled, talented, or hardest working. There are correlations between success and those things, but luck is certainly a factor.
When people say some people are wired different, they’re usually thinking of high functioning autistic people. I would argue “innate talent” is very often autistic brains (look up the local overconnectivity theory) developing a special interest young enough that it became as second nature as other things typically learned at such early an age like a native language.
But I think what they’re talking about is moreso relevant when we’re talking about two people with equal potential because no one is disputing that the intellectually disabled exist. Two gifted kids may develop very different special interests. One might be reading math books at 8 years old likely because their parents are engineers while the other hyperfocuses on Harry Potter just because. The first gifted kid might tie their identity to their intelligence and look down on the other as being stupid. The second kid might internalize the message and who knows what they could’ve been. Society will label the first person as smart and point at all their status achievements as proof and label the second person as stupid and point at all their unproductive hobbies and lack of achievements as proof. But those external validators have much more to do with their interests, dedication, and what they value than they do with innate intelligence. I would also add onto this socioeconomic class as the biggest factor, but that’s its own discussion.
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.
I think you’re lucky if you’ve never had an interest you weren’t smart enough to enjoy properly.
Right but only one side is compensating.
You’ve never met someone who’s just plain dumb? I have bad news.
Nah, that would be great news. Being dumber than anyone you’ve ever met makes you less responsible for things like climate change and political violence than the people around you (morally, at least; you’re probably literally more of a cause, because you’re more likely to be right wing, but if you’ve already jumped that hurdle, maybe you aren’t). Plus, if your own life is a wreck, it feels better to blame an inherent limitation than something you could change, if only you had the discipline. If your own life is great, you’ve overcome a serious obstacle and should be proud of yourself.
finally someone gets it
It’s someone who sucked at school clinging to their sense of intellectual superiority in spite of that.
Not really, i’ve know many people like this who were bottom of their class and had edge over me in chess, fun games like it or random specific trivia, they don’t do it to feel intellectually superior they do it because it’s more enjoyable to them than studying
They’re not dumb they’re just not trying altogether, and when i talk with them about the topics they enjoy they actually show great understanding on them, it’s all just people with interests
If they were trying, say in a debate and they’re deliberately refusing to follow simple proofs they themselves use, yeah then they’re dumb, but i’ve never come across someone like that that still managed to be good at something, it’s a core part of learning as a process
Sure there are people with useful interests and ones with useless ones, but i refuse to call the useful ones smart and useless ones dumb, it’s demeaning to those people’s capabilities, i don’t hold anyone to this way of thinking it’s just mine
“Stupid bitch thinks he’s smart because of his college degree but doesn’t know dick about machining.” Is a less sexist and more accurate interpretation, your degree doesn’t mean you’re better or smarter than anyone else just because they chose another path. This has fuck all to do with sex, race, whatever.
E: Hurt a couple elitists’ feelings on that one I see lmao. Sorry, you’re not better than anyone just because your piece of paper says so.
Aren’t you supposed to sort it to the middle tower?
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”
Oh, so we should respect cops? Boot licker.
respect and love EVERYBODY but defend yourself with wisdom
Spoken like someone who was bad at school and bad at toys
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
They are also evil. Have you met a child?
theyre more whimsical, curious and unafraid of being “embarrased” so they seem like they “lack a filter” or are “evil”
They are also those things, in addition to evil. Yes.
how are they evil?
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 warwait uhhhhis rage baitreasons.
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
Why is there chess enthusiast on both sides, and chess on the right side
I feel like thats a watermark from either the original creator or some repost down the line
I figured it’s a watermark but it’s very confusing because it looks like part of the content and is incoherent if interpreted that way
