PDA

View Full Version : personality clashes - main problem in Aust Chess?



chesslover
18-02-2004, 09:45 PM
This was posted by graygray, outlining his thought in another thread, that the greatest problem in australian chess is personality clashes between people in chess

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by ggrayggray
so much for actually suggesting ways to improve the australian clubs team championship.

And paul s reckons that the lack of helpers is the biggest problem in chess. Well I dont agree at all, yes it is one of the problems, but not the biggest one.

there was a great opportunity from this thread to really make this tournament one of australias best and what has been acheived in terms of worthwhile ideas at the moment, not a damn lot.

So what is the biggest problem in chess in my opinion, in my opinion it is:

1) personality clashes: as has been seen from the cv/mcc debacle and from alot of the threads on the bb, most administrators are more concerned about proving the other person wrong, than trying to move ideas forward. Look how many threads on here just turn into name calling/slanging matches.

As i said on in the cv/mcc debacle, why would anyone new to the chess scene want to volunteer their time when this trash is what they have to put up with?

chesslover
18-02-2004, 10:19 PM
one of the main reasons for personality clashes in chess, is the very nature of chess itself.

In sports like cricket, League, soccer, AFL, a person has to depend on the other person. A brilliant person cannot win the game by himself, although he can most certainly influence it significantly. It si through other players that the game is won, and as a result the player must have good skills to interact with others.

It is the same in life, and at work. All of us to survive had to rely on others, and it was through cooperation and team work that the human race became the dominant race on earth. To be part of a team, to interact woith others are all part of our genetic makeup. It is similar in work - you have to get on well with your boss, your peers and those you manage to be successful.

Chess on the other hand is different. It is a solitary game. You do not depend on anyone. Success and defeat is entirely in your own hands. You do not need to be nice or rude to win a game. There is in effect no interactive skills that is required.

This attribute probably attracts to chess, people who have this introspective loners. Sure there are extroverts, and team players and so on, but the majority of people attracted to chess are individuals, introverts and people who want to know that their destiny is in their own hands.

When two such people play chess - that is fine, for there is an objective result at the end of it. Someone wins or loses, or they both draw. However off the board, when people argue or debate as is the normal in life, the ability to compromise or find mutually accepted solutions are significantly diminished as a result of the inate personal attributes of chess players.

Another contributory factor is that chess is a small pond - it is not an ocean like soccer. Thus there is more likely to be significant clashes, as strong individualistic personalities clash over the small world that is Australian chess

chesslover
23-02-2004, 04:27 PM
whilst this is a poll,where it is a subjective opinions of others that counts, it seems that 66% of those who voted think that it is personality clashes that are the biggest problems in chess - not lack of organisers, sponsors, marketing etc etc

If personality clashes are the biggest problem in Aust chess the answer is obvious - hire a mediator or a psychologist, and have them talk to everyone who is feuding and teach them that " I am okay, you are okay"

The fact that this will not solve the problems of Australian chess, indicates that this is NOT the biggest problem in Australian chess. It may be one of the problems, but not THE problem

Bill Gletsos
23-02-2004, 05:26 PM
Get real, you have a total of 7 votes.
That proves nothing.
Also until this post you are the only one posting on this thread.

ursogr8
23-02-2004, 05:49 PM
Get real, you have a total of 7 votes.
That proves nothing.
Also until this post you are the only one posting on this thread.

CL

I thought that the premises on this thread was so obviously wrong I have not bothered responding previously.
Prove and demonstrate your premise and then you might drag more in.

starter

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2004, 07:18 PM
Quite aside from the concern about the small sample size, questions of this sort are simply not valid methodically. You need to ask "Which of the following is the biggest problem in Australian chess?" and list a large list of leading possibilities, and then you might get a useful insight into what people think, if your sample size was large enough, you left no serious contenders out, and the result was decisive. The survey design problem with just offering a yes/no option on one answer is that it favours that answer. People will have that answer in their mind but won't be thinking of others that, if they thought of them, they might consider more valid. So a person who would probably vote no with more information may vote yes anyway.

For my money, the biggest problem affecting Australian chess is Australian culture. The second biggest is the one Paul S talked about in the "biggest problem" thread - too few doers for the number of players. I doubt "personality conflicts" would even be the third biggest, though I think it would be in the top ten.

Another thing that is being ignored here is that "personality conflicts" can be down to personality but are also often provoked by underlying structural and role-based tensions. That individuals have different personalities doesn't mean they will always clash, it just inflames and prolongs things when circumstances put them on opposite sides of the fence.

Also, your question is poorly worded. It asks if personality conflicts are "a main problem". Someone may see that there are more than one "main problems" or "major problems" from the way the question is framed, so it doesn't measure whether people think it is the most major problem.

chesslover
23-02-2004, 09:34 PM
Kevin

Fair enough. These are good points that you have made, and I accept the validity of your points

Yes the poll was badly worded. Yes the poll has no validity. And Yes, personality clashes are not the biggest problem in Aust chess. And yes, your point that personality clashes are "often provoked by underlying structural and role-based tensions. That individuals have different personalities doesn't mean they will always clash, it just inflames and prolongs things when circumstances put them on opposite sides of the fence" is well made

arosar
24-02-2004, 02:31 PM
Next time CL, try a likert scale or a rank-order question.

For example. "Personality clashes is a problem in Australian chess". Do you . . .

Strongly Agree | Agree | Somewhat Agree | Somewhat Disagree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree

And example 2. Rank in order of importance as contributor to problems faced by Australian chess. personality clashes, lack of funding, lack of volunteers, Australian culture, etc., etc.

AR

PHAT
15-08-2004, 05:25 PM
The Intelligence Trap.

"A highly intelligent person can take a view on a subject and then use his or her intelligence to defend that view. The more intelligent the person the better the defence of the view. The better the defence the less that person sees any need to seek out alternatives or to listen to anyone else. A second aspect of the intelligence trap is that a person who has grown up with the notion that he or she is more intelligent than those around wants to get the most satisfaction from that intelligence. Reward for intelligence is to prove somebody else wrong." http://www.training-youth.net/site/publications/

Garvinator
15-08-2004, 05:31 PM
The Intelligence Trap.

"A highly intelligent person can take a view on a subject and then use his or her intelligence to defend that view. The more intelligent the person the better the defence of the view. The better the defence the less that person sees any need to seek out alternatives or to listen to anyone else. A second aspect of the intelligence trap is that a person who has grown up with the notion that he or she is more intelligent than those around wants to get the most satisfaction from that intelligence. Reward for intelligence is to prove somebody else wrong." http://www.training-youth.net/site/publications/
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: not for the article, but for actually putting it in a somewhat relevant old thread ;) :D

Bill Gletsos
15-08-2004, 05:55 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: not for the article, but for actually putting it in a somewhat relevant old thread ;) :D
FWIW the web link does not work.

Garvinator
15-08-2004, 05:57 PM
FWIW the web link does not work.
did you get a message, you dont have permission to view this?

Bill Gletsos
15-08-2004, 07:55 PM
did you get a message, you dont have permission to view this?
Yes.

PHAT
16-08-2004, 06:52 AM
Try this:

http://www.training-youth.net/site/publications/tkits/tkit1/2_managing_self.pdf.

Kevin Bonham
16-08-2004, 06:30 PM
I don't quite get what they're saying overall - unless the subject which is being defended is a meta-issue (eg "how should we apply mental skills to solve a particular problem?") then surely the consequence of the "intelligence trap" is simply intelligent people being fairly prone to be stuck in their views, and not necessarily failure to adopt new thinking skills. Indeed, often you have to find new skills in the process of defending an idea, simply because the objections that people raise can sometimes take you into areas of thought you haven't been to before.

Also important to remember that things like this are generalisations and will not apply to every single case.

Matt - are you using this to suggest that chessplayers, being generally fairly bright, are therefore prone to sit on a set way of doing things and resist change - which might mean that those who are chess-conservatives stay that way and those who are chess-radicals also won't move away from their approach?

Rincewind
16-08-2004, 06:56 PM
http://www.training-youth.net/site/publications/tkits/tkit1/2_managing_self.pdf.

Some interesting ideas in there but I would take it all with a large dose of salt. Actually it reads like the author has read everything Edward Di Bono has written and then took a rather large dose of epsom salts. ;)

Seriously though it is important to realise that that what they are describing is simply a model and it reads rather too pedagogic for my tastes. For example, I believe the following assertions are too controversial to stand without justification...

The better the defence the less that person sees any need to seek out alternatives or to listen to anyone else. - Perhaps the less they are forced to seek out alternatives but someone of intellect who is also honest will nevertheless be drawn to the alternatives.

Reward for intelligence is to prove somebody else wrong. - This could be true but I doubt it plays a central role as is argued by the author/Di Bono.

Thinking is not on the school curriculum because education gets caught up in the tradition trap. - I content that the reason for this is altogether different.

[i]If we look at science and technology, the successes come not from critical thinking but from the “possibility” system that creates hypothesis and visions.[i] - This simplifies a very complicated subject to the point of perversion.


That'll do for starters. Although perhaps I've just taken a view on a subject which I am now trying to defend. ;)


BTW I think I understand Matt's line of reasoning here. There are people who form views very quickly and then cannot bring themselves to admit that they are wrong and so defend these views, tooth and nail. I don't believe this is particularly more prevelent among the intelligensia. It's is just they can get away with it for longer and so it just appears that way. ;)