Asklemmy

56109 readers

125 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

-15

Could we replace college with something like Chess or Go, for general intelligence requirements? (feddit.org)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by ki4jgt@feddit.org to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

With the general inaccessibility of college in the US (with AGI, they're basically pay to play), would Chess or Go be a good qualifier for job mental acuity?

Both can be monitored on the spot and certified by third-party associations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FrameForm@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago

I can’t play chess for shit but am generally quite smart and a good problem solver with an acuity for breaking down information and re-communicating it to others along with myriad other complex mental tasks involving abstract input (life, people, objects, etc). How will chess ever identify me as “smart”?

Nothing has a simple answer like this, period. I can’t tell you what the solution to all of this is, but I can tell you when something is definitively not a solution. Our problems are systemic and societal, if you want to actually have a discussion about how to fix any of these things the answers, unfortunately, lurk in a distinctly messy realm; philosophy, psychology, and society not logical problem solving.

I’ve started saying to myself recently “it’s not logical to think only logic is required to help humanity” we are not logical creatures, and that’s ok, it’s actually beuatifull really. But pretending we could or should be solely logical beings while eschewing the reality of our basic nature in order to come to conclusions about humanity and its “best present and future” is just magical thinking. Ugliness always arises from these attempts to redirect our nature.