On Nov 13, 8:26 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Did you in your course always have to write
'sociological factor'?

When it was appropriate. "Sociology" refers to the science as a
whole, not to factors it takes into account. To call differential
opportunity "a sociology" is like calling atomic number "a chemistry"
or the diameter of a planet "an astronomy."

I see you called me a liar for /asking you/ about your chess gene, as if you
never mentioned the subject.

I have explicitly denied the existence of a "chess gene." I call you
a liar for attributing the term to me, instead of owning up to the fact
that it's your idea. For someone who insists on people "owning their
words," you seem particularly eager to deny ownership of these.

Kingston should read de Groot or Gardner or Ornstien. Then he would
discover that without the need for eugenic ideas,

Phil, no one but you has used the word "eugenic" in this thread.

Taylor, no one but you doesn't understand the name given to gene studies.
See the '~gen~' in there?

Our Phil continues to wallow in semantic confusion. The proper term
for the science of gene studies is *_genetics_*.
In contrast, Webster defines the term "eugenics" as "the study of
methods of protecting and improving the quality of the human race by
selective breeding." It is a term greatly discredited and disgraced by
its association with social, national, and racial prejudice, Nazism
being the most extreme example. It has no part in the question of
whether chess skill may depend in part on inborn potential.

a) de Groot's material was pioneering, and very important for chess, and
comprised both psychological and sociological appreciations.

b) Gardner's was a pioneering study in cognitive psychology, now well
accepted by the mainstream, and who utilised chess to illustrate an
important aspect of intelligence and memory.

c) Robt. Ornstein is a neuroscientist who has written particularly well
about hemispheric factors in the brain

Thank you for this information. Do any of their works discuss the
difference between innate abilities and acquired knowledge? Did they
conduct or cite any studies indicating that all people are either
basically equal in their potential chess ability, or that they vary
significantly? If not, they do not seem all that relevant to the issue
at hand.