Author: A.G.B. Bluemers
Date: 08:43:06 02/16/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2006 at 09:42:33, Günther Simon wrote: >On February 16, 2006 at 08:54:48, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On February 16, 2006 at 01:26:41, Sune Larsson wrote: >> >>>Surely there must be some difference between "bad taste" and questioning a >>>persons *honesty*? >>> >>>Then again - who cares about nodes? The playing strength is what counts. >>> >>>/S >> >>A recent study has reveiled that in a big tests, emotional psychopaths were >>consistently performing better at buying and selling shares and stocks than >>non-psychopaths, as they mercilous took decisions without taking into account >>anything else but the principle of making profit. this *study* was mentioned in the dutch news. it's just another example of junk science. >> >>If you deal with an emotional psychopath, please note i do NOT say Vasik is one, >>do you find him a better person because he makes a bit more profit with his >>$5000 at wallstreet than you do with your $5000? > >What is the sense of introducing fictional 'emotional psychopaths', >if there is neither a relation to Vas nor to somehing in Sunes post? >What has all above to do with this thread at all? >Wild theories about who is the 'better' psychopath in chess(show?)biz >seem to be appropriate for CTF. >(BTW I highly doubt the so called 'study' even exists or can barely be >called a 'study' in a scientific sense for several reasons. >1. How did they define psychopaths and non-psychopaths there? 2. How did they >find people in the stock biz, who would even anonymously confess they were >psychopaths? 3. Even if they had confessed, who verified it on what base? ;-) >- Give a link to that great 'study') > >Guenther > >... didn't read further after the first weird chapter
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.