Ah, in "Hydrogen Isn't Cultural," Campbell starts talking about the genetic code. December 1963. Ends with, "And I'll bet the genetic codons aren't terrestrial, either."
So it was Campbellian ignorance.
SLANS THIS IS YOUR MENTAL LEADER BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP.
no subject
bruce munro (from livejournal.com)2013-04-12 06:54 pm (UTC)(link)
"And I'll bet the genetic codons aren't terrestrial"
Panspermia?
no subject
bruce munro (from livejournal.com)2013-04-12 07:05 pm (UTC)(link)
Reminds me of something in one of the afterwords in William Tenn's "immodest proposals" collection, in which Tenn/Klass, a chess club member and a habitue of the Washington Square Park chess corner, beats Campbell "very much a sometime player", and Campbell is "I just can't believe you're that much better than I", is unimpressed by Tenn's efforts to minimize the blow, and walks off "shaking his head and exhaling in misery."
This was a fellow who clearly couldn't stand the idea he wasn't the smartest guy in the room, and therefore untouchable by mere facts once he had formed an opinion on something or decided he understood something.
I don't know if it is as common now that computers can beat all of us, but for the longest time there was a tendency to regard chess as some sort of IQ test, utterly ignoring the element of knowledge and determination required to play well. As a great swimmer would appear to be a worse athlete than a mediocre baseball player, if the only test was skill at baseball.
While most good chess players I know are in fact fairly to very intelligent, I have an acquaintence, not easily distinguishable from an intelligent goat, who can probably beat all present and future Nobel winners handily(1) (and I beat pretty much all the time, though I'm quite sure I'm not getting shortlisted for the Nobel any time soon). But then he really wanted to be a decent player, and, all credit to him, studied hard, played a lot, and hung around with good players - you can learn a lot from their causal conversation.
I actually met someone a few years ago who still held to this view of chess and intelligence. As a quite strong player himself he found it a congenial attitude. It was like meeting an extinct creature, say a Dodo, but not as charming.
(1) He might have been in trouble if they gave Nobels for music. Prokofiev and David Oistrach would have beaten him, not to mention Grandmaster and pianist Mark Taimanov.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2013-04-12 10:38 am
no subject
So it was Campbellian ignorance.
SLANS THIS IS YOUR MENTAL LEADER BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP.
no subject
Panspermia?
no subject
This was a fellow who clearly couldn't stand the idea he wasn't the smartest guy in the room, and therefore untouchable by mere facts once he had formed an opinion on something or decided he understood something.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-04-12 09:04 pm (UTC)(link)While most good chess players I know are in fact fairly to very intelligent, I have an acquaintence, not easily distinguishable from an intelligent goat, who can probably beat all present and future Nobel winners handily(1) (and I beat pretty much all the time, though I'm quite sure I'm not getting shortlisted for the Nobel any time soon). But then he really wanted to be a decent player, and, all credit to him, studied hard, played a lot, and hung around with good players - you can learn a lot from their causal conversation.
I actually met someone a few years ago who still held to this view of chess and intelligence. As a quite strong player himself he found it a congenial attitude. It was like meeting an extinct creature, say a Dodo, but not as charming.
(1) He might have been in trouble if they gave Nobels for music. Prokofiev and David Oistrach would have beaten him, not to mention Grandmaster and pianist Mark Taimanov.
William Hyde