
“Why Chess Will Destroy Your Mind”: Outlook of the Game in 1859 - shubhamjain
https://medium.com/message/why-chess-will-destroy-your-mind-78ad1034521f
======
sfRattan
Chess in the 19th century is my go to example when trying to deprogram someone
from anxious preoccupation with whatever moral panic is currently fashionable.
I use the word 'deprogram' in the sense of helping someone recover from a cult
deliberately.

You can often find an article from some newspaper of the period decrying chess
and its pernicious effects on the youth, the mind, morals, et cetera. Change
the instances of 'chess' to 'video games,' 'violent/sexy movies,' 'dungeons &
dragons,' 'smartphones,' or whatever item is the focus of a moral panic. Maybe
change a few of the sentences in the article where context demands it.

Have your pearl clutching friend read the modified article. Then show them the
original.

Fear mongering rhetorical devices become impossible not to notice.

~~~
siglesias
I don't find this line of argument compelling. It's a form of moral induction
that specifically selects things that are still in play today (like chess)
while ignoring valid warnings that altered a trend (vehicle safety) or halted
a trend (smoking). Every moral or health threat needs to be evaluated on its
own merits regardless of whether it has the syntax of a historical warning
that ended up in hindsight seeming kind of absurd. This is exactly the kind of
argument corporations exploring potent forms of addiction want trotted out.

~~~
abritinthebay
There’s a difference in bring alarmist but making good points and bring
alarmist and using rhetorical tricks.

You are describing the former, they the latter.

A problem should stand on its own without the emotional manipulation.

~~~
andrewflnr
It should, but it doesn't. If you have a conscience and want to make a change,
you need both logos and pathos.

~~~
Retra
But you start with a good argument. Without one, you are wrong to continue on
making emotionally manipulative appeals.

------
euske
I think it's more of its perceived usefulness over the entrance barrier rather
than the old vs. new thing. Video games and social networks today are much
easier to start with than chess while its usefulness (recognized by society)
is questionable (not much higher than chess); so it seems more wasteful, i.e.
"bad"

Compare this to computer programming. This is clearly new and pretty addictive
thing IMO but its entrance barrier is rather high and it looks useful (to the
eyes of parents and teachers), so they tend to accept it.

Similarly, there's not much novelty in a fidget spinner but it's blamed and
banned from school. It's extremely easy to play with while its apparent
usefulness is unclear. Hence it's "bad".

------
redux13
I wonder if any parallels can be drawn between this and the inordinate amount
of time children today spend starting at smartphones. While my personal
opinion is that it is probably harmful to have so much of our attention
focussed on phones at such a young age, we don't know how future societies
will view this activity in retrospect.

~~~
jimmaswell
My prediction is that everyone will be fine just like every other time a new
thing came around, and phones won't finally be the one "it's different for
real this time super seriously" thing.

~~~
jonahx
You may be right, but it's clear that the _level_ of the addiction, and its
ubiquity, are more powerful than anything before. It's basically _everyone_ is
doing a minimum of a couple hours a day (but spread out, so without any
prolonged cessation), with the average now like 4-5 hours I believe.
Television is probably the closest competitor, but that was typically confined
to blocks of after-work hours.

~~~
Zigurd
Search phrase most likely to match previous moral panics: "You may be right,
but it's clear that..."

~~~
jonahx
Ha! True enough. In fairness, "they" weren't wrong about TV...

------
jhanschoo
This article, in fact, reinforces the idea that chess has more commonly been
seen as an intellectual pursuit. The amateur in historical criticism will
point out that the existence of this article affirms the popular thing and
milieu that it is objecting to, and in fact even says that

"Chess has acquired a high reputation as being a means to discipline the mind,
because it requires a strong memory and peculiar powers of combination. It is
also generally believed that skill in playing it affords evidence of a
superior intellect."

hence we should not take this author's opinion of the general perception of
the game in that period.

------
B1FF_PSUVM
Eh, at least for me chess didn't play in dreams, the way Tetris did back in
the day it was new.

~~~
sbov
I used to dream about software development flaws applied to "reality". E.g.
I've had radios in my dreams that wouldn't turn off unless I unplugged them
because they didn't properly implement graceful shutdown. Or microwaves I
couldn't physically use because I made that function private instead of
public. Usually it was more like a nightmare - all sorts of things not working
for nonsensical reasons.

~~~
0xBA5ED
Hahaha. That's the funniest thing I've read all day. "Aaah, I put my car keys
on the heap and didn't keep a pointer!"

------
swrobel
If you enjoy stories like this, and podcasts, check out The Pessimists
Archive. Their latest episode was about chess and they have 6 other excellent
ones before it. [http://pessimists.co/](http://pessimists.co/)

------
OneTimePoster
What happens when mass-media-enforced morality is obviously engaging in an
endless parade of ridiculous moral panics based on flimsy redefinitions of
words like "harassment" and aggressively doxxes, downvotes, bans, and
supresses anyone trying to call it a moral panic?

EDIT: Exhibit A.

~~~
andrewflnr
Even if I agree with you, your comment is grossly offtopic and admits no
constructive response.

~~~
OneTimePoster
HackerNews: the last line of defense for the moral status quo... and hiding it
under the guise of TOS conformity.

I mean, sure, what would a comment about the moral outrages of 2016 games and
1800s games, both manned by stuffy Victorian-esque pearl-clutching couch
feinters desperately hiding their grotesque physiques under an abusive
reliance on contemporary styles, possibly have in common?

