Novak: Amazing and.. not very exciting?

[li0scc0]

Please, don't feel offended, I was just answering the question. I don't even knew you existed.

Your passive aggression is so adorable!
I simply used your weak logic and ad hominems to demonstrate your specious argument. Quite the softball, I must say.

 

[tennisaddict]

Djokovic is a world class defender and he can use that to his advantage, but trust me, he never enters a match with the mindset to defend. He is an aggressive player.

I don’t know why you get sensitive when folks call Novak as predominantly a non aggressive player

Just look at all his big matches against Nadal and Murray

There is a reason why they last 4-6 hours

 

[RF-18]

I don’t know why you get sensitive when folks call Novak as predominantly a non aggressive player

Just look at all his big matches against Nadal and Murray

There is a reason why they last 4-6 hours

Cause you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[tennisaddict]

Cause you don't know what you are talking about.

Since you are the know it all, explain why Djoker plays 5 and 6 hour matches at AO and why Fed doesn't even though he plays 5 setters .

Djoker does not try to finish the points aggressively like Federer, Stan , Kyrgios and players of that mold

 

[vex]

Djokovic is a defensive player for the most part . On given day , I can name below players whose game can be more interesting (with obviously more errors)

Federer
Nadal
Wawrinka
Delpo
Tsonga
Berdych
Fognini
Kyrgios
Nishikori

Think you’re beinggn a bit unfair re his offense. He’s dominated Nishi by not allowing Nishi to take the upper hand in rallies. He out offenses Nishi every time they play. I’ll give you that his offense is more about accuracy than power tho.

 

[tennisaddict]

Think you’re beinggn a bit unfair re his offense. He’s dominated Nishi by not allowing Nishi to take the upper hand in rallies. He put offenses Nishi every time they play

He played a fantastic match against Nishi hitting the balls so deep. In contrast, Nishi was hitting every ball inside the service court.

 

[Ann]

I don't know why there are so many bruised feels over people not finding a player exciting but acknowledging that he's an awesome player. Seriously, this is not an insult. Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras both bored the snot out of me but they're two of the greatest players of all time.

 

[RF-18]

Since you are the know it all, explain why Djoker plays 5 and 6 hour matches at AO and why Fed doesn't even though he plays 5 setters .

Djoker does not try to finish the points aggressively like Federer, Stan , Kyrgios and players of that mold

lol at grouping in Kyrgios with Federer. Shows how much you know.

I didn't say Djokovic is as aggressive as fed. If you know anything it isn't that black and white. There is no you are either aggressive or defensive.

Djokovic may not go for the killer shot, but his game is more about controlled aggression. He likes to set up his points and move his opponent with accuracy and deep hitting.

Just watch his return and how he tries to position himself on the court for example, if you call that someone who '''is defensive for the most part'' then you are pretty clueless.

 

[tennisaddict]

lol at grouping in Kyrgios with Federer. Shows how much you know.

I didn't say Djokovic is as aggressive as fed. If you know anything it isn't that black and white. There is no you are either aggressive or defensive.

Djokovic may not go for the killer shot, but his game is more about controlled aggression. He likes to set up his points and move his opponent with accuracy and deep hitting.

Just watch his return and how he tries to position himself on the court for example, if you call that someone who '''is defensive for the most part'' then you are pretty clueless.

You still didn't answer, If he is an aggressive player explain to me why his AO matches against Murray /Nadal last 5 and 6 hours

 

[vbranis]

I don't know why there are so many bruised feels over people not finding a player exciting but acknowledging that he's an awesome player. Seriously, this is not an insult. Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras both bored the snot out of me but they're two of the greatest players of all time.

100% this. Djokovic is an AMAZING player and athlete, no question, but his game bores me. No reason for anyone to take it the wrong way, it's just my opinion.

 

[axlrose]

You still didn't answer, If he is an aggressive player explain to me why his AO matches against Murray /Nadal last 5 and 6 hours

1. Fedr is a servebot. His serve games finish quickly.

2. Whenever Nad hits a topspin FH to Fedr's BH, he surrender immediately. In contrast, Djoker stands and fires back.

and the most important thing is

3. Long Match doesn't mean defensive play style.

Don't forget the longest match in history made by 2 servebots, on the quickest surface.

Cheers

 

[Federev]

1. Fedr is a servebot. His serve games finish quickly.

2. Whenever Nad hits a topspin FH to Fedr's BH, he surrender immediately. In contrast, Djoker stands and fires back

Have you not seen him play Nadal since 2014?

 

[ABCD]

Have you not seen him play Nadal since 2014?

That is what I am saying. Federer is now much improved and he has developed in last few years as a player that can challenge Nadal. Without Djokovic Federer would win 3GS in 2015.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

That is what I am saying. Federer is now much improved and he has developed in last few years as a player that can challenge Nadal. Without Djokovic Federer would win 3GS in 2015.

I think it's more him compensating for his loss of speed. He goes for more today because he can't run to shots he could've back in the day. Whether that makes him better or worse is up for debate but in my opinion he was a more fluid player back in the day.

That's not to say he is bad today. He certainly isn't. He is still playing great tennis.

It speaks to Federer's great tennis mind that he is smart enough to compensate for his losses in other departments.

 

[axlrose]

Have you not seen him play Nadal since 2014?

Yes? The neo-backhand, you mean?

 

[hoodjem]

More offensive play tends to be more exciting.

Djokovic is the ultimate defensive player.

 

[TennisHound]

Djokovic is the most exciting player to see beaten. The best matches I’ve seen were Stan taking him out.

 

[tennisaddict]

1. Fedr is a servebot. His serve games finish quickly.

2. Whenever Nad hits a topspin FH to Fedr's BH, he surrender immediately. In contrast, Djoker stands and fires back.

and the most important thing is

3. Long Match doesn't mean defensive play style.

Don't forget the longest match in history made by 2 servebots, on the quickest surface.

Cheers

Djokovic did not play a 70-68 set . He would have taken month long to finish the match if that was the score

If he is a consistently aggressive player , he will try to finish points .Against top players , Djoker s strategy is to hit so many grounders deep and force the opponent to make UFE rather than go for a outright winner

I don’t want to evaluate him based on matches against lesser ranked players where there is more propensity to come to net and close points

 

[Deleted member 762343]

I’ve always found his tennis style beautiful and don’t really understand why most people think defensive players are boring. In my opinion, when a player can make great passing shots, forehands and backhands down the line and long rallyes to return everything, he’s entertaining. I think a player that has such technical prowess is anything but boring to watch. I don’t need to see Federer’s backhand to enjoy a match, that’s just a (really) cool bonus.

 

[vex]

Since you are the know it all, explain why Djoker plays 5 and 6 hour matches at AO and why Fed doesn't even though he plays 5 setters .

Djoker does not try to finish the points aggressively like Federer, Stan , Kyrgios and players of that mold

Well of course not, those are the three most aggressive players. And it only has really led to amazing results for 1.5 of them.

The dude plays aggressive enough. He definitely does not look to defend, he looks to dictate albeit without trying overly hard to push the envelope forcing winners. Literally only Roger plays that way with sustainable success. And even for him it backfires occasionally (USO’15)

 

[ABCD]

I think it's more him compensating for his loss of speed. He goes for more today because he can't run to shots he could've back in the day. Whether that makes him better or worse is up for debate but in my opinion he was a more fluid player back in the day.

That's not to say he is bad today. He certainly isn't. He is still playing great tennis.

It speaks to Federer's great tennis mind that he is smart enough to compensate for his losses in other departments.

Sabratha, my friend, I agree with general sentiment in your post. For me, Federer's play in AO2017 final was his greatest moment. Not because he won GS or any achieved number/record, but because his one-handed backhand beat Nadal's forehand. This is something that no human has done before or since.

 

[Charleneriva]

I'll tell you what flipped me. I came to loathe THIS FORUM so much that I started rooting for him. I wanted him to embarrass and frustrate all the haters here. I looked at it as a payback for all the idiots who post horrible, insulting things about player A or player B just because they can get away from it in an environment where there are no consequences.

By the way, feel the same way about idiots who post horrible things about Fed, Nadal and others. But to me it seemed like Novak was getting the very worst treatment, so I started hoping he would make many of them miserable, the haters.

I've rooted for underdogs my entire life. Novak is not a tennis underdog, but he is a fan underdog.

Spot on, Gary. That and anything to troll TTW really, even at the expense of my favourites at times.

Never really feel like it; but allow me to quote myself a bit this time:

Personally I couldn't care less about being politically correct, least of all on an Internet forum.

Unless it's a player I absolutely can't be bothered with, Medvedev for example, all the player bashing on here only makes me want to get to know/appreciate the players more. A silver lining - sort of - to me.

And on him being "not very exciting" and such:

Novak = Billie Holidays. Impeccable technique. Big heart and no less emotional. Inspirational. Still couldn't quite surpass the above two and often perceived as less "naturally talented", which is a shame.

It might sound strange, but I used to have this thought that I wanted to be like him, because of how he reinvented himself and was able to make such a huge comeback against the giant Fedal. It's frigging "cool" to me, really, despite all the nightmares that he has given me for years.

All in all I'm very glad he "happened" and helped me appreciate tennis much more. Still does.

 

[Charleneriva]

The thing about Federer I admire the most is his facial expression. He doesn't grimace. No sign of a strain on his face when hitting a shot. I have seen that in no other player. None. That also makes him a little too perfect for me. It is so.

Personally I don't find Fed perfect, let alone "too perfect" - but that's why I <3 and appreciate him. I would find it a bit boring if he's indeed "perfect", which is very much subjective.

Poker face aside, he's actually flustered and gets nervous a lot during a match. I don't know about others, but I think I have watched him and watched him closely enough to be able to "read" his emotions, largely, and predict some, quite well during a match. There are certain "signs" and body languages there for everyone to see really.

 

[Charleneriva]

Overall in life I don't see much difference between Novak and Roger. Both say intelligent things. Both are thoughtful and know what they are talking about. Honestly I don't see where one can differentiate between the two. Also there are others like them too.
Fed doesn't read books but I don't think that's a sign of intelligent. Not to brag about myself, but I rarely read books and my teachers and friends consider me the most intelligent one in my class.
Anyways when we are talking modern tennis it's pretty clear that Novak has the game that comes closest to perfection. But having the best game doesn't necessarily make one tennis intelligent. Its just the way they play from the very beginning.
Mid match adjustments are the first and foremost sign of tennis intelligence. And who better than Nadal at those!
But Nadalovic are equally good at handling pressure which is a sign of emotional intelligence.
So I think overall I will give Nadal the edge as the most intelligent tennis player.
As for the most intelligent individual out of the top guys I think Fedovic take the cake equally.

There are different kinds of intelligence and the older I get, the more I realise that EQ is convincingly more important than IQ; and just as important are CQ and AQ - on which I have no doubt our top tennis players would score very very high, much to many's tendency to dismiss them and athletes in general as "less intelligent" than the, yeah, generically academic ones - aka themselves.

My closest friends at school back in the day swung from the perceivingly smartest/top students to the most "delinquent" or academically not-so-bright ones. Believe me, even then I saw very little difference in what I myself perceived as intelligence, talent and capability between them, which was then more or less "proved" by their career+life choices and success as an adult.

My sister, for example, would smoke the boys at maths and certainly was a very good chess player. But she's not the best at writing/language and, say, CQ. I would say overall some of my streetsmart or musical friends are "smarter" than her.

But really, all in all over time the perception of smart and intelligence would fade and many other aspects of life would fill in, as they should. I think most often being and being perceived as smart and "cool" are way overrated. It's much more subjective than it's not. I rather look at the real actions and works/results and progressions over time than the so-called, often romanticised/idealised, "natural talent". That's also how I see "talent" in tennis players, as well as the very much subjective and even much more "abstract" intelligence of theirs.

And to shamelessly quote Eistein again:

Spoiler

Do you play chess? Was more of an annoying *artsypants myself but I used to take on the commonly perceived as "smartest" students (aka the one who were the best at maths and natural science subjects) in class and in+off school on chess and some other puzzle games. Later it was IT, maths, medicine students mostly and older. Admittedly haven't played much for quite time though so you might very well bagel me if we played right now. But history tells me I tend to get there in the end.
(Nah, don't get me wrong. I wasn't that competitive or "arrogant". Just enjoyed some competition, challenge, and fun. And yes, I admitted this comment of yours did trigger that part of me a little bit. )

*Scientists are my favourite heroes though.

 

[Julian Houston]

Djok being the fastest and most agile on tour tend to try outrun and outmaneuver his opponents by deep returns. Nadal and Fed are much more aggressive.

Fred is only a servebot after 33. I guess most online tennis fans are young and don't watch Fred prime moving and defending. He was no doubt better player in the past.

 

[Azure]

Personally I don't find Fed perfect, let alone "too perfect" - but that's why I <3 and appreciate him. I would find it a bit boring if he's indeed "perfect", which is very much subjective.

Poker face aside, he's actually flustered and gets nervous a lot during a match. I don't know about others, but I think I have watched him and watched him closely enough to be able to "read" his emotions, largely, and predict some, quite well during a match. There are certain "signs" and body languages there for everyone to see really.

Nice post. I was referring to his face while making the shot though. He is not bereft of emotions which was more Sampras like but the mere faces he makes while executing the shots which actually is pleasant to watch.

 

[Azure]

There are different kinds of intelligence and the older I get, the more I realise that EQ is convincingly more important than IQ; and just as important are CQ and AQ - on which I have no doubt our top tennis players would score very very high, much to many's tendency to dismiss them and athletes in general as "less intelligent" than the, yeah, generically academic ones - aka themselves.

My closest friends at school back in the day swung from the perceivingly smartest/top students to the most "delinquent" or academically not-so-bright students. Believe me, even then I saw very little difference in what I myself perceived as intelligence, talent and capability between them, which was then more or less "proved" by their career+life choices and success as an adult.

My sister, for example, would smoke the boys at maths and certainly was a very good chess player. But she's not the best at writing/language and, say, CQ. I would say overall some of my streetsmart or musical friends are "smarter" than her.

But really, all in all over time the perception of smart and intelligence would fade and many other aspects in life would fill in, as they should be. I think most often being and being perceived as smart and "cool" are way overrated. It's much more subjective than it's not. I rather look at the real actions and works/results and progressions over time than the so-called, often romanticised/idealised, "natural talent". That's also how I see "talent" in tennis players, as well as the very much subjective and even much more "abstract" intelligence of theirs.

Spoiler

Do you play chess? Was more of an annoying *artsypants myself but I used to take on the commonly perceived as "smartest" students (aka the one who were the best at maths and natural science subjects) in class and in+off school on chess and some other puzzle games. Later it was IT, maths, medicine students mostly and older. Admittedly haven't played much for quite time though so you might very well bagel me if we played right now. But history tells me I tend to get there in the end.
(Nah, don't get me wrong. I wasn't that competitive or "arrogant". Just enjoyed some competition, challenge, and fun. And yes, I admitted this comment of yours did trigger that part of me a little bit. )

*Scientists are my favourite heroes though.

Yet another nice post here. I agree with most of it but I cannot help reminding myself that smartness is very subjective. My definition of smartness is an innate ability to observe and grasp elements which others don't. Some can walk by an elephant on the street and not notice. Some can decipher situations by thinking 5-10 steps ahead, similar to your analogy in chess.

Intelligence alone is of little use in the practical world. Many PhDs can crunch equations but are emotionally very weak and have little knowledge of the outside world. Smart people would wriggle their way out of sticky situations and survive while studying their surroundings and look for optimized solutions.

 

[ak24alive]

There are different kinds of intelligence and the older I get, the more I realise that EQ is convincingly more important than IQ; and just as important are CQ and AQ - on which I have no doubt our top tennis players would score very very high, much to many's tendency to dismiss them and athletes in general as "less intelligent" than the, yeah, generically academic ones - aka themselves.

My closest friends at school back in the day swung from the perceivingly smartest/top students to the most "delinquent" or academically not-so-bright ones. Believe me, even then I saw very little difference in what I myself perceived as intelligence, talent and capability between them, which was then more or less "proved" by their career+life choices and success as an adult.

My sister, for example, would smoke the boys at maths and certainly was a very good chess player. But she's not the best at writing/language and, say, CQ. I would say overall some of my streetsmart or musical friends are "smarter" than her.

To this part of your post I can only say that I agree with every single word of it.
I would put EQ and AQ above CQ and IQ. I don't have enough experience to evaluate the importance of CQ. On paper I understand it but haven't dealt much with it real life.
But EQ and AQ on the other hand are the most important forms of intelligence.

But really, all in all over time the perception of smart and intelligence would fade and many other aspects of life would fill in, as they should. I think most often being and being perceived as smart and "cool" are way overrated. It's much more subjective than it's not. I rather look at the real actions and works/results and progressions over time than the so-called, often romanticised/idealised, "natural talent". That's also how I see "talent" in tennis players, as well as the very much subjective and even much more "abstract" intelligence of theirs.

I can relate to this so much and on so many levels that it's almost absurd. I have a knack for mathematics and to some extent physics. Basically as a kid things came easier for me than they did to my classmates.
And that very thing led me away from the ability to work hard. An hour before the exam was always enough until it wasn't. But then I couldn't put in the time needed.
I could still get good enough or okay-ish results but it wasn't the same.
And it has only gotten worse with age. I procrastinate in every field of life. I got the alert about your post yesterday and I loved it but I didn't reply then because it would have taken effort lol.
If it wasn't you or the few other posters I am good friends with maybe I wouldn't have replied at all.
So yeah natural talent is way overrated. I would give it up anyday in exchange for the ability to work hard and stay motivated.
Its exactly as you said that over time the perception of smart and intelligence would fade and many other aspects of life would fill in, as they should....

Spoiler

Do you play chess? Was more of an annoying *artsypants myself but I used to take on the commonly perceived as "smartest" students (aka the one who were the best at maths and natural science subjects) in class and in+off school on chess and some other puzzle games. Later it was IT, maths, medicine students mostly and older. Admittedly haven't played much for quite time though so you might very well bagel me if we played right now. But history tells me I tend to get there in the end.
(Nah, don't get me wrong. I wasn't that competitive or "arrogant". Just enjoyed some competition, challenge, and fun. And yes, I admitted this comment of yours did trigger that part of me a little bit. )

*Scientists are my favourite heroes though.

Spoiler

Yes I play Chess. Its one of my favourite games ever. But I have to admit that I couldn't develop as a brilliant player(I play good though) because I took it up very late in life(as a kid I played cricket, volleyball and the only game I was a prodigy at was carrom.. I used to beat good middle aged players when I was only 10) and also because I didn't have any friends who liked chess much. All I learned was by playing with my younger brother and because he couldn't beat me I didn't learn to deploy new tactics. I know only one way of playing lol.
A very queen centric game. I would love to play with you and beat you convincingly.
Yes I am very competitive.

I have so many heroes that it's hard to tell who is at the top. Scientists and social workers definitely score high on my hero scale.

 

[Azure]

To this part of your post I can only say that I agree with every single word of it.
I would put EQ and AQ above CQ and IQ. I don't have enough experience to evaluate the importance of CQ. On paper I understand it but haven't dealt much with it real life.
But EQ and AQ on the other hand are the most important forms of intelligence.


I can relate to this so much and on so many levels that it's almost absurd. I have a knack for mathematics and to some extent physics. Basically as a kid things came easier for me than they did to my classmates.
And that very thing led me away from the ability to work hard. An hour before the exam was always enough until it wasn't. But then I couldn't put in the time needed.
I could still get good enough or okay-ish results but it wasn't the same.
And it has only gotten worse with age. I procrastinate in every field of life. I got the alert about your post yesterday and I loved it but I didn't reply then because it would have taken effort lol.
If it wasn't you or the few other posters I am good friends with maybe I wouldn't have replied at all.
So yeah natural talent is way overrated. I would give it up anyday in exchange for the ability to work hard and stay motivated.
Its exactly as you said that over time the perception of smart and intelligence would fade and many other aspects of life would fill in, as they should....

Spoiler

Yes I play Chess. Its one of my favourite games ever. But I have to admit that I couldn't develop as a brilliant player(I play good though) because I took it up very late in life(as a kid I played cricket, volleyball and the only game I was a prodigy at was carrom.. I used to beat good middle aged players when I was only 10) and also because I didn't have any friends who liked chess much. All I learned was by playing with my younger brother and because he couldn't beat me I didn't learn to deploy new tactics. I know only one way of playing lol.
A very queen centric game. I would love to play with you and beat you convincingly.
Yes I am very competitive.

I have so many heroes that it's hard to tell who is at the top. Scientists and social workers definitely score high on my hero scale.

This is also one reason I did not take up an academic career. It would have been rewarding from 'research' perspective but to deal with the kind of people I deal with on a day to day basis would have been a lost experience. I can teach when I am in my 50's

 

[Charleneriva]

Nice post. I was referring to his face while making the shot though. He is not bereft of emotions which was more Sampras like but the mere faces he makes while executing the shots which actually is pleasant to watch.

Thanks (and soazzi for the belated reply). I get what you mean and I was talking about both his facial expressions while making a shot and those during a match in general . And yes, I agree he’s very, very pleasant to watch (he's probably moast famous for that, no? - even before all the slems and records) - while being himself, since he had exactly the same facial expressions and identical form when he was a kid and teenager.

Yet another nice post here. I agree with most of it but I cannot help reminding myself that smartness is very subjective. My definition of smartness is an innate ability to observe and grasp elements which others don't. Some can walk by an elephant on the street and not notice. Some can decipher situations by thinking 5-10 steps ahead, similar to your analogy in chess.

Thenx again. Could you tell me which part you don’t agree with? I mean, agreeing or disagreeing doesn’t matter much, if at all, to me. I just think I will find it interesting to hear your thoughts on this.

But if the bolded part is what you mean by not agreeing, then it’s actually what I was trying to say as well - smartness and intelligence are much more subjective and abstract than they are not. So is all the talk about “this player is more intelligent than that player”, or “this player must be the most intelligent” etc.

I mean, yes, we can compare, we can have and believe in our opinions. I have mine too. But there’s simply no way of knowing it for a fact when we’re taking about their intelligence in general - on court and tennis-related stuff we should have some ideas, yes - but other than that, don’t think so. Well, fhs, we only watch them run and hit the yellow fuzzy ball over and over again.

As for my mentioning chess, soazzi, didn't mean to brag or anything. In my mind, as interesting and complicated as it is, it's still just a game and shouldn't be an indication of one's true intelligence; of course unless you're a grandmaster or can make a living by playing it.

Intelligence alone is of little use in the practical world. Many PhDs can crunch equations but are emotionally very weak and have little knowledge of the outside world. Smart people would wriggle their way out of sticky situations and survive while studying their surroundings and look for optimized solutions.

AK and I were actually discussing just that in a bit more general term. Giveor take, EQ, CQ, AQ and more are, for the most part, more important than IQ.

Einstein, for instance, didn’t think of himself as terribly gifted:

“I have no special talents. I’m only passionately curious.”

He was more appreciative of his power of imagination; his genius ability to think abstractly then make it into something that makes sense and 'understandable; and of course, his ability to work hard with endless perseverance - the trademark and probably the decisive factor for any successful scientist (and sportsman), imho.

“I think and think for months, years. Ninety-nine conclusions are incorrect. For the hundredth time I am right.”

“Outstanding personalities are created through hard work and its results.”

So yes, it's definitely the combination of many factors, different kinds of intelligence and also one’s characters and qualities - only of course the importance of each of those Q’s shifts depends on each individual and their field imo.

This is also one reason I did not take up an academic career. It would have been rewarding from 'research' perspective but to deal with the kind of people I deal with on a day to day basis would have been a lost experience. I can teach when I am in my 50's

I doubt I will still be here when you're in your 50's but I would love to know what you will be teaching by then. Educators fascinate me as well.

 

[Charleneriva]

To this part of your post I can only say that I agree with every single word of it.
I would put EQ and AQ above CQ and IQ. I don't have enough experience to evaluate the importance of CQ. On paper I understand it but haven't dealt much with it real life.
But EQ and AQ on the other hand are the most important forms of intelligence.

Personally I would put CQ above everything, but of course I’m biased . Plus I think the importance of each of those Q’s depends on each individual and their field, as well as their characters and qualities.

Edit: Just added this video. I challenge you not to smile - a lot - whilst watching it:

I have so many heroes that it's hard to tell who is at the top. Scientists and social workers
definitely score high on my hero scale.

Social workers? Hah, that should tell us something about you - good things, methinks.

Spoiler: "too long - ranting alert"

As for scientists, I find them probably the moast interesting people in the world really, besides of course their severely underrated contributions to humankind in general. Most of them, in the past or present, are still so severely underrated and little understood.

They’re actually not that “nerdy” or even “boring” like the preconceptions many have - some of which are just plain ignorant, even absurd.

On the contrary, their ability to think and approach things rationally, logically and scientifically aside, they tend to have their own unique view of the world (and universe, even multiverse ) and can find inspiration in the most random and little things most would never even notice. Make no mistake, scientists are tremendously imaginative and creative themselves.

In a way, I think they’re also artists in their own right. They can see beauty and wonders in anything and more importantly, they have the ability and determination to figure and make something out of it - not for their own good but for the better of something much bigger. They make way for their own peers and countless of generations of scientists that come after them, as well as non-scientists like you (for now : p) and me. I find that beautiful, inspiring and yes, touching also.

Their dedication, their sense of wonder, the sheer joy of simply doing their job and staying motivated everyday, their elation both when they have discovered something AND have been proven wrong - believe me, I mean, them, scientists LOVE to be wrong - just like a kid with a new toy, to them that opens a whole new world of challenges and possibilities - isn't all that admirable, refreshing, beautiful, even cute?

Speaking of cute, isn't this the cutest thing you've seen today?

...

If only kids and looked up to scientists as they do celebrities and singers/musicians; and all of us cared about the earth more than who we think created it. I mean, most of us...

I can relate to this so much and on so many levels that it’s almost absurd.

We all have our turn, don’t we? Last time it was me. Now you. I don’t know about you, but I was actually laughing out loud. Coincidence is such a funny thing. More so when it’s absolutely unexpected.

Believe me, I can relate back to you as well, though it’s not exactly the same in my case. I guess that’s also why not only you didn’t misunderstand and find my poast ‘offensive’ or ‘arrogant’, you actually get it and can relate to it more than I would have expected. Appreciate it.

And that very thing led me away from the ability to work hard. An hour before the exam was always enough until it wasn't. But then I couldn't put in the time needed.
I could still get good enough or okay-ish results but it wasn't the same.
And it has only gotten worse with age. I procrastinate in every field of life. I got the alert about your post yesterday and I loved it but I didn't reply then because it would have taken effort lol.
If it wasn't you or the few other posters I am good friends with maybe I wouldn't have replied at all.
So yeah natural talent is way overrated. I would give it up anyday in exchange for the ability to work hard and stay motivated.
Its exactly as you said that over time the perception of smart and intelligence would fade and many other aspects of life would fill in, as they should....

Bolded: Habit/discipline/both. I think it’s more of the case you didn’t try your best, rather than you couldn’t try your best.

You’re still very, very young. You have all the time in the world to aspire and, I wouldn’t say change, but to bring out the other parts of yourself you might not be aware of (yet).

I’m older than you (not that much though ), but I always feel like my life has just begun - conclusions are reserved for many years later and preconceptions certainly don’t help. Even placebo effect is real and sometimes it can do wonder. I refuse to believe you don’t have “the ability to work hard and stay motivated” - simple, you’ve never tried, or really tried.

♪ If you never try, you’ll never know. ♫

You’re already blessed with a gift, which is already a beautiful thing no matter how you look at and feel about it. The important thing is you’re already very much aware of your tendency. That’s a start. Everything has a start. I’ll be blindly optimistic for you anyhow and wish you all the best. Hope you are too. (But of course, get sh*t done first! And find someone who can really push you.)

Spoiler: Memory Bread

I don’t know if ‘gift’ is the right word. In fact I don’t think it is. But when I was a kid, I was lucky enough to have very sharp memory - a bit like having Doraemon’s Memory Bread. Probably inherited from Dad.

Very much like you said, studying didn’t seem too hard. In fact, I spent most of my time being curious and imagining about this and that and doing everything but studying the school stuff, including 'climbing things' . I was let free as I could have been. No one pushed me anything, which was definitely a mistake. Tell me you can relate to this as well?

But of course, as life would have it, the bread reached its 'expiration date' bit too soon to my liking (Dad’s didn’t though, grrr). Shame. But in a way I think it’s also a bless for many reasons. Plus, as long as my visual and sound memory is decent enough, I’m all good and happy. Can’t complain much.

 

[Charleneriva]

And it has only gotten worse with age. I procrastinate in every field of life. I got the alert about your post yesterday and I loved it but I didn't reply then because it would have taken effort lol.
If it wasn't you or the few other posters I am good friends with maybe I wouldn't have replied at all.

My apologies for this very late reply. And yes, you and I actually still have some ‘unfinished business’ - my fault . Soazzi again for that. Explaining would feel very lame so for now I just leave it at that. But I’ll keep my words, sooner or later.

As for procrastinating, I think most us do (I certainly do), just at different ‘frequencies’. It’s actually good for some, but no, not so good for most. The key is to give priority to certain things - like the most important ones or not that important but tend to give you troubles / stress you out when procrastinated. But of course, you already know all that. Mastering time management is an elusive art in itself (sigh).

Spoiler

Yes I play Chess. Its one of my favourite games ever. But I have to admit that I couldn't develop as a brilliant player(I play good though) because I took it up very late in life(as a kid I played cricket, volleyball and the only game I was a prodigy at was carrom.. I used to beat good middle aged players when I was only 10) and also because I didn't have any friends who liked chess much. All I learned was by playing with my younger brother and because he couldn't beat me I didn't learn to deploy new tactics. I know only one way of playing lol.
A very queen centric game. I would love to play with you and beat you convincingly.
Yes I am very competitive.

I have so many heroes that it's hard to tell who is at the top. Scientists and social workers definitely score high on my hero scale.

Spoiler

Didn’t you find it funny? From an old water tank most barely even noticed to a lovely playhill in the outskirts of some peaceful small town near the Himalayas. From what vaguely seems like a liking to height to the love of hiking and conquering the Himalayas and the mountains. From your deep-into-the-night climbing up that old water tank to the interest in the stars and astrophysics (and tiny people and things). From a very unexpected poem at the most unexpected time and place to a young, sensitive ‘poet’ behind this curious, magic time-wasting machine called TTW.

And now from something and someone abstractly smarty and *mathy in a thread that has nothing to do anything we’re (I’m) ranting about, we have an avid, competitive chess player emerged!

Well, as much as I would like to say I made some fancy educated guesses and all that, they are actually more random and coincident than they are not. But that’s the fun of it, isn’t it?

Well, I’ll be brief. I wouldn’t mind you beating me convincingly at first.

Call me a glory hunter - I’m a gracious loser like the Mightiest, though it’s probly the Guru who I “resemble” moast - I play for the sheer fun of it, not to win, though of course I don’t mind winning either. Enjoyability and fairplay I always value moast. That’s both my strength and my downfall but I can live with it (the fun).

I was also very stubborn like you (still am), in that I too refused to “learn” those pre-thought methods and stuff, even though very early on my dad - my first chess sparrer, I mean, partner - encouraged me to study the chess books and players. Well, who know if you till turn out to be the player/sparrer I’ve always been waiting for lol.

Also, if you agree, each of us can propose a “backup” game to (attempt to) get back at each other when we feel we’re being beaten up too much - not necessarily the fact. My candidates: Pool or Tetris. I was undefeated at pool (screen format only - soazzi, bragging, I know), so it must be Tetris, right? Who doesn’t like Tetris? Even my dad got addicted at one point lol.

[*] I tend to pump into 'mathy' (and musical) people for some reason.

Carrom seems fun! And visually pleasant . I think I will buy or make a board or two for the kids (not mine).

P.S. Well, that was a bit crazy. Biggest poast bt you and me so far? So long I had to cut it into 'halves'. Hope it didn't overwhelm you.

 

[Azure]

Thanks (and soazzi for the belated reply). I get what you mean and I was talking about both his facial expressions while making a shot and those during a match in general . And yes, I agree he’s very, very pleasant to watch (he's probably moast famous for that, no? - even before all the slems and records) - while being himself, since he had exactly the same facial expressions and identical form when he was a kid and teenager.



Thenx again. Could you tell me which part you don’t agree with? I mean, agreeing and disagreeing doesn’t matter much, if at all, to me. I just think I will find it interesting to hear your thoughts on this.

But if the bolded part is what you mean by not agreeing, then it’s actually what I was trying to say as well - smartness and intelligence are much more subjective and abstract than they are not. So is all the talk about “this player is more intelligent than that player”, or “this player must be the most intelligent” etc.

I mean, yes, we can compare, we can have and believe in our opinions. I have mine too. But there’s simply no way of knowing it for a fact when we’re taking about their intelligence in general - on court and tennis-related stuff we should have some ideas, yes - but other than that, don’t think so. Well, fhs, we only watch them run and hit the yellow fuzzy ball over and over again.

As for my mentioning chess, soazzi, didn't mean to brag or anything. In my mind, as interesting and complicated as it is, it's still just a game and shouldn't be an indication of one's true intelligence; of course unless you're a grandmaster or can make a living by playing it.



AK and I were actually discussing just that in a bit more general term. Giveor take, EQ, CQ, AQ and more are, for the most part, more important than IQ.

Einstein, for instance, didn’t think of himself as terribly gifted:

“I have no special talents. I’m only passionately curious.”

He was more appreciative of his power of imagination; his genius ability to think abstractly then make it into something that makes sense and 'understandable; and of course, his ability to work hard with endless perseverance - the trademark and probably the decisive factor for any successful scientist (and sportsman), imho.

“I think and think for months, years. Ninety-nine conclusions are incorrect. For the hundredth time I am right.”

“Outstanding personalities are created through hard work and its results.”

So yes, it's definitely the combination of many factors, different kinds of intelligence and also one’s characters and qualities - only of course the importance of each of those Q’s shifts depends on each individual and their field imo.



I doubt I will still be here when you're in your 50's but I would love to know what you will be teaching by then. Educators fascinate me as well.

In large part we talk about the same things but I cannot think that EQ is more important than IQ. This may be true for interpersonal skills but many a great people have often lacked skills in that aspect. Recall Perelman who finally solved the Poincaré conjecture after 200 years. He was/is a recluse who refused the money and the field's medal to go back to his reclusive life with his mother. Such examples of society are actually many and they should be allowed their place in society. For me personally, I value IQ a lot.

Coming to Einstein, wasn't he the only person to use 8% of the capacity of his brain when a normal human uses less than 1%? I am sure he was being a little humble there. The man like Feynman and many of the once in a century brainiacs had stellar IQ levels. These are of course the mental giants. The elite few whose slight temperament change could have pushed them to be maniacs as well. Now, smartness is different. It is what helps us in our day to day lives. When I travel through economically superior countries, I often notice how people are not 'smart' enough. They may be super intelligent but the "survival insticts" required for a day to day existence are almost rendered useless. On the contrary a super competing environment for basic things for very existence provides for a thriving environment for honing skills, what I deem as smartness. IQ is very different from smartness.

 

[Ann]

In large part we talk about the same things but I cannot think that EQ is more important than IQ. This may be true for interpersonal skills but many a great people have often lacked skills in that aspect. Recall Perelman who finally solved the Poincaré conjecture after 200 years. He was/is a recluse who refused the money and the field's medal to go back to his reclusive life with his mother. Such examples of society are actually many and they should be allowed their place in society. For me personally, I value IQ a lot.

Coming to Einstein, wasn't he the only person to use 8% of the capacity of his brain when a normal human uses less than 1%? I am sure he was being a little humble there. The man like Feynman and many of the once in a century brainiacs had stellar IQ levels. These are of course the mental giants. The elite few whose slight temperament change could have pushed them to be maniacs as well. Now, smartness is different. It is what helps us in our day to day lives. When I travel through economically superior countries, I often notice how people are not 'smart' enough. They may be super intelligent but the "survival insticts" required for a day to day existence are almost rendered useless. On the contrary a super competing environment for basic things for very existence provides for a thriving environment for honing skills, what I deem as smartness. IQ is very different from smartness.

Azure, nice to see you back.

 

[Charleneriva]

In large part we talk about the same things but I cannot think that EQ is more important than IQ. This may be true for interpersonal skills but many a great people have often lacked skills in that aspect. Recall Perelman who finally solved the Poincaré conjecture after 200 years. He was/is a recluse who refused the money and the field's medal to go back to his reclusive life with his mother. Such examples of society are actually many and they should be allowed their place in society. For me personally, I value IQ a lot.

Coming to Einstein, wasn't he the only person to use 8% of the capacity of his brain when a normal human uses less than 1%? I am sure he was being a little humble there. The man like Feynman and many of the once in a century brainiacs had stellar IQ levels. These are of course the mental giants. The elite few whose slight temperament change could have pushed them to be maniacs as well.

I think I get what you mean and you made some very interesting points. But you might have missed that I was also saying that the importance of those Q’s depends on each individual and their field, besides their own characters and qualities.

As for Einstein and scientists like him, it’s totally possible that their IQ and intelligence are the most important factors - again, intelligence comes in different forms, not just IQ. But it’s also possible that it’s just our own assumption, no matter how logical we think our reasoning must be. Again, I don’t think we can say it for a fact. Rather, we are making our points in a discussion.

Also, just because I’m personally convinced that EQ is more important than IQ, doesn’t mean I stated it as a fact, and that it must be true for everyone. I think you might be a bit sensitive about this, probably because of your field? Just my guess.

As for the 8% and 1% numbers, I don’t think it’s enough to conclude that all of that 8% was purely IQ. Maybe because you think brain/gray matter = mainly IQ/intelligence? EQ, CQ, AQ and whatever Q they have “made up” all happen inside the brain; and they’re all different forms of intelligence, which was main point AK and I were discussing, no?

I still stand by my opinion, and take Einstein at his words. Even if he was actually being “a little humble”, that doesn’t mean I should read between the lines. I read his books and books written about him, not just some quotes. He’s not the only scientist who has/had the same opinion or say/said similar things. Plus there have been quite many who have the same level of IQ or even higher - much higher than his - there hasn’t been another Einstein, has there?

Again, it’s the combination of many factors. We sure can try our best to make the most rational and logical ‘conclusions’ and opinions. The truth lies probably somewhere in between. There’s simply no way of knowing it for a fact - a proven, scientifically proven fact.

Now, smartness is different. It is what helps us in our day to day lives. When I travel through economically superior countries, I often notice how people are not 'smart' enough. They may be super intelligent but the "survival insticts" required for a day to day existence are almost rendered useless. On the contrary a super competing environment for basic things for very existence provides for a thriving environment for honing skills, what I deem as smartness. IQ is very different from smartness.

As for IQ and smartness, I don’t think there’s that much of a clear boundary between them. Rather, it makes more sense that they often overlap than they don’t, as do other more abstract measurements.

Furthermore, IQ itself is an outdated and controversial term and test. It’s still widely misperceived as ‘intelligence’ even nowadays. I understand your examples. But I think it’s both a matter or language, expression and definition - and our different perspectives and respective fields, just like one of the points I was trying to make.

I probably better stick to poasting silly cat gifs and lame joaks though. This is a bit too heavy stuff for a troll like me.

P.S. I LOVE listening to Feynman. Even have come to love his voice.

 

[Azure]

Azure, nice to see you back.

 

[Azure]

I think I get what you mean and you made some very interesting points. But you might have missed that I was also saying that the importance of those Q’s depends on each individual and their field, besides their own characters and qualities.

As for Einstein and scientists like him, it’s totally possible that their IQ and intelligence are the most important factors - again, intelligence comes in different forms, not just IQ. But it’s also possible that it’s just our own assumption, no matter how logical we think our reasoning must be. Again, I don’t think we can say it for a fact. Rather, we are making our points in a discussion.

Also, just because I’m personally convinced that EQ is more important than IQ, doesn’t mean I stated it as a fact, and that it must be true for everyone. I think you might be a bit sensitive about this, probably because of your field? Just my guess.

As for the 8% and 1% numbers, I don’t think it’s enough to conclude that all of that 8% was purely IQ. Maybe because you think brain/gray matter = mainly IQ/intelligence? EQ, CQ, AQ and whatever Q they have “made up” all happen inside the brain; and they’re all different forms of intelligence, which was main point AK and I were discussing, no?

I still stand by my opinion, and take Einstein at his words. Even if he was actually being “a little humble”, that doesn’t mean I should read between the lines. I read his books and books written about him, not just some quotes. He’s not the only scientist who has/had the same opinion or say/said similar things. Plus there have been quite many who have the same level of IQ or even higher - much higher than his - there hasn’t been another Einstein, has there?

Again, it’s the combination of many factors. We sure can try our best to make the most rational and logical ‘conclusions’ and opinions. The truth lies probably somewhere in between. There’s simply no way of knowing it for a fact - a proven, scientifically proven fact.



As for IQ and smartness, I don’t think there’s that much of a clear boundary between them. Rather, it makes more sense that they often overlap than they don’t, as do other more abstract measurements.

Furthermore, IQ itself is an outdated and controversial term and test. It’s still widely misperceived as ‘intelligence’ even nowadays. I understand your examples. But I think it’s both a matter or language, expression and definition - and our different perspectives and respective fields, just like one of the points I was trying to make.

I probably better stick to poasting silly cat gifs and lame joaks though. This is a bit too heavy stuff for a troll like me.

P.S. I LOVE listening to Feynman. Even have come to love his voice.

Haha you are right about my personality reflecting in my post. I am quite asocial in real life! What do you do in real life? That would also explain a lot about your point of view (you can message me if you don't want it on a public forum).

I understand that empathy is absolutely essential. What is a teacher without empathy for a ward entrusted onto her? What is a nurse without empathy? That said, certain individuals are without certain qualities but can offer a lot in their chosen fields if we just let them be instead of labelling them as social outcasts just because they can't express themselves on a social or emotional level.

The IQ as a test is pretty outdated considering the various exposures that suvcessive generations are given. I agree with you on that point completely.

Feynman is a personal favourite. Unlike certain mathematicians who embraced stardom and abandoned math (ahem Villani), Feynman was a physicist who loved his superstar status but primarily loved physics until his end. Plus he made physics so accessible to the general public. How can one dismiss his great contributions?

As a wise man once said, what is intelligence without wisdom?

On a side note, if you like math, please read the below article. You may understand my views as to why I do not embrace social intelligence much...

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/02/pursuit-beauty

 

[Charleneriva]

Haha you are right about my personality reflecting in my post. I am quite asocial in real life! What do you do in real life? That would also explain a lot about your point of view (you can message me if you don't want it on a public forum).

I understand that empathy is absolutely essential. What is a teacher without empathy for a ward entrusted onto her? What is a nurse without empathy? That said, certain individuals are without certain qualities but can offer a lot in their chosen fields if we just let them be instead of labelling them as social outcasts just because they can't express themselves on a social or emotional level.

♪ 'Cause we're living a world of fools
Breaking us down
When they all should let us be
So should we; let ourselves be

Who cares what they think
La la la la la la la la la... ♫

Pardon the lame singing : p. You seem to love Kader Nouni's voice (who doesn't though - that deep, booming, soothing baritone of a voice once it strikes the air and causes those tiny buddy stereocilia inside our ears to dance), so I assume you love music and probably sound in general as well. I certainly do. : )

Music is many's best friend, right? And it's always there for us, even though we're not always there for it.

Who cares what people think and label. I never do, or did - even as a little child. They don't live our lives. WTH do they know.

That said, I could feel some poignancy in your tone and choice of words when you're writing this. I admit, it was quite touching. Or maybe it was just me imagining things. But I guess there must be a whole story behind those awfully succinct words of yours.

I haven't read many of your posts, but I think you do have a way with expressing yourself, Azure.

Doesn't matter if it's only in writing, which I doubt. Words, music, interests, passions, your work and chosen field and whatever else - all of these are your way of expressing yourself. Social or emotional levels themselves are just some other labels in the bottomless sea of labels people have created. Please don't let them affect you in any way.

Of course you don't need me to tell you this, but there are always the others who can get you and connect to you and appreciate you. Quality over quantity. And most importantly, what you can offer or/help others with is what really matters, not some frivolous stuff or social bias.

I will msg you what I do sometime later. But I guess you already guess it right. : )

Feynman is a personal favourite. Unlike certain mathematicians who embraced stardom and abandoned math (ahem Villani), Feynman was a physicist who loved his superstar status but primarily loved physics until his end. Plus he made physics so accessible to the general public. How can one dismiss his great contributions?

As a wise man once said, what is intelligence without wisdom?

"Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood."
_ George Orwell

or/and to be able to understand the world, and the world of the worlds, and so on. And do something about that understanding, making something out of it.

To me that's one of the beauties of science and scientists. The very first one, that is.

Feynman's talks and some lectures are even amongst my goodnight music/sound - that tells how much I love listening to him - his unique view of things, no matter how little or random they might seem; the way he answered any question or explained anything; and so much more. Sometimes I wish there were audio versions of his autobiographies and some parts of his other books, read by him, really.

I'm very much one of those laymen in general public like you said so I'm forever grateful to science popularisers like him, Carl Sagan, David Attenborough, Brian Green (and his World Science Festival), Richard Dawkins and many more. I mostly read (could read) books by them, besides watching/listening to the talks and documentaries.

On side note, we can talk about him from time to time if you want, just probably not here. We've 'hijacked" this thread quite enough. I'm actually feeling a bit guilty to Novak fans right now.

On a side note, if you like math, please read the below article. You may understand my views as to why I do not embrace social intelligence much...

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/02/pursuit-beauty

Spoiler: a bit long

Great article. Beautiful story. Thanks, I did enjoy reading it. It's very subtle, no big words, but thought-provoking with a lot of messages and philosophy, even if one is not that interested in the maths or could not understand it. I read, then stopped, then continued reading, then stopped and so on.

Even if you hadn't given me that 'tip' and just sent me the link, Azure, I think would still get your 'message'. I was feeling like there was a lot of 'you' in that article even without knowing you. And please don't laugh, but I was also feeling like listening to a song - your song, even though it was written by someone else, about another someone else. My brain often works funnily that way.
(No, on a second thought, please laugh if you feel like it. We can't ever have enough smiles and laughters in the world, no matter how random and silly/pointless they are, can we? : ) )

Re maths, yes, I do like maths. I preferred musical notes and abstract things to numbers (no good at them methink), but I quite loved geometry and discrete maths (and physics), even if only on a very basic level.

(May sound a bit strange, but I actually studied a bit of discrete maths in college and loved it, partly thanks to my mom's making me do mathematical logic every single day when I entered middle school - the only thing she made me do, and to a lesser extent afterwards, this time by myself. But that's pretty much it, plus some *documentaries from time to time. I'm no you or ak. : )

[*]@ak24alive: You may like "The Story of Maths" series by BBC. 3/4eps available here (you can find the 1st on youtube but it's of really bad quality unfortunately):

 

[Azure]

♪ 'Cause we're living a world of fools
Breaking us down
When they all should let us be
So should we; let ourselves be

Who cares what they think
La la la la la la la la la... ♫

Pardon the lame singing : p. You seem to love Kader Nouni's voice (who doesn't though - that deep, booming, soothing baritone of a voice once it strikes the air and causes those tiny buddy stereocilia inside our ears to dance), so I assume you love music and probably sound in general as well. I certainly do. : )

Music is many's best friend, right? And it's always there for us, even though we're not always there for it.

Who cares what people think and label. I never do, or did - even as a little child. They don't live our lives. WTH do they know.

That said, I could feel some poignancy in your tone and choice of words when you're writing this. I admit, it was quite touching. Or maybe it was just me imagining things. But I guess there must be a whole story behind those awfully succinct words of yours.

I haven't read many of your posts, but I think you do have a way with expressing yourself, Azure.

Doesn't matter if it's only in writing, which I doubt. Words, music, interests, passions, your work and chosen field and whatever else - all of these are your way of expressing yourself. Social or emotional levels themselves are just some other labels in the bottomless sea of labels people have created. Please don't let them affect you in any way.

Of course you don't need me to tell you this, but there are always the others who can get you and connect to you and appreciate you. Quality over quantity. And most importantly, what you can offer or/help others with is what really matters, not some frivolous stuff or social bias.

I will msg you what I do sometime later. But I guess you already guess it right. : )



"Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood."
_ George Orwell

or/and to be able to understand the world, and the world of the worlds, and so on. And do something about that understanding, making something out of it.

To me that's one of the beauties of science and scientists. The very first one, that is.

Feynman's talks and some lectures are even amongst my goodnight music/sound - that tells how much I love listening to him - his unique view of things, no matter how little or random they might seem; the way he answered any question or explained anything; and so much more. Sometimes I wish there were audio versions of his autobiographies and some parts of his other books, read by him, really.

I'm very much one of those laymen in general public like you said so I'm forever grateful to science popularisers like him, Carl Sagan, David Attenborough, Brian Green (and his World Science Festival), Richard Dawkins and many more. I mostly read (could read) books by them, besides watching/listening to the talks and documentaries.

On side note, we can talk about him from time to time if you want, just probably not here. We've 'hijacked" this thread quite enough. I'm actually feeling a bit guilty to Novak fans right now.

Spoiler: a bit long

Great article. Beautiful story. Thanks, I did enjoy reading it. It's very subtle, no big words, but thought-provoking with a lot of messages and philosophy, even if one is not that interested in the maths or could not understand it. I read, then stopped, then continued reading, then stopped and so on.

Even if you hadn't given me that 'tip' and just sent me the link, Azure, I think would still get your 'message'. I was feeling like there was a lot of 'you' in that article even without knowing you. And please don't laugh, but I was also feeling like listening to a song - your song, even though it was written by someone else, about another someone else. My brain often works funnily that way.
(No, on a second thought, please laugh if you feel like it. We can't ever have enough smiles and laughters in the world, no matter how random and silly/pointless they are, can we? : ) )

Re maths, yes, I do like maths. I preferred musical notes and abstract things to numbers (no good at them methink), but I quite loved geometry and discrete maths (and physics), even if only on a very basic level.

(May sound a bit strange, but I actually studied a bit of discrete maths in college and loved it, partly thanks to my mom's making me do mathematical logic every single day when I entered middle school - the only thing she made me do, and to a lesser extent afterwards, this time by myself. But that's pretty much it, plus some *documentaries from time to time. I'm no you or ak. : )

[*]@ak24alive: You may like "The Story of Maths" series by BBC. 3/4eps available here (you can find the 1st on youtube but it's of really bad quality unfortunately):

Firstly, sorry for my delayed responses. I am traveling and I need to log on to a computer to type anything beyond a line or two! Secondly, thank you for your post. It was lovely to read.

So you like music, I wouldn't want to know a person who wouldn't! Its such a coincidence that I am reading this right after I listened to a lovely live piano session for two hours. Music has the ability to transcend so many emotions. Needless to say, I am in excellent spirits right now.

Feynman, Sagan, Freud, Attenborough...we can keep talking about them and would have successfully derailed this thread

I prefer logic to math though because it cuts across various fields of science - math, physics, chemistry and even philosophy. Its a beautiful subject and something that has makes so much sense and has progressively helped mankind over the centuries.

Do drop by on other posts. If I find an interesting soul like you to yap on with, I will be more motivated to check out this forum

 

[Charleneriva]

Firstly, sorry for my delayed responses. I am traveling and I need to log on to a computer to type anything beyond a line or two! Secondly, thank you for your post. It was lovely to read.

That was really nice and polite of you. It put a smile on my face so thank you too . Hope you’re having / had a fantastic trip.
(I was getting carried away a bit though so I'm glad that you didn’t laugh.)

And of course, my apologies for the very turtle speed of mine. I should probably get myself one of these, no?

So you like music, I wouldn't want to know a person who wouldn't! Its such a coincidence that I am reading this right after I listened to a lovely live piano session for two hours. Music has the ability to transcend so many emotions. Needless to say, I am in excellent spirits right now.

Everybody likes music. I mean love, as in love love - music and sound.

Currently it’s jazz vibraphone that is filling the air around me - very loungy. Please tell me more about that transcending piano session. I image it was classical in an intimate setting. I love pretty much everything (can’t help myself) but classical music alway has the most special place in my heart.

For piano though, I’ve been ventured more towards jazz for many years. Something like this (2:35) and freer, more radical, more dissonant, more spontaneous. (The whole thing btw is worth watching though if you haven’t - I just adore the ‘scientist’, I mean, composer.)

I prefer logic to math though because it cuts across various fields of science - math, physics, chemistry and even philosophy. Its a beautiful subject and something that has makes so much sense and has progressively helped mankind over the centuries.

That’s very well put. I agree with every word. The RS's motto “Take nobody's word for it”, or “Think for yourself” - my own ‘version’ - is indeed my life motto, besides “Kindness saves the world”.

On a side note, that brings me back to an earlier poast of yours where you said you often saw that people are not smart enough in 'superior countries'. In my view, in superior countries or not, it’s not so much that they aren’t smart enough as they often don’t think for themselves enough - and this is where EQ comes to play, or in other words, they very much often overlap, those Q’s we were hijacking this thread with.

And when that combines with big ego and low/not-high-enough self-esteem - which, even though may sound contradicting at first, is actually a very, very common combo from my observation - all kinds of problems would tend to arise.

Feynman, Sagan, Freud, Attenborough...we can keep talking about them and would have successfully derailed this thread

Do drop by on other posts. If I find an interesting soul like you to yap on with, I will be more motivated to check out this forum

I think we already have.
And thank you. That’s very nice and kind of you. Likewsise. : )

Spoiler

I’m not a fan of Freud tbh. And I know I can easily just stop hijacking the thread and continue the discussion in a convo, group or private. It’s just I'm now pretty much retired from all that - back to being a “lone wolf” like a poaster here once poetically put it - free as a bird, no strings attached. It was never my intention to get involved in anything or with anyone anyway; things just happened along the way.

That said, I do have ‘friends’ from here but we don’t rely on this site to communicate. At some point if we both want it, I will give you my personal contact so when we feel like it, we can ‘yap’ on with each other more 'timely' and free of 'guilt' for derailing threads. But of course, it must come naturally. For now, I hope my turtle speed on here doesn’t bother you too much. And again, thanks for the very nice response. Happy World Smile Day. : )

 

[Zara]

Nice post. I was referring to his face while making the shot though. He is not bereft of emotions which was more Sampras like but the mere faces he makes while executing the shots which actually is pleasant to watch.

Sampras deliberately kept his emotion out of the tennis court. It wasn't all that necessary to show emotion but more importantly, it was a strategy not to show emotion to his opponents as he saw it as a sign of weakness as a player. Your opponents would be all over you if they could smell blood especially when you're against some worthy opponents. He's greatly known for his clutchness for a reason.

 

[Zara]

There are different kinds of intelligence and the older I get, the more I realise that EQ is convincingly more important than IQ; and just as important are CQ and AQ - on which I have no doubt our top tennis players would score very very high, much to many's tendency to dismiss them and athletes in general as "less intelligent" than the, yeah, generically academic ones - aka themselves.

My closest friends at school back in the day swung from the perceivingly smartest/top students to the most "delinquent" or academically not-so-bright ones. Believe me, even then I saw very little difference in what I myself perceived as intelligence, talent and capability between them, which was then more or less "proved" by their career+life choices and success as an adult.

My sister, for example, would smoke the boys at maths and certainly was a very good chess player. But she's not the best at writing/language and, say, CQ. I would say overall some of my streetsmart or musical friends are "smarter" than her.

But really, all in all over time the perception of smart and intelligence would fade and many other aspects of life would fill in, as they should. I think most often being and being perceived as smart and "cool" are way overrated. It's much more subjective than it's not. I rather look at the real actions and works/results and progressions over time than the so-called, often romanticised/idealised, "natural talent". That's also how I see "talent" in tennis players, as well as the very much subjective and even much more "abstract" intelligence of theirs.

And to shamelessly quote Eistein again:

Spoiler

Do you play chess? Was more of an annoying *artsypants myself but I used to take on the commonly perceived as "smartest" students (aka the one who were the best at maths and natural science subjects) in class and in+off school on chess and some other puzzle games. Later it was IT, maths, medicine students mostly and older. Admittedly haven't played much for quite time though so you might very well bagel me if we played right now. But history tells me I tend to get there in the end.
(Nah, don't get me wrong. I wasn't that competitive or "arrogant". Just enjoyed some competition, challenge, and fun. And yes, I admitted this comment of yours did trigger that part of me a little bit. )

*Scientists are my favourite heroes though.

I think talent and intelligence are two very different things though both inborn (especially talent) If your sister is very good at math then this would mean she's very talented in math. In other words, she was born with it. It comes very naturally to her etc.

Intelligence is something different as it applies more in the generic sense - like being streetsmart or outsmarting a situation etc. whereas a talent is very specific; for example, Federer can be seen as a talented tennis player but that doesn't necessarily mean he's intelligent as well.

 

[Azure]

That was really nice and polite of you. It put a smile on my face so thank you too . Hope you’re having / had a fantastic trip.
(I was getting carried away a bit though so I'm glad that you didn’t laugh.)

And of course, my apologies for the very turtle speed of mine. I should probably get myself one of these, no?

Everybody likes music. I mean love, as in love love - music and sound.

Currently it’s jazz vibraphone that is filling the air around me - very loungy. Please tell me more about that transcending piano session. I image it was classical in an intimate setting. I love pretty much everything (can’t help myself) but classical music alway has the most special place in my heart.

For piano though, I’ve been ventured more towards jazz for many years. Something like this (2:35) and freer, more radical, more dissonant, more spontaneous. (The whole thing btw is worth watching though if you haven’t - I just adore the ‘scientist’, I mean, composer.)

That’s very well put. I agree with every word. The RS's motto “Take nobody's word for it”, or “Think for yourself” - my own ‘version’ - is indeed my life motto, besides “Kindness saves the world”.

On a side note, that brings me back to an earlier poast of yours where you said you often saw that people are not smart enough in 'superior countries'. In my view, in superior countries or not, it’s not so much that they aren’t smart enough as they often don’t think for themselves enough - and this is where EQ comes to play, or in other words, they very much often overlap, those Q’s we were hijacking this thread with.

And when that combines with big ego and low/not-high-enough self-esteem - which, even though may sound contradicting at first, is actually a very, very common combo from my observation - all kinds of problems would tend to arise.

I think we already have.
And thank you. That’s very nice and kind of you. Likewsise. : )

Spoiler

I’m not a fan of Freud tbh. And I know I can easily just stop hijacking the thread and continue the discussion in a convo, group or private. It’s just I'm now pretty much retired from all that - back to being a “lone wolf” like a poaster here once poetically put it - free as a bird, no strings attached. It was never my intention to get involved in anything or with anyone anyway; things just happened along the way.

That said, I do have ‘friends’ from here but we don’t rely on this site to communicate. At some point if we both want it, I will give you my personal contact so when we feel like it, we can ‘yap’ on with each other more 'timely' and free of 'guilt' for derailing threads. But of course, it must come naturally. For now, I hope my turtle speed on here doesn’t bother you too much. And again, thanks for the very nice response. Happy World Smile Day. : )

It was a beautiful setting that I had. It was an impromptu cozy setting - think books with you know the ancient smell, a cat prancing around and 5 of us sitting around a pianist playing in zen state. This moment is for life The guy played Chopin and softly drifted to Wonderwall! It was quite amazing. Coming to jazz, I must book a jazz show the next time I am traveling I think. I would really like that! Thanks for the hint.

I am all for slow living - I don't mind the posts coming in late. In this era of instant messaging, we've lost the art of longing for the postcard or letter from a friend from the other side of the river so to speak. What's life full of care indeed?

Logic is amazing. See how we use it in our modern technology with coding and programing! As to being yourself, was it Oscar Wilde who said "Be yourself, everyone is already taken" or something along the lines?

My smartness reference was with respect to this - in an economy that struggles for survival, it is ultimately the survival of the fittest. The smartest one gets the bread for the day sort of. In a society that satiates at least the basic necessities quite easily, it does not come as a surprise that people do not have to go into multiple levels of thinking to just rough out the day. So there are three things - smartness for survival, intelligence for progress and wisdom for realisation. Most of humanity actually does not figure in these discussions. Mere mundane bi-ped animals. Amongst the ones who think beyond the usuals, most languish in the smartness-o-meter. After all, it is required for very sustenance and sometimes to outsmart your rivals (think of a job setting or getting into a super crowded train). The gifted ones are intelligent - they actually are the ones that help society and economy does not, in my humble opinion, have anything to do with this natural gift. These are a few in society. The wise ones are the rarest. They are treasures of a society. They see beyond material and societal satisfaction. It can, I believe, be a developed quality, but it requires incredible patience and humility.

Ah you've raised another topic! Why do you not like Freud? If you ever get a chance, do visit his museum in Salzburg (I think, not sure if I saw it in Vienna or Salzburg). It was simply amazing to me.

PS: I don't know how to separate out quotes and introduce spoilers...i write my posts just like an email

 

[Charleneriva]

I think talent and intelligence are two very different things though both inborn (especially talent) If your sister is very good at math then this would mean she's very talented in math. In other words, she was born with it. It comes very naturally to her etc.

Intelligence is something different as it applies more in the generic sense - like being streetsmart or outsmarting a situation etc. whereas a talent is very specific; for example, Federer can be seen as a talented tennis player but that doesn't necessarily mean he's intelligent as well.

I think those terms are much more flexible than that and how big a part being born with those qualities play for a person to be perceived as such is a matter of some dispute.

My sister is a natural in maths, yes. But that doesn’t mean she wouldn’t have to work her azz off to be able to really achieve anything in maths or maths-related, as is the case with actual geniuses. After all, we only have results as the most quantifiable and reliable factor to assess their talents/intelligence, right?

Those geniuses in fact tend to be the ones who work the hardest, are the most single-minded and obsessive with tremendous dedication and perseverance - not necessarily the ones who were born with the most incredible talents or minds (think the real Rain Man, Kim Peek, for example). And that is where talent and intelligence - again, there are different forms of it - cross and enhance each other. There’s simply no exact science in all this. I firmly believe things overlap much more often than they don’t.

Federer can be seen as a talented tennis player but that doesn't necessarily mean he's intelligent as well.

Fed is very talented in tennis - no doubt about that. But describing him as only talented is a huge understatement to him as a tennis player imo.

Like many other ‘naturally talented’ players, his talents alone wouldn’t have got him anywhere if he hadn’t got his mind and other certain qualities. Tennis is very much like the game of chess, only much more physical and athletic obviously : ) - you don’t see talented players with seemingly so much potential that people like to idealise and romanticise but lacking in the tennis IQ department, or EQ/AQ, at the very top, let alone in the history book, let alone arguably being the goat, as much as I don’t believe in a definite goat and take part in those pointless goat (and fan) wars.

So yes, I do think he and other ATGs are also very intelligent, not just talented - maybe not very much in IQ but surely EQ and AQ, for the lack of the ultimate terms to refer to intelligence; and even CQ as well - as in they quite often have to improvise on court themselves - goat or not, they still have to actually play the match against an actual human player with a lot of variables involved.

Talent alone just doesn’t cut it, not just in tennis. You said one has to be streetsmart and outsmarting in a situation to be perceived as being intelligent - well, that is exactly that, no? On the street or court - I don’t think it matters or differs that much. Also, it can also be said that they have lead very successful lives in general - if that is not ‘streetsmart’, or even bigger and more important, ‘lifesmart’, I don’t know what is, even though it’s true that they are also lucky and have received a lot of help from others.

All in all I think we can discuss/debate this all day and it will still only go like this: : )

 

[Charleneriva]

It was a beautiful setting that I had. It was an impromptu cozy setting - think books with you know the ancient smell, a cat prancing around and 5 of us sitting around a pianist playing in zen state. This moment is for life The guy played Chopin and softly drifted to Wonderwall! It was quite amazing. Coming to jazz, I must book a jazz show the next time I am traveling I think. I would really like that! Thanks for the hint.

Wonderwall? Haha. I’m grinning wide right now. How amusing. Unexpected. And lovely too. I love the whole thing already just by hearing about it. Please describe things more when you feel like it. : )

So the setting was indeed as intimate, dreamy and wonderful as it gets. And of course the music too. Yes, such moments are for life - and they never fail to inspire and keep us going no matter what.

Spoiler: jazz

It’s all your fault though now that I’m really, really craving for some live music and it’s only frigging Monday (overflowing into Tuesday; and I love Mondays). And speaking of which, jazz is my favourite when it comes to everything live and jam. Just irresistible. Next time you can just spontaneously walk into any jazz club and let the whole atmosphere and the free-spirited musicians do the rest for you, Azure. You don’t need big names, you don’t need fancy dresses and all those etiquettes. Just relax, and get inspired. : )

Also it doesn’t have to be the next time you travel. It’s very likely there’re already at least some jazz clubs where you’re living. I used to live just a very short walk from a fascinating one. Needless to say, I spent as much of my time there as I did at home, maybe even more. Oh and there was a lovely cinema just across the street as well. Those late nights after everything was done...

Okay, I’m getting carried away again. Soazzi about that. Even if you’re not that into jazz (yet), I’m sure you will love the distinctive atmosphere and trademark ‘impromptuness'/spontaneity of live jazz. Plus jazz musicians and singers are at least very skilful too. All in all I’m just glad that you wan to try it. : )

I am all for slow living - I don't mind the posts coming in late. In this era of instant messaging, we've lost the art of longing for the postcard or letter from a friend from the other side of the river so to speak. What's life full of care indeed?

<3

As to being yourself, was it Oscar Wilde who said "Be yourself, everyone is already taken" or something along the lines?

Yes, it was. A very famous quote. : )
I also like “In a world where you can be anything, be kind” by, ahem, the Internet, and “Strive to become not a successful person, but a decent human” by, okay, youknowwho. : )

Also:

My smartness reference was with respect to this - in an economy that struggles for survival, it is ultimately the survival of the fittest. The smartest one gets the bread for the day sort of. In a society that satiates at least the basic necessities quite easily, it does not come as a surprise that people do not have to go into multiple levels of thinking to just rough out the day. So there are three things - smartness for survival, intelligence for progress and wisdom for realisation. Most of humanity actually does not figure in these discussions. Mere mundane bi-ped animals. Amongst the ones who think beyond the usuals, most languish in the smartness-o-meter. After all, it is required for very sustenance and sometimes to outsmart your rivals (think of a job setting or getting into a super crowded train). The gifted ones are intelligent - they actually are the ones that help society and economy does not, in my humble opinion, have anything to do with this natural gift. These are a few in society. The wise ones are the rarest. They are treasures of a society. They see beyond material and societal satisfaction. It can, I believe, be a developed quality, but it requires incredible patience and humility.

Bolded: And kindness. I know I’m repeating myself, but I think being kind and being the receiving end of kindness can help us grow so much and humble us in a profound and special way. We can lose some of our intelligence and sharpness - most often more so with memory; we can become grumpier and oversentimental as we get old and older; but I'm sure the acts of kindness and their impact will always be there to stay.

What I remember most from my childhood - and I remember a lot of things from those days - is just that - kindness - from my family and my dogs, from my teachers and friends, the farmers, the patients, the orphans and homeless, the books (those like Sans Famille and Totto-chan and many more) - not even the arts and music and all the fun that I loved and enjoyed so much. They were all my most important teachers growing up.

That said, I think I get what you mean and agree will all of it, particularly the bolded parts - again, very well put. : )

Ah you've raised another topic! Why do you not like Freud? If you ever get a chance, do visit his museum in Salzburg (I think, not sure if I saw it in Vienna or Salzburg). It was simply amazing to me.

Vienna. I have visited other museums but not that one. Will do : ).

Spoiler: rant again

Museums are HUGE to me. They’re usually the first places I want to visit each time I go somewhere - often multiple times or all day. I would photograph + film pretty much the whole museum I like/love if permitted - a bit of creating a ‘virtual museum’ of my own to revisit every time I want. I also ‘record’ and visualise them in my mind - a part of my visual memory practice actually.

Well, this topic is HUGE to me. I’m feeling a bit ‘claustrophobic’ right now having to cram quite many things into this ‘little’ thread while also trying to be more succinct than usual, out of feeling guilty for hijacking it (with only little success).

As for Freud, I find some of his theories and studies rather ridiculous, even absurd; and his attitude toward women rather condescending, though it’s understandable that as brilliant as he was, he was also a man of his time like most back then.

Another reason, and I admit it’s personal and subjective, is how I remember my mom finally decided to get rid of his books (which were almost always by her side at home - the sight that to this day is still engraved in my mind very vividly). She then read ‘How to Stop Worrying and Start Living’ instead and pretty much turned things around in a time that was very tough for us.

Logic is amazing. See how we use it in our modern technology with coding and programing!

PS: I don't know how to separate out quotes and introduce spoilers...i write my posts just like an email

Okay. I admit that was really cute.

The spoiler thingy is very simple, just a bit of BBCode (Bulletin Board Code) (since you mentioned ‘coding’ : p); or rather, tagging:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?help/bb-codes

You can also just select the text and click on the spoiler button located beside the Save one. Personally I always type the tags myself. Old habit from the html days.

To separate out quotes, just copy the *head quote tag with the quoted username and poast+user#'s, cut out the text you want to quote then sandwich it between * and the tail tag [/QUOTE]. Simple, right? Now give a me candy.

[Sorry to everyone for derailing the thread again.]

 

[Azure]

Wonderwall? Haha. I’m grinning wide right now. How amusing. Unexpected. And lovely too. I love the whole thing already just by hearing about it. Please describe things more when you feel like it. : )

So the setting was indeed as intimate, dreamy and wonderful as it gets. And of course the music too. Yes, such moments are for life - and they never fail to inspire and keep us going no matter what.

Spoiler: jazz

It’s all your fault though now that I’m really, really craving for some live music and it’s only frigging Monday (overflowing into Tuesday; and I love Mondays). And speaking of which, jazz is my favourite when it comes to everything live and jam. Just irresistible. Next time you can just spontaneously walk into any jazz club and let the whole atmosphere and the free-spirited musicians do the rest for you, Azure. You don’t need big names, you don’t need fancy dresses and all those etiquettes. Just relax, and get inspired. : )

Also it doesn’t have to be the next time you travel. It’s very likely there’re already at least some jazz clubs where you’re living. I used to live just a very short walk from a fascinating one. Needless to say, I spent as much of my time there as I did at home, maybe even more. Oh and there was a lovely cinema just across the street as well. Those late nights after everything was done...

Okay, I’m getting carried away again. Soazzi about that. Even if you’re not that into jazz (yet), I’m sure you will love the distinctive atmosphere and trademark ‘impromptuness'/spontaneity of live jazz. Plus jazz musicians and singers are at least very skilful too. All in all I’m just glad that you wan to try it. : )

<3



Yes, it was. A very famous quote. : )
I also like “In a world where you can be anything, be kind” by, ahem, the Internet, and “Strive to become not a successful person, but a decent human” by, okay, youknowwho. : )

Also:

Bolded: And kindness. I know I’m repeating myself, but I think being kind and being the receiving end of kindness can help us grow so much and humble us in a profound and special way. We can lose some of our intelligence and sharpness - most often more so with memory; we can become grumpier and oversentimental as we get old and older; but I'm sure the acts of kindness and their impact will always be there to stay.

What I remember most from my childhood - and I remember a lot of things from those days - is just that - kindness - from my family and my dogs, from my teachers and friends, the farmers, the patients, the orphans and homeless, the books (those like Sans Famille and Totto-chan and many more) - not even the arts and music and all the fun that I loved and enjoyed so much. They were all my most important teachers growing up.

That said, I think I get what you mean and agree will all of it, particularly the bolded parts - again, very well put. : )



Vienna. I have visited other museums but not that one. Will do : ).

Spoiler: rant again

Museums are HUGE to me. They’re usually the first places I want to visit each time I go somewhere - often multiple times or all day. I would photograph + film pretty much the whole museum I like/love if permitted - a bit of creating a ‘virtual museum’ of my own to revisit every time I want. I also ‘record’ and visualise them in my mind - a part of my visual memory practice actually.

Well, this topic is HUGE to me. I’m feeling a bit ‘claustrophobic’ right now having to cram quite many things into this ‘little’ thread while also trying to be more succinct than usual, out of feeling guilty for hijacking it (with only little success).

As for Freud, I find some of his theories and studies rather ridiculous, even absurd; and his attitude toward women rather condescending, though it’s understandable that as brilliant as he was, he was also a man of his time like most back then.

Another reason, and I admit it’s personal and subjective, is how I remember my mom finally decided to get rid of his books (which were almost always by her side at home - the sight that to this day is still engraved in my mind very vividly). She then read ‘How to Stop Worrying and Start Living’ instead and pretty much turned things around in a time that was very tough for us.




Okay. I admit that was really cute.

The spoiler thingy is very simple, just a bit of BBCode (Bulletin Board Code) (since you mentioned ‘coding’ : p); or rather, tagging:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?help/bb-codes

You can also just select the text and click on the spoiler button located beside the Save one. Personally I always type the tags myself. Old habit from the html days.

To separate out quotes, just copy the *head quote tag with the quoted username and poast+user#'s, cut out the text you want to quote then sandwich it between * and the tail tag

. Simple, right? Now give a me candy.

[Sorry to everyone for derailing the thread again.][/QUOTE]


For now let me stick to mere whole text quoting

Kindness is of course important and why we are still humans! I think we have agreed on almost everything here. That's zen

Now to Freud...yes, I agree he was a man of his times as far as his social consciousness goes. That said, he was also very revolutionary in his findings, which of course no one will deny. Reminds me of Gogol. I used to like his works until I found anti-semitism in his works. I was quite taken aback but then I also found out that he was involved positively in the Dreyfus affair. If you aren't familiar: https://www.history.com/news/what-was-the-dreyfus-affair Gogol was one of the few people of his time opposed to France. What I am getting at is that, we usually form opinions about people and despite reading a lot about them or knowing their works, we really do not know them as a person.

Short post from me this time!