I’ve been recently reading a paper on mate rejection, a stringent one Kelly, A. J., Dubbs, S. L., & Barlow, F. K. (2016). An Evolutionary Perspective on Mate Rejection. Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior, 14(4), 1474704916678626. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704916678626 . Rejection hurts much. Two primitive reasons for feeling bad about being rejects are both correlated to a tribal human nature of being an anomaly, useless overload inside a community (which is relatively applicable to position-related rejections). In a more tribal context this should give us a sense of danger that we are in a precarious situation and we have to resolve it immediately (that is probably our ’feeling bad’ of rejection). An ubiquitous example (an examined one) is the famous cyberball study by K. D. Williams Williams, K.D., Jarvis, B. Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods 38, 174–180 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192765 . Understanding this shall help you to understand that it is a little bit passable pain; it’s a reflex action of our human nature.

However, and I wish I’ve learned this earlier, getting rejected in many cases implies an inconsistent self-estimation status if, and only if, it was a non-stroke-of-luck proposal. What I mean by that is proposals should lay as win-win situations for both sides which is a very basic concept of bartering (this is not always very applicable in some other types of proposals, as of relationships). Getting rejected in a dumb trail proposal (or as people stupidly promoting it: “just give it a try you won’t lose anything”) doesn’t mean much, it might be a passable hurt for any sides because it’s just a wasted time (the rejected party shall feel more hurt, due its fragile nature) on the other hand, non-dumb proposals I believe are much malicious because—as prementioned-it probably reveals invalid self-perception which is very dangerous, in my opinion.

Unlike the majority of (pseudo)intellectuals, I acknowledge the existence of by-nature-stupid, low-IQ, individuals. they are out there, they live with us, in some places they present the preponderance of the average IQ.

Here is my successful contrivance that worked successfully with many stupid people (note that it’s necessary to have such a skill to handle those creatures, you will have to deal with them in your life after all) I think that the most effective way to teach them how to think, is by teaching them thinking before they actually try to think. And this worked very fine with me, I’m not referring only to the mental effect that I noticed but the way I tried to approach it was much more appropriate to them than trying to teach them real knowledge or thinking methodologies which always implied to them how stupid I think they are, instead I just ask them (in spiel of course) to think before they think about something: shall I think about this? Am I really qualified to trust my thoughts’ conclusion of this very topic? It’s a very basic method and I can confirm it yields very fine even in smarter people.

I’m currently interesting in doing some personal work in chess programming. I noticed a common pattern, that is after passing 1800~2300 in a chess rating system (like Glicko), chess basically transforms into a job related to memorization and psychological gaming instead of abstraction and observation, and that’s what basically high-rated players depend on, the game is no longer a game. Take the last Tata Steel Masters tournament as an example, in Parham Maghsoodloo vs. Magnus Carlsen game https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2457693 , people has noticed an inaccuracy in Magnus’ playing that is 7. 🨃h4 🨃g4 which doesn’t make sense to many players, Magnus won the game and he was asked about this move, he said that he wanted to ’surprise’ Maghsoodloo, so Maghsoodloo probably played that King’s Indian Defense thousands of times and he memorizes the position very well, breaking this glibness in his playing would gave Magnus more advantage, not because he played a better move but he tried to break the opponent’s memorization. Another player John Bartholomew has a strategy in playing blitz games that is to make the opponent think so they lose time and you win by time, even if this mean doing a stupid move like losing the queen, the opponent shall think “is there a checkmate that is hiding?”, so basically using the clock as a Weapon.