Conflict

This essay is all about why I suck at Chess.

Conflict

I have never been good at arguing.

I tend to lose the plot completely when arguing any case. This is partly due to the fact that I am rarely prepared with more than one statement in my favour. I never really plan responses and will often lose easy arguments to the person who has done a quick Google search up his or her own arse. I will probably never be a good chess player for this very reason. I don’t think ahead.

But that’s not really the whole truth.

In my own time, when I’m alone and bored, I can evaluate almost any view point and prove beyond reasonable doubt, with or without evidence, and using various levels of interpretation, its validity.

I do think things through. Forwards, backwards and even bloody sideways. I think things through to a level of interpretation such that even if someone could manage to raise an argument against the viewpoint I so jovially created, I would deem it invalid by default due to the improbability of such an argument existing. Yet I never manage to communicate these viewpoints after I have explored them, and will seemingly deliberately forget them and accept whatever psychobabble is chucked my way by some ‘well-read’ prat.

I think it’s because I don’t really get offended by arguments. I tend to practise playing with differing ideas when I hear them, and my highly agreeable nature ensures that neither I nor Mr Lunk will ever walk away feeling upset after a discussion about religion, identity politics or even my preferred toppings on a pizza.

It’s only when my friends argue with people, that I truly take part in a discussion.

I tend to argue in favour of people I like when it is required of me. This isn’t too difficult to understand. The more support you give to the social group you belong to, the higher your relative value to the group. I will stand for the ideas my friends have, argue their cases, moderate their discussions and supply them with knowledge about any topic I have knowledge of, if they have trouble debating it within the group, or in other social interactions.

This means, unfortunately, that I am not a natural ‘leader-of-the-peoples’ as I seem to require a person, or group, to support and defend in order to be most useful. If not disqualifying me for a leadership role then, certainly, my necessity for a group structure in which to provide support, due to my fundamentally agreeable nature and willingness to assist those who need help, will certainly limit my leadership capabilities. At least until I have identified a cause that better deserves my attention, and evokes a desire for action and conflict which surpasses the fulfilling role of assisting those I care about or work with. Nevertheless, while I might never be a figurehead of a social hierarchy, I can carry a heavy cognitive load and make the true figurehead stand that much taller.

On the whole I truly don’t mind being a conflict averse person on an individual level. Helping my friends win their battles gives me the confidence to keep on learning. This is mainly because I know that I will have a valuable position in any competence hierarchy which requires of a person to pick up the leader’s slack, and get along with people. Which is almost all competence hierarchies.

I will never be good at chess though.

I don’t even know the rules.