trenton

For the past three days I was in Columbus competing in a chess tournament. I noticed an interesting trend in my performance as the tournament progressed. I wrote down my mission statement to fight for a win always and to be fully focused at my peak performance. The first game I dominated easily and was fully focused. The second game I was slightly less focused and frustrated to finally breakthrough and win. The third game I started having a harder time focusing toward the end, but still pulled out a win leaving me with 3 points. The fourth game I was full of anxiety and struggled to focus for the middle game. I was unable to use my advantage and my opponent got a draw. The fifth game was painful. I had stomach aches, a high temperature, was sweating, and has a hard time calculating simple tactics. It is amazing that I got a draw, but I was annoyed to have missed my winning chances in the last important games to secure clear first place. The final results is that I tied for first or second, but I can't tell which right now. During the tournament I had a hard time telling if I was hungry or not, and it was not until the tournament ended that I realized I did not eat dinner in two days. I also needed to go to the bathroom constantly, and in future games I will need to control this level of stress in order to ensure consistent peak performance. The most counter intuitive part is that focusing too much on winning a tournament decreases winning chances. It is helpful to see the entire process as a full machine and if one part falls apart so does the rest of the machine even if one particular piece is perfect. I managed to get a lot of good information about stress management for the next tournament.

@Commodent That is exactly what happened when I played against an opponent who was significantly stronger than me. I built up a good advantage against him, and then I started rushing an attack instead of building up slowly.

@Serotoninluv I think you described the flow state very well. This happened to me in several other chess games. My idea is that if I enter the flow state you described consistently, then I could get good results, but when I am thinking about these things it does not help.

@Elisabeth that is correct. The tournament went on for three days.

I have a question about a proposed policy to see if it would be a good idea or not. The initial premise of this proposal is that it is possible for a big corporation to calculate the consequences of a lawsuit and run a cost benefit analysis to see if it can still profit by corrupt business practices such as lying about a product's effectiveness for example. If a corporation calculates that they will make 500 million dollars from lying a product, but that they will only be sued 200 million dollars, then this can be used to exploit the criminal justice system. The proposed policy is punish those who exploit the criminal justice system much more harshly, such that the profit is only a fraction of the fine rather than the other way around. One example to achieve this would be to present evidence to the court that the lawsuits were calculated. The punishment for this would be to negate the cost benefit analysis by multiplying the profit by 2 and using this fine to make the cost benefit analysis clearly against any CEO's best interest. In this example the company would be sued 1 billion dollars instead. The exact number is arbitrary, but it does not matter so long as the fine is high enough to deter this practice. I recognize that the charges could be high enough to ruin a business entirely, but the goal is tho deter this practice and improve the integrity of the court system in which the lawsuits take place. I have a few questions about this proposal. What are some of the possible drawbacks? Is this idea effective at reducing some white collar crimes? If it is a good idea, what would it take to make a policy like this into a common law? From my point of view it seems like a simple and promising solution, but if I see this idea too simplistically, I may be overlooking something.

@WelcometoReality if you mean emptiness that comes from not knowing, there is a mixture initially. Some crying and fear that is hard to explain followed by laughter. Otherwise, I can laugh at whatever comes to mind after darting off in many directions until I find something to laugh at. I don't need to be afraid of emptiness if my fears are not really justified.

Recently, I had two insights. The first was that all models are absurd because they are representations of reality and therefore not true except for the model itself. The second was that in order to be fully open minded, I am open to the possibility that everything i believe is wrong. This entails that I know nothing and true open mindedness comes from the stance of not knowing. In exploring the full implications and entire slippery slope of not knowing anything, I struggle to grasp the full significance of not knowing. It means I don't know what to do about knowing. I don't know if actualized.org is delusional or not and same with me. How can I tell if I am delusional or not with this glimpse, and if I am not what are the full ramifications of not knowing?

I wanted to mention the fear I constantly feel. When not knowing, I become very uncomfortable. This leads my mind to darting off in a million directions. When I find any one thing, my mind then runs on a loop repeatedly about the one point. After laughing for a bit, I realize that nothing is coming from this thought loop, and then I become threatened again causing the whole situation to reset. Good observation.

That makes a lot more sense. I keep assuming a right and wrong, but I don't know if there is such a thing. In fact this assumption causes a lot of suffering because there is always doubt when I assume that there is a right. Even if I could convince everybody I was right in the back of my mind I still have doubt about it, and I feel like I'm never right. This makes it pointless for me to debate people because I am only suppressing my own self doubt the whole time.