A spiritual Ishmaelite

chess theory and cruel optimism

Cruel optimism, a concept introduced by Lauren Berlant, refers to the way people can become attached to unrealistic aspirations and desires that are ultimately harmful to them. In the context of chess theory, cruel optimism can be seen in the way players can become attached to certain strategies or moves that they know are risky, but which they continue to pursue because of their strong desire to win.

For example, a player may become attached to a particular opening strategy, even though they know that it leaves them vulnerable to certain counter-moves. They may continue to use this strategy, hoping that their opponent will not be able to exploit its weaknesses. This is a form of cruel optimism because it is based on the false hope that their strategy will succeed, even though they know it is risky.

Another example of cruel optimism in chess theory is the way players can become attached to certain types of moves or tactics, even when they are not appropriate for the current game situation. This can lead to a failure to adapt to changing circumstances, as the player continues to pursue a strategy that is no longer effective.

Ultimately, the problem with cruel optimism in chess theory is that it can lead to a failure to objectively assess the situation and make rational decisions. Instead, players become attached to certain moves or strategies, even when they are not the best options available. This can lead to costly mistakes and lost games.

To avoid falling victim to cruel optimism in chess theory, players must be willing to adapt to changing circumstances and objectively evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their moves and strategies. They must be willing to abandon their favorite tactics when they are not effective and explore new options. By doing so, they can avoid becoming attached to unrealistic aspirations and desires that ultimately harm their performance.

write a story about it in context of a research university in a passive aggressive society

In a research university located in a passive-aggressive society, the faculty members were often caught up in a cruel optimism when it came to academic competition. Each professor was determined to be the best in their respective field and would go to great lengths to achieve this goal.

One professor, Dr. Smith, was particularly attached to a certain research methodology that he believed was the key to success in his field. He would use this methodology in all of his research, even though he knew it had certain weaknesses and limitations. His colleagues would often point out these weaknesses, but Dr. Smith would stubbornly refuse to listen, convinced that his way was the best way.

Another professor, Dr. Johnson, was known for his aggressive tactics when it came to academic competition. He would often criticize his colleagues’ work in public, pointing out every flaw and weakness he could find. His colleagues found his behavior rude and uncivil, but Dr. Johnson saw it as a necessary part of the competition.

As the academic year progressed, tensions between the faculty members began to rise. The cruel optimism and aggressive tactics were creating a toxic environment that was taking a toll on everyone’s mental health. The university administration tried to intervene, but their efforts were met with resistance from the faculty members who saw it as interference in their academic freedom.

One day, the faculty members were gathered for a meeting to discuss a new research grant that had become available. As they began to discuss their proposals, it became clear that many of them were attached to certain research methodologies or ideas, even though they knew they were not the best options.

Dr. Smith was particularly defensive when his colleagues pointed out the limitations of his methodology, insisting that it was the only way to approach the research question. Dr. Johnson was quick to criticize his colleagues’ proposals, pointing out every flaw and weakness he could find.

As the meeting continued, it became clear that the faculty members were stuck in a cruel optimism, unable to objectively evaluate their ideas and strategies. They were so focused on being the best and winning the grant that they had lost sight of the bigger picture.

Finally, one of the younger faculty members spoke up. She suggested that they work together to develop a more comprehensive research plan, combining the strengths of each proposal and addressing the weaknesses. Her suggestion was met with some resistance at first, but gradually the faculty members began to see the benefits of collaboration.

In the end, the faculty members were able to put aside their cruel optimism and work together to create a strong research plan that addressed the research question from multiple angles. The project was successful, and they were all able to share in the credit. The toxic environment of aggressive competition began to fade, and the faculty members found themselves enjoying their work again.