Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

why are women worse at chess than men?


  • 22 months ago · #841

    red-lady

    PhoenixTTD wrote:
    red-lady wrote:

    Kant was a thinker not a guru. So, by any means, there was and there is room for discussion. It's easy to counter someone's thoughts, imo, it's harder to produce them yourself.

    So if you'd completely follow his ideas, you're probably right, I suppose. But was that what his intention was?

    Its hard to express them but not necessarily produce them.  Rand was by far the best at explaining common sense.  It is a bit weird that after my arguments in this thread, the intellectual giant I look up to the most was a women.  More weird that she said a woman should not be president.  Even more weird that is something I disagreed with her on.

    Reading Critique of Pure Reason was just horrible.  It took too long.  I felt sick the entire time.  I kept having to reread portions because he won't speak in normal terms.  I felt he was anti-human.   Besides, why read a book that challenges your ability to see the book?

    Speaking of performative contradictions in philosphical literature, I once saw a book by Machiavelli for sale.  So I took it.  Don't need him using my morality against me.

    Well, if declaring war is a skill you need as a president, I think I wouldn't be a good candidate either. I could try to poison them with words though... The question is: does that make me an inferior being? Wink

    I won't argue about Kant anymore, I do understand your feelings about him, but maybe you should try to read between the lines. I promise you, it is worth it. 

  • 22 months ago · #842

    schlechter55

    PhoenixTTD wrote:
    schlechter55 wrote:
    PhoenixTTD wrote:
    schlechter55 wrote:

    Men have ruled as long as human fought each other for property, land, goods (the neighbor, the next village, town, state...) with weapons.

    That one is the only reason for the patriarchat, and the rule of the men until now (it is shaken, though).


    That explains a lot, but translating that into all elo scores in 2013...a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

    If we disconsider the 'punchhole thing', G.W. Bush won the election against Gore because there was september 11. Bush is the cowboy, in the eyes of americans the one ready to kill (he did go to Arghanistan then, and stayed there, with false reasoning).

    We are not yet moving away from the atavist times.

    Men are certainly still in control.  However women are no longer held down to the point they cannot win the chess title.  They have the ability to spend their entire lives playing chess and to go as far as their tallent takes them without reprisal.  The patriarchy does not explain current chess results.

    So you agree with my point that it is still 'a men's world', that is, a world where problems between (adult) states are solved with weapons, and not with reason.

    What you said about the total freedom of women to do whatever they like, is more often true for the people of upper middle class (and upper class) than for others, because the freedom comes with financial stability in the family.

    Another aspect is the educational background of the parents: Some hedge fund managers are stupid and want their daughters to be 'nice' and to hook up with another hedge fund manager...   

    Statistics shows dramatically that kids of people with high education (intellectuals, for instance) study much more likely than others, and nowadays often with PhD. This (again) is a sign of inequality (books are expensive, studying costs money, even in many rich countries), and NOT a sign of 'better genes' of the rich.

  • 22 months ago · #843

    PhoenixTTD

    red-lady wrote:

    Well, if declaring war is a skill you need as a president, I think I wouldn't be a good candidate either. I could try to poison them with words though... The question is: does that make me an inferior being? 

    I won't argue about Kant anymore, I do understand your feelings about him, but maybe you should try to read between the lines. I promise you, it is worth it. 

    Being able to declare war at all or easily?  Knowing when to do it is the trick.  We could use more reservation there.

    Let me answer the "inferior being" bait with a little background from my experience as a manager.

    I have been in departments with more men managers and others with more women.  The ones with more women are a nightmare sometimes.  Meetings and interactions are cat fights and political nonsense.  Even some of the women involved comment on how annoying and unproductive it is.  Minus point for women.

    However I love to take a female manager with me into an interview.  She can tell me "that person won't work hard" and be spot on when I don't have a clue.  Plus point for women.

    A dept with too many female managers loses its way, has lower production, falls behind in technical aspects, has too many extra curriculars like fund raisers and committees that don't focus on business...at least for my taste.

    A dept with too many male managers runs like a well oiled machine till someone starts crying, your turnover rate goes thru the roof, and you get sued.

    There is strength in diversity.  You need all types.

    Having said that...what happens when you have to be solo.  President for example?   You have to know yourself.  One of your strengths can be knowing your weaknesses.  You could perform even better with conscious compensation.

    This is why I disagree with Rand on a woman being president.  She clearly sees areas men are superior.  But women have their strengths too and men have their weaknesses.  A candidate who knows what those are and adjusts is the best.

    But you have to know what they are.  If you have some bs excuse like ancient history as your excuse for your weaknesses, you are not ready to be president.  This is why answering questions like the ones posed in this thread is important.

  • 22 months ago · #844

    PhoenixTTD

    Victor-Servranckx wrote:

    they discussed the slogans and liked them and the world changes by those "ad populum" mechanics,

    I know and then I try to argue with these people.  Shoot me now.

  • 22 months ago · #845

    PhoenixTTD

    schlechter55 wrote:

    So you agree with my point that it is still 'a men's world', that is, a world where problems between (adult) states are solved with weapons, and not with reason.

    What you said about the total freedom of women to do whatever they like, is more often true for the people of upper middle class (and upper class) than for others, because the freedom comes with financial stability in the family.

    Another aspect is the educational background of the parents: Some hedge fund managers are stupid and want their daughters to be 'nice' and to hook up with another hedge fund manager...   

    Statistics shows dramatically that kids of people with high education (intellectuals, for instance) study much more likely than others, and nowadays often with PhD. This (again) is a sign of inequality (books are expensive, studying costs money, even in many rich countries), and NOT a sign of 'better genes' of the rich.

    Men are in control in general.  To say that means reason is not used is very sexist of you.  There are conflicts every day and we only start a war every few years so lets not over generalize here.

    Poverty is not a gender issue.  Still not seeing a causal link to one gender playing worse chess.

  • 22 months ago · #846

    pdela

    PhoenixTTD wrote:
    red-lady wrote:
    PhoenixTTD wrote:
    red-lady wrote:
    PhoenixTTD wrote:
    pdela wrote:
    LoekBergman wrote:

    Kant? In comparison to Socrates, Spinoza, Augustinus and Plato? Not my opinion. :-)

    Without doubt, deeper and influential even today

    Immanuel Kant was the paradigmatic philosopher of the European Enlightenment. He eradicated the last traces of the medieval worldview from modern philosophy, joined the key ideas of earlier rationalism and empiricism into a powerful model of the subjective origins of the fundamental principles of both science and morality, and laid the ground for much in the philosophy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries

    I really hate Kant...but lets not get that debate started.

    I never understood why people use the word 'hate' so easily. You can disagree with him, yes. You can even think you know better, but hate?? Why?

    Because his philosophy led to great evil.

    Fine, but maybe it is better to give him an answer in that case, instead of hating him? Isn't that just weak? No offence, but it is an easy way out, isn't it?

    Of course, I'm just a woman, how would I know, right 

    Its a whole nuther thread longer than this one.  But what he claimed was reason, was faith, with no real morality, and the evolution of it led many astray including the justification for the holocaust.  I mentioned earlier that Ayn Rand (female) was my favorite philosopher.  You can read her take on Kant to get my opinion as well.

    I was already familiar with the nutty idea that Nietzche phylosophy provided a justification for the Holocaust, but Kant???, really, are we into mushrooms?. Can we also blame Darwin for Nazi eugenics?

  • 22 months ago · #847

    PhoenixTTD

    pdela wrote:

    I was already familiar with the nutty idea that Nietzche phylosophy provided a justification for the Holocaust, but Kant???, really, are we into mushrooms?. Can we also blame Darwin for Nazi eugenics?

    It's not direct, but his fundamental errors are found in most modern philosophies.

  • 22 months ago · #848

    pdela

    PhoenixTTD wrote:
    pdela wrote:

    I was already familiar with the nutty idea that Nietzche phylosophy provided a justification for the Holocaust, but Kant???, really, are we into mushrooms?. Can we also blame Darwin for Nazi eugenics?

    It's not direct, but his fundamental errors are found in most modern philosophies.

    So, had he errors? I guess he was human

    Isaac Newton also had errors, how not?, still he is the father of modern science

  • 22 months ago · #849

    pdela

    Kant had such an influence in Nazism that Soviets (who had the most important role in defeating Nazism) took care of conserving his legacy.

    Kant's tomb is today in a mausoleum adjoining the northeast corner of Königsberg Cathedral in what is now known as Kaliningrad, Russia. The mausoleum was constructed by the architect Friedrich Lahrs and was finished in 1924 in time for the bicentenary of Kant's birth. Originally, Kant was buried inside the cathedral, but in 1880 his remains were moved outside and placed in a neo-Gothic chapel adjoining the northeast corner of the cathedral. Over the years, the chapel became dilapidated before it was demolished to make way for the mausoleum, which was built on the same spot, where it is today.

    The tomb and its mausoleum are some of the few artifacts of German times preserved by the Soviets after they conquered and annexed the city. Today, many newlyweds bring flowers to the mausoleum.

    Artifacts previously owned by Kant, known as Kantiana, were included in the Königsberg City Museum. However, the museum was destroyed during World War II.

    A replica of the statue of Kant that stood in German times in front of the main University of Königsberg building was donated by a German entity in the early 1990s and placed in the same grounds.

    After the expulsion of Königsberg's German population at the end of World War II, the historical University of Königsberg where Kant taught was replaced by the Russian-speaking Kaliningrad State University, which took up the campus and surviving buildings of the historic German university. In 2005, that Russian-speaking university was renamed Immanuel Kant State University of Russia in honour of Kant. The change of name was announced at a ceremony attended by President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany, and the university further formed a Kant Society, dedicated to the study of Kantianism.

  • 22 months ago · #850

    Iron-butterfly

    I have a thought on that..maybe they are too busy feeding your lazy azzyes while you sttin at the pc playing your games..OR hm..let me think..maybe they are too busy taking care of the house, bETWEEN moves, or caring for babies.

    OH ..lets add..perhaps they have more brains to waste so much time playing a dang game while other issues need to be taken care of. 

  • 22 months ago · #851

    pdela

    By the way, answering the OP, women biology are different from male, brain is not a exception

    10 Big Differences Between Men’s and Women’s Brains

    By Amber Hensley

    The differences between women and men are not only well-documented, but frequently at the heart of jokes, anecdotes, and good-natured (and not so good-natured) ribbing. Experts have discovered that there are actually differences in the way women’s and men’s brains are structured and in the way they react to events and stimuli. So the next time your wife, boyfriend, or parent starts telling you how you should have done something differently, then refer back to these big differences between men’s and women’s brains.

    1. Human relationships. Women tend to communicate more effectively than men, focusing on how to create a solution that works for the group, talking through issues, and utilizes non-verbal cues such as tone, emotion, and empathy whereas men tend to be more task-oriented, less talkative, and more isolated. Men have a more difficult time understanding emotions that are not explicitly verbalized, while women tend to intuit emotions and emotional cues. These differences explain why men and women sometimes have difficulty communicating and why men-to-men friendships look different from friendships among women.
    2. Left brain vs. both hemispheres. Men tend to process better in the left hemisphere of the brain while women tend to process equally well between the two hemispheres. This difference explains why men are generally stronger with left-brain activities and approach problem-solving from a task-oriented perspective while women typically solve problems more creatively and are more aware of feelings while communicating.
    3. Mathematical abilities. An area of the brain called the inferior-parietal lobule (IPL) is typically significantly larger in men, especially on the left side, than in women. This section of the brain is thought to control mental mathematical ability, and probably explains why men frequently perform higher in mathematical tasks than do women. Interestingly, this is the same area of Einstein’s brain that was discovered to be abnormally large. The IPL also processes sensory information, and the larger right side in women allows them to focus on, "specific stimuli, such as a baby crying in the night."
    4. Reaction to stress. Men tend to have a "fight or flight" response to stress situations while women seem to approach these situations with a "tend and befriend" strategy. Psychologist Shelley E. Taylor coined the phrase "tend and befriend" after recognizing that during times of stress women take care of themselves and their children (tending) and form strong group bonds (befriending). The reason for these different reactions to stress is rooted in hormones. The hormone oxytocin is released during stress in everyone. However, estrogen tends to enhance oxytocin resulting in calming and nurturing feelings whereas testosterone, which men produce in high levels during stress, reduces the effects of oxytocin.
    5. Language. Two sections of the brain responsible for language were found to be larger in women than in men, indicating one reason that women typically excel in language-based subjects and in language-associated thinking. Additionally, men typically only process language in their dominant hemisphere, whereas women process language in both hemispheres. This difference offers a bit of protection in case of a stroke. Women may be able to recover more fully from a stroke affecting the language areas in the brain while men may not have this same advantage.
    6. Emotions. Women typically have a larger deep limbic system than men, which allows them to be more in touch with their feelings and better able to express them, which promotes bonding with others. Because of this ability to connect, more women serve as caregivers for children. The down side to this larger deep limbic system is that it also opens women up to depression, especially during times of hormonal shifts such as after childbirth or during a woman’s menstrual cycle.
    7. Brain size. Typically, men’s brains are 11-12% bigger than women’s brains. This size difference has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, but is explained by the difference in physical size between men and women. Men need more neurons to control their greater muscle mass and larger body size, thus generally have a larger brain.
    8. Pain. Men and women perceive pain differently. In studies, women require more morphine than men to reach the same level of pain reduction. Women are also more likely to vocalize their pain and to seek treatment for their pain than are men. The area of the brain that is activated during pain is the amygdala, and researchers have discovered that in men, the right amygdala is activated and in women, the left amygdala is activated. The right amygdala has more connections with areas of the brain that control external functions while the right amygdala has more connections with internal functions. This difference probably explains why women perceive pain more intensely than do men.
    9. Spatial ability. Men typically have stronger spatial abilities, or being able to mentally represent a shape and its dynamics, whereas women typically struggle in this area. Medical experts have discovered that women have a thicker parietal region of the brain, which hinders the ability to mentally rotate objects–an aspect of spatial ability. Research has shown this ability in babies as young as 5 months old, negating any ideas that these abilities were strengthened by environmental influences.
    10. Susceptibility to disorders. Because of the way men and women use the two hemispheres of the brain differently, there are some disorders that men and women are susceptible to in different ways. Men are more apt to have dyslexia or other language problems. If women have dyslexia, they are more likely to compensate for it. Women, on the other hand, are more susceptible to mood disorders such as depression and anxiety. While handedness is not a disorder, these brain tendencies also explain why more men are left-handed than are women. Men are also more likely to be diagnosed with autism, ADHD, and Tourette’s Syndrome.
  • 22 months ago · #852

    Sunshiny

    @PhoenixTTD - First off, thank you for taking the time to answer so many posts. I've tried before, and it can be a daunting task. Also, thank you for writing more clearly on your views. This is much better than your previous objection which sounded like your only rebuttle is "they're different."

    I won't be quoting from all of your responses, and may have to cut specific sentences from them, since there isn't a multiquote function, and whole quotes also take up much space.

    That is a good list for the the negative impact on men's choices. I disagree with the part about the "original sin" though. I doubt a good portion of men had ever considered the impact of what men in past generations had done. I also doubt many women would blame every single man for that problem, as i believe many would would treat the person as an individual, and not directly responsible for what previous people of their gender had done. This also means there is less reason for the "original sin" idea mentioned.

    After looking at the list again, i also disagree with the reason men commit serious crimes. The only crime that comes to mind which seems to fit is theft because the husband couldn't provide for the family. However, i don't think it's a common occurance.

    That is a horrible list for the women's point of view. We've already discussed the lack of education which i believe you agreed with. Women were also dependent on men for survival because men were the 'breadwinners.' It's one reason wives had trouble leaving abusive husbands. There was nowhere to go, and without a source of income, it would seem to them that their life was at an end. They not only had to think of themselves, but their children. Simply staying with the abusive husband provided a better life for their children. A husband's suicide also affected the wife, because she depended on him for support.

    To sum it up, i would say it is mainly more stress which leads to an earlier death being the main negative impact for men. For women it would be a lack of freedom. It seems to be quantity vs. quality. The quantity being a few years less of life vs. a lifetime with little options, and being dependent on men for support.

    "You cannot argue the lack of female genius is due to society against them."

    No, you missed my point. The lack of female geniuses is due to there being a lack of higher education to fully develop their potential.

    Actually, yes, i can argue that. If women were dependent on men for support because the men are the ones in the work force, there was no reason to reach their full potential. What use was there to become a genius when the jobs went to the men? It's possible, and i don't doubt there were parents that discouraged their daughters from pursuing a higher education. From their perspective, it would be a bad investment, when ultimately she would end up a housewife.

    "Women can get any type of job."

    Yes, through the progress women have made. However, there are still problems. If you recall in the article, the male was recommended with a higher pay.

    "It still does not explain the results we see because the mistreatment is not universal or as close to universal as male domination in elite performances."

    I think it's pretty close to universal. Most if not all achievements can be divided into either being physical or mental. Physically, i don't think many would dispute men's performance in this area. Mental, as i have tried to explain, women were held back from reaching their full potential. Also, even if there were some that could, the explanation that there were more men in the field meant there were more men in the extremes.

    "I am in no way arguing that women should be given less opportunity than men."

    However, that was what you were doing when you mentioned people shouldn't bother offering girls a chance to learn and play chess because in general, they showed no interest.

  • 22 months ago · #853

    pdela

    @ Sunshiny, I was not referring to you when talking about misandry. Plus it wasn't a comment that should be taken literally. Just that it seems you are a jerk if you have a different opinion that women lobby ;)

  • 22 months ago · #854

    Sunshiny

    Thanks Pdela. That was easy enough. Smile

  • 22 months ago · #855

    batgirl

    PhoenixTTD wrote:
     

    ...Gotta get deeper....  Why don't women play?  ...or is just because men being stronger decided women shouldn't play for no reason and a few generations of freedom have not fixed it yet?

    Before you get too deep, you must master the shallow - there is no indication that men are stronger, only that they have better results.  Whether you admit it or not, that premise shines through all your many paragraphs.

    Please use the "quote" feature more judiciously.


Back to Top
This forum topic has been locked.