FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Personally, I do think there is some natural difference between men and women when it comes to the mind and personality, but not in intelligence or ability - rather, more in appreciation and what pleases them.
That would be a nice coincidence, wouldn't it? An admission that there are mental differences between the genders, but none such that would upset anyone with a world view oriented around political correctness.
As for the "nature vs. nurture" debate - I find it ridiculous that there ever even was a debate on the subject. To completely deny the effect of nature would be to effectively deny evolution. It is accumulating genetic differences that eventually drive members of one species to diverge into two different species; that means that not all members of a single species are genetically equal. If these differences are enough to separate our genetic forefathers into gorillas and humans, then surely gorillas would, with equal likelihood, have the same abilities as humans if all humans share the same abilities amongst themselves. Yet, you don't see gorillas succeed in such human intellectual pursuits as chess.
Likewise, nurture has a role that I can sum up in one word: Tarzan. Need I say more?
There shouldn't even be a need for research on this subject. However, the whole gender issue could benefit from as much research as current taboos will allow. For instance, are the differences between the genders that everyone in this thread seems to be mentioning (whether it be chess, multitasking, or preference for wearing perfume) a case of "nature or nurture" - that is, are they hard-coded in our brains or just the effect of the society in which we all live? It doesn't seem to me that there is enough data to pass conclusive judgement, yet most everyone appears to have an opinion one way or the other.
You actually took the effort to write all that ??!!!!
lol that was nothing. In college, I wrote 3-5 papers (that were 5-10 pages) a week. I had a professor that all of her test was to take us to the computer lab for the 1 hour 20 minutes that we had to write a 4-5 page paper...on a topic that she wouldn't tell us until the test begun (we were just told it would be on something we had studied since the previous test). And I'm finishing up my frist novel.
Let me make a digression then, and point you to the history of cologne, since you typed a lot about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eau_de_Cologne
Also notice that "During the Renaissance period, perfumes were used primarily by royalty and the wealthy to mask body odors resulting from the sanitary practices of the day. Partly due to this patronage, the western perfumery industry was created." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perfume#Western
I hope you find this info interesting :)
I assure you, political correctness is not my concern. I'm a fundamentalist Christian (i.e. I base my worldview in Scripture, not that I share the views of all others that identify in that category) - most of my views are very unpopular. I don't shy away from science for a multitude of reasons - 1) If you claim to be searching for the truth, you shouldn't stop up your ears at the moment someone suggest something different than you believe 2) Scripture has actually very little to say about science, the age of the universe, etc. While there are some conflicts between current scientific understanding and Scripture, there aren't nearly as many as people make out, because people say the Bible says things it never does. 3) As our scientific understading is always in flux [it changes whenever we get new evidence or make new discoveries], why should I worry if what the scientists of today theorize contradicts Scripture? It may change tomorrow, it may change 5,000 years from now - but many people who blindly trusts science make an assumption that the only things we will learn will be advancement of what we already know. The idea that we will discover something we currently believe is majorly wrong never occurs to them (in spite of the fact that the history of scientific inquiry is a history of learning from our mistakes and incorrect hypothesis or tainted observations). And it's not like my interpretation of Scripture is infallible - some Christians tried to fight science when it was put forward the earth was not the center of the cosmos based on a verse in Psalms - which is kind of silly, because the Psalms are essentially songs - metaphors, hyperbole, symbolism - these are all used throughout Scripture, but probably not anywhere more so than in the Psalms, as their very compisition is primarily artistic, not informative. So I say...study science! I believe it is a necessity of understanding the world around us. But also realize we probably have several errors that we are not even aware of - replacing a deistic relgion with a naturalistic one where we fanatically defend our current understanding is without error requires as much faith as believing a religious text is without error.Regarding your statement that there is not enough data to know one way or the other - if you mean 100% empirically, well, that's obvious and I already stated as much...sentient intelligence is not as easy to define as the laws of nature, remember?But since it is you promoting the idea that they should be segregated, it is up to you to prove why they should be. I have presented evidence which counters your argument. Even if you retreat only to the "we cannot know", you lose the option of saying they ought to be excluded from equal competition.Love that you used an exotic, over-the-top fictional novel to support nurture though. Not knocking your point, but there are plenty of real-world examples that would have been better to use in Tarzan's place.Regarding Eseles comment on the history of perfume - I'm aware of its history, but part of that history is how after sanitary measures improved, perfume use is no longer equally distributed among the sexes. Women where much more perfume than men, quite frankly because more women than men find spending the money and applying it worthwhile.
Sorry for that long intro before I got back on point - most people hear "fundamentalist Christian" and just assume they are incapable of scientific understanding or reasoning - the idea that someone would identify as a person of faith while wholeheartedly embracing scientific study (while not just blindly accepting its current answers) is something that stuns a lot of people. I was concerned if I didn't clarify that I very much support scientific inquiry, this thread would quickly turn into name-calling.
In my chessclub both girls and guys play with each other and i honestly do not mind to play against guys. At lower level chess i think it is not a problem to let both genders play against each other. I do play with the board, i do not have to look at him and he also not to look at me. At higher level chess i think it is fair to have "Womens chess" so we get the chance to win a title too. Because unfortunately there are to much very good men at chess for us to rival with them. After all i think so it is good to have a womens and mens chess :)
Well, it is good to know that some fundamentalist Christians don't buy into the antiscience antirational mindset that infests so much of the so called "religious right". But somehow the wingnuts get all the hype and attention. In some red states one can't run for public office without believing or pretending to believe that there were dinosaurs two by two on Noah's ark and that a talking snake morally corrupted our most remote ancestors. Strange world.
Take the politics to the Open Discussion forums please . Lots of topics there you might like .
Maybe it's not that people are surprised you're not a cave man, but that you seem to misunderstand what a fundamentalist means.
If anything, ever, be it logic, observation, anything, disagrees with the literal interpretation of the Bible, then it is automatically wrong and the Bible is automatically right.
Discussions involving religion, politics, etc. are for the Off Topic Forum and not permitted in the regular forums. Please limit those discussion to the appropriate places. Thanks, CM.
The problem is, that only about 10% of all chess players are girls/ women.
So at most of the clubs, were i played, there were only 1 or 2 girls and i rarely met strong females at the board. So i played very unwary and arrogant against females...till i got crushed by a really strong woman in a big tournament.
After that i decided to take female players for serious
I think chess is perfect for girls, since you can decide for your own, if you play tournaments or team matches against other females or you can play tournaments/ team matches, were both genders participate.
Happy Easter to everyone!
Minor correction - you said "literal interpretation". There are many parts of the Bible that are not literal. There may be extremists who hold in cognitive dissonance that all scripture is literal, but even they still accept that some parts (parables, proverbs, psalms, etc.) are poetic or metaphorical in nature. CAL06Chess's definition of fundamentalist is correct - but the label has been appropriated by a specific (ironically non-fundamentalist) group in America, which most likely led to the confusion.
MEANWHILE, BACK ON TOPIC
The egalitarian in me wants to say "disband all women-specific chamionships/titles! Women are capable of being just as strong of players as men!" And technically this is true. But practically, women trail men at the highest levels by a significant gap. You can conflate statistics and anecdotes all you want (something that has happened a lot in this thread), but the fact remains, there are no women players as strong as Carlsen, or Caruana, or Gelfand. Zero. None. Whether this is due to statistics or very slight genetic/physical differences I don't have the education to judge one way or another.
In my opinion, this is something that should be addressed at a lower level. Young girls are often turned off of chess, for a variety of reasons. Introducing more girls to the wonderful sport of the mind would go a long way toward the egalitarian dream. This is a change that needs to happen in the education system, but also culturally.
Then the problem becomes: cultural change takes a long time. So what do we do until then? Which is worse: women being given easier titles and tourneys, and being condescended to, or those same women being thrown into a world where they will never win? I'm not talking about Chess.com Member vs. Her Brother, where a woman beat a man. I'm talking about Pogonia vs. Nakamura, where Nakamura wipes the floor with Pogonia EVERY TIME. I want to say the latter is preferable, out of a desire for equality, but if that pushes women away from chess then we're garunteed to never have a woman comparable to Carlsen.
Apparently people refuse to take warnings seriously.
This thread is now locked.