Dionysus01 wrote:
Whales, elephants, dolphins have larger brains than humans.
Considering that humans only use a minuscule portion of their actual brain size, I really doubt that it is sound science to link intelligence to brain size.
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
Dionysus01 wrote:
Whales, elephants, dolphins have larger brains than humans.
Considering that humans only use a minuscule portion of their actual brain size, I really doubt that it is sound science to link intelligence to brain size.
Brain size IS used as a rough estimate of intelligence when comparing species, allthough you need to compare it to body size as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
Never heard that you can use it between individuals in same species though. A bunch of badly connected neurons might weigh a lot lol
True dat Kitteh.
Dionysus01 wrote:
themaskedbishop wrote:
The next step in all of this is to start measuring skulls. Sooner or later someone gets down to that, in order to verify with "science" what they want their own prejudice to believe.
Women DO have smaller skulls than men, in general. Guess that means less brain matter, which means fewer chess variations can be memorized. Etc.
What's drives the entire pro-Nigel, pro "brains are wired by gender" crowd is a desire to lump billions of people into one category. The end result is obvious and depressing:
You are a woman. If you play chess as well as Nigel Short, you are a true exception to your gender. Congratulations on overcoming that genetic hurdle - or thank the DNA dice roll that made your brain more mannish.
That "logic" was applied to blacks/slavery/segregation. Here it's applied to females..
But "that crowd" you speak of is a dying breed. Chess world is one of the last bastions. They don't represent the world's male population.
This is faulty logic - I don't know what the fallacy is caled though. You cannot just lump different theories that you feel are different and think that because one is wrong the other is also. You need to "go into" each individual theory.
For instance you cant just say "scientists were wrong because they thought Newtonien physics was true and it wasnt there fore they are also wrong with Einsteinian physics". Newton and Einstein are 2 different theories, so it might be that Newton is wrong and Einstein true.
We have a lot of info from our senses to filter. It would be chaos to use all of our brainpower at once. Although, it is theorized that autistic brains have less of a filter but at the cosy of a much more limited, specialized brain. Sorry about all the autism stuff, it's just what I know best. I think the skull size may have to do with the massive amount of neural paths that are formed in a brain with ASD but are highly over pruned at some point, leaving a brain with a more specialized capacity and not always indicative of IQ.
Dionysus01 wrote:
Tristan Pang (born October 18, 2001 in West Sussex, UK), is a child prodigy who excelled academically from an early age. He started reading independently and doing high school maths at the age of two.
Compare this kid's brain size at age of 2 to brains of adults.
Barking up the wrong tree to link brain size to intelligence.
No doubt sizes itself doesn't matter. LOL I crack myself up...
Colin20G wrote:
I mean that the simple fact that an individual is a man or a woman is enough to set specific rules for him/her, or decide that he is more or less likely to develop some skills (regardless of actual achievements).
lol, on that definition it is sexist having gender seperated public toilets.
Having to use the toilet marked by the feminine icon is a specic rule, and the rule is applied only according to gender.
Masamune314 wrote:
Dionysus01 wrote:
Tristan Pang (born October 18, 2001 in West Sussex, UK), is a child prodigy who excelled academically from an early age. He started reading independently and doing high school maths at the age of two.
Compare this kid's brain size at age of 2 to brains of adults.
Barking up the wrong tree to link brain size to intelligence.
No doubt sizes itself doesn't matter. LOL I crack myself up...
I seem to remember that Einstein had a very small brain also :) Someone keeps it in formaldedyde somewhere.
I saw Descartes' skull also, and he had SUCH a small head, almost like a child.
Dionysus01 wrote
lol.
ok. if you say so.
I do.
The irony in this case is that science is on the side of gender based cognitive and emotional difference, statistically distributed. And the "the genders are identical"-people are on the obscurantist, "screw-science-and-evidence-if-it-says-things-we-dont-like" team, the "lets-just-believe-in-stuff-that-makes-people-happy" team.
May 7, 2015
0
#1191
>Is there a real threat here?<
Yes. The ongoing, and generally correct, perception from the "rest of the world" that high-level chess is populated by cranks, crazies and fools. We already are dealing with several well-publicized cheating stories this year. Now Nigel had to jump into the Stupid Pool and join the head of FIDE, Gazza the Great, and Bobby Fischer as yet another high-profile player who thinks really idiotic things.
The second but no less serious "threat" is a world-class player using his bully pulpit to denigrate and discourage women and girls of all ages from playing competitive chess. This isn't a genetics debate, dudes. Your pal Short has wounded our game. The "rest of the world" is right to continue to assume that we are a bunch of clueless nerds.
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
The irony in this case is that science is on the side of gender based cognitive and emotional difference, statistically distributed.
No because the cultural factor isn't properly ruled out (since the brain changes during learning).
Dionysus01 wrote:
Even when a human brain is engaged in the most complex task, neural activity only engages parts and not the entire brain.
I dont see how you would use the entire brain together in on go either? You'd have to move all your limbs in all possible directions at once at the same time I guess, just to use the entire motor system.
I guess you'd also need to have all emotional system activated at the same time.
And it would be difficult using the chess bits while jumping around like that at the same time lol.
Colin20G wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
The irony in this case is that science is on the side of gender based cognitive and emotional difference, statistically distributed.
No because the cultural factor isn't properly ruled out (since the brain changes during learning).
It is yes, because if there was woman-chess-friendly cultures and woman-chess-unfriendly cultures, then we would see the whole spetrum of genderdifferences, from places where woman dominated chess to places with men dominating chess and everything in between.
We don't see that though, so culture is dead as an explanation.
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
It is yes, because if there was woman-chess-friendly cultures and woman-chess-unfriendly cultures, then we would see the whole spetrum of genderdifferences, from places where woman dominated chess to places with men dominating chess and everything in between.
We don't see that though, so culture is dead as an explanation.
This is speculative and btw I don't get what you want to prove here.
"if we could see X then Y
We can't see X.... "
At this point it is impossible to deduce anything.
EDIT: my mistake. It's "we can't see Y" and you stated it correctly. Still the chess community is not that friendly for women and there are so many other cultural factors. Not to mentionthe fact that even with differences like the ones you assumed, they wouldn't create magically that woman domination you are talking about. I still don't see your point here.
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
Dionysus01 wrote:
themaskedbishop wrote:
The next step in all of this is to start measuring skulls. Sooner or later someone gets down to that, in order to verify with "science" what they want their own prejudice to believe.
Women DO have smaller skulls than men, in general. Guess that means less brain matter, which means fewer chess variations can be memorized. Etc.
What's drives the entire pro-Nigel, pro "brains are wired by gender" crowd is a desire to lump billions of people into one category. The end result is obvious and depressing:
You are a woman. If you play chess as well as Nigel Short, you are a true exception to your gender. Congratulations on overcoming that genetic hurdle - or thank the DNA dice roll that made your brain more mannish.
That "logic" was applied to blacks/slavery/segregation. Here it's applied to females..
But "that crowd" you speak of is a dying breed. Chess world is one of the last bastions. They don't represent the world's male population.
This is faulty logic - I don't know what the fallacy is caled though. You cannot just lump different theories that you feel are different and think that because one is wrong the other is also. You need to "go into" each individual theory.
For instance you cant just say "scientists were wrong because they thought Newtonien physics was true and it wasnt there fore they are also wrong with Einsteinian physics". Newton and Einstein are 2 different theories, so it might be that Newton is wrong and Einstein true.
Not really a fallacy, but deductive logic with a non cogent premise I think. The argument is based on science was wrong about A physics so they have to be wrong about B physics is set on the premise that all physics is false. Otherwuse it would never follow by simple argument that A is false, therefore any A is false. Scientists in this case would have to believe that all physics is false just to make that argument. Scientists do not think that all physics in false. So, the argument is not cogent. IDK, it's been a long time.
Masamune314 wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
Dionysus01 wrote:
themaskedbishop wrote:
The next step in all of this is to start measuring skulls. Sooner or later someone gets down to that, in order to verify with "science" what they want their own prejudice to believe.
Women DO have smaller skulls than men, in general. Guess that means less brain matter, which means fewer chess variations can be memorized. Etc.
What's drives the entire pro-Nigel, pro "brains are wired by gender" crowd is a desire to lump billions of people into one category. The end result is obvious and depressing:
You are a woman. If you play chess as well as Nigel Short, you are a true exception to your gender. Congratulations on overcoming that genetic hurdle - or thank the DNA dice roll that made your brain more mannish.
That "logic" was applied to blacks/slavery/segregation. Here it's applied to females..
But "that crowd" you speak of is a dying breed. Chess world is one of the last bastions. They don't represent the world's male population.
This is faulty logic - I don't know what the fallacy is caled though. You cannot just lump different theories that you feel are different and think that because one is wrong the other is also. You need to "go into" each individual theory.
For instance you cant just say "scientists were wrong because they thought Newtonien physics was true and it wasnt there fore they are also wrong with Einsteinian physics". Newton and Einstein are 2 different theories, so it might be that Newton is wrong and Einstein true.
Not really a fallacy, but deductive logic with a non cogent premise I think. The argument is based on science was wrong about A physics so they have to be wrong about B physics is set on the premise that all physics is false. Otherwuse it would never follow by simple argument that A is false, therefore any A is false. Scientists in this case would have to believe that all physics is false just to make that argument. Scientists do not think that all physics in false. So, the argument is not cogent. IDK, it's been a long time.
Yeah you're right. It's maybe more like
A is W(rong) and
B is W,
therefore C (that we dont know is W or not) is W.
@Rasperry_Yoghurt
The society doesn't treat men and women equally since early childhood and this counts as a cultural factor.
Colin20G wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
It is yes, because if there was woman-chess-friendly cultures and woman-chess-unfriendly cultures, then we would see the whole spetrum of genderdifferences, from places where woman dominated chess to places with men dominating chess and everything in between.
We don't see that though, so culture is dead as an explanation.
This is speculative and btw I don't get what you want to prove here.
"if we could see X then Y
We can't see X.... "
At this point it is impossible to deduce anything.
EDIT: my mistake. It's "we can't see Y" and you stated it correctly. Still the chess community is not that friendly for women and there are so many other cultural factors. Not to mentionthe fact that even with differences like the ones you assumed, they wouldn't create magically that woman domination you are talking about. I still don't see your point here.
Ok to develop.
First, I do not believe that an athlete needs a "friendly community" to succeed. The black athletes competing during the still-racist times proved that to me.
If it was so that unfriendly community = impossible to succeed
Then blacks shoudnt have raked in gold medals in the 30ies, 49ies and 50ies.
Seems to me, if you are a good athete, and you have a tough psyche, which undoubtedly they had, then you can win in spite of "unfriendly community".
Secondly, I dont see any connection what so ever between a country being woman friendly and them having good chess players. You'd excpect the good women chess players coming from places like Scandinavia and USA etc. that have been hard at improving women's conditions for a long time now. Instead they come from Hungary and China. If a woman friendly culture meant better chess players, you should be able to actually SEE it, we just cant see it, so i dont believe in it.
Colin20G wrote:
@Rasperry_Yoghurt
The society doesn't treat men and women equally since early childhood and this counts as a cultural factor.
If there were woman chess friendly and not so woman chess friendly cultures, you would see women at different levels of chess ability, among the ranks. Do we see this? We are only talking about the very high levels. It does not necessarily follow that you would see females at the highest ranks in even the most chess friendly countries ip unless in those specific countries there were 1. Very similar participation rates and 2. All individuals were the same (not just genders but all chess players.). And 3. Very little cultural difference between how boys and girls are taught/raised in regard to their chess ability. That's a very tough nut to crack.
Dionysus01 wrote:
Whales, elephants, dolphins have larger brains than humans.
Considering that humans only use a minuscule portion of their actual brain size, I really doubt that it is sound science to link intelligene to brain size.
I think that 10% brain usage thing was debunked, but I don't have a ready link. I'm not sure about brain size vs. brain density or setup either. Yes, I was wondering why a world renowned autism researcher was considering skull size, but, you cannot leave any rock unturned I guess.