Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains

Sort:
Raspberry_Yoghurt
power_2_the_people wrote:

And what is that for cultural factor anyway? : ''Laszlo, an educational psychologist by profession, had wanted to demonstrate that what we call 'genius' is not a naturally occurring or genetically created phenomenon, but could be achieved by any child, given intensive early tuition on a one-to-one basis. Chess was a natural way of trying to prove his theory to the world, partly because the game is viewed as a touchstone of the intellect, but also because results are easily compared and measured by a universal grading system. Thus, as Judit put it in her recently published autobiography, How I Beat Fischer's Record: "From the moment of my birth on 23 July 1976, I became involved f in an educational research project. Even before I came into the world, my parents had already decided: I would be a chess champion."

Lazlos "experiment" doesnt count as experiment because of its faulty design.

He has an n of 3, his  daughters. This is too low to take it seriously. If he had 100 or 300 involved then would be interesting.

You could maybe make a metastudy and collect hundreds of cases with parents trying to create child prodigies, then you could see if it is possible or not.

I would guess that 99% of them fail and the child doesnt become a prodigy.

And if you could find say 300 successful cases with child prodigies (our of maybe 10.000 failed cases), then you would see the same gender distribution with chess players in general.

I like the Polgar story a lot and she is a cool player and all that, but her case doesnt proove anything. It just doesnt work that way.

Its like trying to prove that men and women doesnt have different gender profiles for body height by finding one "tallest woman in the world".

Raspberry_Yoghurt
Pheebe wrote:

It's not always just about who can become a grand master.. it's also largely a matter of who wants to become it. 

All through my life chess has been the epitome of nerdiness, and as a girl you really don't want to be a nerd, at least not in your adolescent life as you can be sure to be shunned that way by everyone else.

Later in life once you're past that, you may try looking into chess, but is totally outmatched by the the boy who played it since he was 6.

So it's a bit more complicated than it may seem.

In early 80ies in Denmark girls were playing chess. After school i went to a sort of "take care of the children until parents sinish work and pick them up"-place, and i remember much chess was played there and it was both girls and boys, it wasnt a boy thing as such. Then it stopped at one point, dont remember why.

trysts
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
 

Lazlos "experiment" doesnt count as experiment because of its faulty design.

He has an n of 3, his  daughters. This is too low to take it seriously. If he had 100 or 300 involved then would be interesting.

You could maybe make a metastudy and collect hundreds of cases with parents trying to create child prodigies, then you could see if it is possible or not.

I would guess that 99% of them fail and the child doesnt become a prodigy.

And if you could find say 300 successful cases with child prodigies (our of maybe 10.000 failed cases), then you would see the same gender distribution with chess players in general.

I like the Polgar story a lot and she is a cool player and all that, but her case doesnt proove anything. It just doesnt work that way.

Its like trying to prove that men and women doesnt have different gender profiles for body height by finding one "tallest woman in the world".

It proves that there is no sex explanation for whether or not a given individual will reach the highest ratings in chess. 

Raspberry_Yoghurt
trysts wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
 

Lazlos "experiment" doesnt count as experiment because of its faulty design.

He has an n of 3, his  daughters. This is too low to take it seriously. If he had 100 or 300 involved then would be interesting.

You could maybe make a metastudy and collect hundreds of cases with parents trying to create child prodigies, then you could see if it is possible or not.

I would guess that 99% of them fail and the child doesnt become a prodigy.

And if you could find say 300 successful cases with child prodigies (our of maybe 10.000 failed cases), then you would see the same gender distribution with chess players in general.

I like the Polgar story a lot and she is a cool player and all that, but her case doesnt proove anything. It just doesnt work that way.

Its like trying to prove that men and women doesnt have different gender profiles for body height by finding one "tallest woman in the world".

It proves that there is no sex explanation for whether or not a given individual will reach the highest ratings in chess. 

To summarize my last post: An experiment with n = 3 is something you just throw out. You can prove anything you want like that.

Raspberry_Yoghurt
power_2_the_people wrote:

also that is not a replicable experiment either:

''The effort involved on my parents' part was extraordinary. They gave up everything for us. My parents didn't believe in their method 100 per cent; they believed in it f 1,000 per cent''. Judit Polgar

No i wouldn't call it an experiment either. Its an awsome story still. And I understand from the forums here that Polgar wrote a really good chess book, dont remember its name but i have a mental note of "read Polgar book" lol

Colin20G

In order to debunk a general claim (about let us say: every women...) only one example suffices.

The Polgar exemple is a brutal disproof of the claim that "no woman will ever per part of the top 10 chess players in the world ".

We can still debate if "belonging to the top 10" is enough to be considered a "good chess player" though.

trysts
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
 

To summarize my last post: An experiment with n = 3 is something you just throw out. You can prove anything you want like that.

If one person gets to Mars than that means that people can get to Mars. If one woman is among the eight best chess players in the world, then that shows that women can achieve the highest ratings in the world. Despite the sexist leanings of some people out there.

Colin20G
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

To summarize my last post: An experiment with n = 3 is something you just throw out. You can prove anything you want like that.

We can prove something is possible given proper conditions are provided.

Maybe if hundred of parents try to replicate Laszlo's result they will fail a lot but keep in mind they need the teaching skills of Laszlo and his wife to be able to do something.

Teaching is not an easy task at all (I've been an high school teacher before)

NewArdweaden
Colin20G wrote:

In order to debunk a general claim (about let us say: every women...) only one example suffices.

The Polgar exemple is a brutal disproof of the claim that "no woman will ever per part of the top 10 chess players in the world ".

We can still debate if "belonging to the top 10" is enough to be considered a "good chess player" though.

I thought the topic was about whether women are on average worse than men in chess.

Colin20G
NewArdweaden wrote:
Colin20G wrote:

In order to debunk a general claim (about let us say: every women...) only one example suffices.

The Polgar exemple is a brutal disproof of the claim that "no woman will ever per part of the top 10 chess players in the world ".

We can still debate if "belonging to the top 10" is enough to be considered a "good chess player" though.

I thought the topic was about whether women are on average worse than men in chess.

Judging by the very title of this topic (and many comments that were made) that is not obvious at all.

Raspberry_Yoghurt
Colin20G wrote:

In order to debunk a general claim (about let us say: every women...) only one example suffices.

The Polgar exemple is a brutal disproof of the claim that "no woman will ever per part of the top 10 chess players in the world ".

We can still debate if "belonging to the top 10" is enough to be considered a "good chess player" though.

True, but that's just not the issue. Noone ever claimed "no woman will ever per part of the top 10 chess players in the world ". Obviously Short wouldnt claim that, since he himself lost to Polgar lol, and I dont think he is senile yet.

The claim is that "out of the 100 top chess players in the world, the most of them will be men". Because its about distributions, just like men and women has different distribution for body size so most men are bigger than women, but the smallest men are smaller than the biggest women.

I think if the Polgars had had 50 daughters and 50 sons, then the sons would have been best and the distribution would be the same as it is in chess normally.

Raspberry_Yoghurt
power_2_the_people wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
Pheebe wrote:

It's not always just about who can become a grand master.. it's also largely a matter of who wants to become it. 

All through my life chess has been the epitome of nerdiness, and as a girl you really don't want to be a nerd, at least not in your adolescent life as you can be sure to be shunned that way by everyone else.

Later in life once you're past that, you may try looking into chess, but is totally outmatched by the the boy who played it since he was 6.

So it's a bit more complicated than it may seem.

In early 80ies in Denmark girls were playing chess. After school i went to a sort of "take care of the children until parents sinish work and pick them up"-place, and i remember much chess was played there and it was both girls and boys, it wasnt a boy thing as such. Then it stopped at one point, dont remember why.

thats a very interesting story

Yeah Denmark in 70ies and 80ies were much more gender neutral than today. Dont know why it changed, maybe Britney Spears made al the girls want to be dolly and sexy and appear stupid or something lol.

trysts
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
 

True, but that's just not the issue. Noone ever claimed "no woman will ever per part of the top 10 chess players in the world ". Obviously Short wouldnt claim that, since he himself lost to Polgar lol, and I dont think he is senile yet.

The claim is that "out of the 100 top chess players in the world, the most of them will be men". Because its about distributions, just like men and women has different distribution for body size so most men are bigger than women, but the smallest men are smaller than the biggest women.

I think if the Polgars had had 50 daughters and 50 sons, then the sons would have been best and the distribution would be the same as it is in chess normally.

The statistics of today don't predict the future. You don't even know how to read statistics.

Pheebe

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

power_2_the_people wrote:

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

Pheebe wrote:

It's not always just about who can become a grand master.. it's also largely a matter of who wants to become it. 

All through my life chess has been the epitome of nerdiness, and as a girl you really don't want to be a nerd, at least not in your adolescent life as you can be sure to be shunned that way by everyone else.

Later in life once you're past that, you may try looking into chess, but is totally outmatched by the the boy who played it since he was 6.

So it's a bit more complicated than it may seem.

In early 80ies in Denmark girls were playing chess. After school i went to a sort of "take care of the children until parents sinish work and pick them up"-place, and i remember much chess was played there and it was both girls and boys, it wasnt a boy thing as such. Then it stopped at one point, dont remember why.

thats a very interesting story

Yeah Denmark in 70ies and 80ies were much more gender neutral than today. Dont know why it changed, maybe Britney Spears made al the girls want to be dolly and sexy and appear stupid or something lol.

I wasn't really around to see how it was back then in person, but I can imagine you're right.

Don't know if I'd hold Britney responsible for everything :p but there's no doubt that role models really matter a lot as they tend to define what's cool at school and what's not.

Raspberry_Yoghurt
trysts wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
 

To summarize my last post: An experiment with n = 3 is something you just throw out. You can prove anything you want like that.

If one person gets to Mars than that means that people can get to Mars. If one woman is among the eight best chess players in the world, then that shows that women can achieve the highest ratings in the world. Despite the sexist leanings of some people out there.

Yes, but it does not prove how many can do it out of 1000 possible prospects. Maybe Polgar has very specific extremely rare talent, and the Polgar parents just got lucky. You dont know that.

trysts
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
trysts wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
 

To summarize my last post: An experiment with n = 3 is something you just throw out. You can prove anything you want like that.

If one person gets to Mars than that means that people can get to Mars. If one woman is among the eight best chess players in the world, then that shows that women can achieve the highest ratings in the world. Despite the sexist leanings of some people out there.

Yes, but it does not prove how many can do it out of 1000 possible prospects. Maybe Polgar has very specific extremely rare talent, and the Polgar parents just got lucky. You dont know that.

Out of a thousand "possible prospects" you don't even know that any male will be any good at chess! Maybe 1200 is as high as all of them ever reach, and then all those 1200-rated-males can join your club and talk about how females are no good at chess.Tongue Out

Masamune314

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

Colin20G wrote:

In order to debunk a general claim (about let us say: every women...) only one example suffices.

The Polgar exemple is a brutal disproof of the claim that "no woman will ever per part of the top 10 chess players in the world ".

We can still debate if "belonging to the top 10" is enough to be considered a "good chess player" though.

True, but that's just not the issue. Noone ever claimed "no woman will ever per part of the top 10 chess players in the world ". Obviously Short wouldnt claim that, since he himself lost to Polgar lol, and I dont think he is senile yet.

The claim is that "out of the 100 top chess players in the world, the most of them will be men". Because its about distributions, just like men and women has different distribution for body size so most men are bigger than women, but the smallest men are smaller than the biggest women.

I think if the Polgars had had 50 daughters and 50 sons, then the sons would have been best and the distribution would be the same as it is in chess normally.

The thing is, it may have started out a claim about averages, but I think it started devolving at some point. And it was never really about averages, because we are talking about high levels. In no way are any of these people average. And, there are so few samples, even against each other the margins of who is going to win are slim. What makes a grand champion a grand champion? I have brought up my higher savant like abilities, which themselves are higher in the male peopulation. However, we are talking about a tiny cocktail of individuals at any given time. Short was always talking about the highest levels of chess (I think).

The population of top chess players is Not normal and very small to begin with. Even if there are brain differences on this level between the sexes, it is such a teeny tiny population to begin with that even being down in the "mannish brain category" is not enough to knock you off the list. And because of the small pool, there absolutely could be more women who reach it if we encouraged it more. The margins are razor thin, and it may just be a little more encouragement or some such to get a woman who is already not the norm to rise higher or to the highest level. Will there always be more men on the top for biological reasons? Maybe, but to tell women you should just gracefully accept it is paramount to "don't even try" even if up you are that one in a million woman. Perhaps she has every other advantage except for encouragement. Nigel kinda peed on that. And I think this is what we are talking about. It is a more nuanced discussion.

NewArdweaden
Colin20G wrote:
NewArdweaden wrote:
Colin20G wrote:

In order to debunk a general claim (about let us say: every women...) only one example suffices.

The Polgar exemple is a brutal disproof of the claim that "no woman will ever per part of the top 10 chess players in the world ".

We can still debate if "belonging to the top 10" is enough to be considered a "good chess player" though.

I thought the topic was about whether women are on average worse than men in chess.

Judging by the very title of this topic (and many comments that were made) that is not obvious at all.

True. Some people clearly didn't understand what Short said; or - perhaps even more possible - the original poster just wanted to start a shitstorm.

Masamune314

I could tell my kids, hey, because you have autism you will never be as good at speaking as neurotypical kids, which is 100% true. So? I'm not going to put shackles on them individually. You never know what is possible with any individual and to tell them as a blanket statement, there won't be any of you that can rise above this is BS. There may be one. And what if my kid is the one and I did not do everything possible to see that the soil was fertile for growth in case my kid is the one? Just sit back, eh I don't have to try as hard to teach them or encourage them. I'll just gracefully accept it because this leading speech therapist told me not to try? Or to limit my expectations? No thanks.

Raspberry_Yoghurt
trysts wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
 

True, but that's just not the issue. Noone ever claimed "no woman will ever per part of the top 10 chess players in the world ". Obviously Short wouldnt claim that, since he himself lost to Polgar lol, and I dont think he is senile yet.

The claim is that "out of the 100 top chess players in the world, the most of them will be men". Because its about distributions, just like men and women has different distribution for body size so most men are bigger than women, but the smallest men are smaller than the biggest women.

I think if the Polgars had had 50 daughters and 50 sons, then the sons would have been best and the distribution would be the same as it is in chess normally.

The statistics of today don't predict the future. You don't even know how to read statistics.

Yes they do. That's why science likes statistics. Not perfectly, but better than just random guessing and wishful thinking.

Say if a government are interested in changing something in education, like starting a foregn language 1 year earlier or later or whatever. They want to know with as much certainty as possible if its good or bad, they are NOT gonna say "screw statistics, we do what we want, anything can happen in the future!" or "We have an experiment here conducted with a grand total of 3 pupils, so now we know everything, lets just change the entire school system for millions of people based on that, if they can do it everyone can!"