Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Sex is so overrated it hurts.
Biggest turnoff for most women: No job
Biggest turnoff for men: Lack of lady parts
On average. 😁
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
in india for example women are more intelligent ?
I don't think there are IQ differences between any countries. There COULD be, we know populations have sligthly different genes, so theoretically there could be differences in the genes that are involved in intelligence stuff. But it doesnt seem to me at all that there is.
Some have tried to quantify this.
trysts wrote:
You don't seem to understand what Judit Polgar accomplished. Her rise up to the top of chess informed the world that there is no longer a discussion about females not being "hardwired" or "equipped" to be the very best chess players in the world if they so choose.
Yours and Nigel's sexism is a story of two men with a prejudice against women's abilities, disparaging a female's ability to be as good as males at playing a board game. It's laughable. Neither of us are good at chess based upon our ratings, plain_yogurt, so I can't imagine what your purpose is in arguing for some innate ability that males have which females don't when it concerns this game? I'm just on the side of reason. You must have some other motive. I'll call it sexism--prejudice against women or what women are capable of.
I don't think we (or you and Raspberry_Yoghurt) are talking about the same thing. Judit Polgar was a great chess player in her prime, but she was never the best. No woman ever has been "the best". If the point of contention is that men are about 100 points better than women on average, then Judit Polgar's success does nothing to disprove this. If the two genders performed equally, we should have an equal (or participation-corrected) number of male and female world champions; at this time, the number of female champions is zero. That's because we'd need woman players who are considerably better than Judit Polgar.
I have repeatedly shown the statistics of male and female performance, and I'm not the only one who has found the existence of this performance gap. It is there. We can investigate its development over time to predict its existence in the future; this has been done, by me as well as by others, and in the past couple of decades, the performance gap has been found to be increasing.
To point this out has nothing to do with sexism. What can be construed as sexism is how this is presented to the world, and it may very well be that Nigel Short could have chosen his words a little more carefully. "Women don't have what it takes" can apply to the world championship title according to current statistics, but it certainly does not apply to playing high-level chess in general. And who knows, the conditions driving the statistics may change as time goes on; the only thing that can then be brought to question is the ability of these statistics to make accurate long-term predictions. But for the foreseeable future, I would advise a little bit more respect for statistics as a predictive science.
power_2_the_people wrote:
nigel has been known for decades for his sexist remarks about women in chess. the problem never has been the gap it is simply the sexism
So there is a gap!
Well, of course. He is British. He would mind the gap.
Azukikuru wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
in india for example women are more intelligent ?
I don't think there are IQ differences between any countries. There COULD be, we know populations have sligthly different genes, so theoretically there could be differences in the genes that are involved in intelligence stuff. But it doesnt seem to me at all that there is.
Some have tried to quantify this.
There were some studies which showed that Ashkenazi Jews had the highest IQ followed by East Asians.
There were plenty of Jewish world champions, but East Asians didn't seem to be among the top.
Unlike "women in chess discussion", where the same phenomenon occurs in all age groups in all countries, "race and chess" must consider that different countries have different chances to grow. Either due to financial, cultural or oraganisational reasons.
I still don't understand the difference between a more woman chess friendly country and a lesser one. What does that actually mean? Is it attitudes toward women playing chess competitively against men? Or is just more acceptance of women playing as long as it is against women? Even really backwards countries don't mind women competing against other women much of the time. So what is meant by women friendly, and specifically within the chess world?
Masamune314 wrote:
I still don't understand the difference between a more woman chess friendly country and a lesser one. What does that actually mean? Is it attitudes toward women playing chess competitively against men? Or is just more acceptance of women playing as long as it is against women? Even really backwards countries don't mind women competing against other women much of the time. So what is meant by women friendly, and specifically within the chess world?
https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml
Look at countries such as Saudi Arabia or Oman. They don't have rated female chess players.
May 10, 2015
0
#1353
Azukikuru wrote:
I don't think we (or you and Raspberry_Yoghurt) are talking about the same thing. Judit Polgar was a great chess player in her prime, but she was never the best. No woman ever has been "the best". If the point of contention is that men are about 100 points better than women on average, then Judit Polgar's success does nothing to disprove this. If the two genders performed equally, we should have an equal (or participation-corrected) number of male and female world champions; at this time, the number of female champions is zero. That's because we'd need woman players who are considerably better than Judit Polgar.
I have repeatedly shown the statistics of male and female performance, and I'm not the only one who has found the existence of this performance gap. It is there. We can investigate its development over time to predict its existence in the future; this has been done, by me as well as by others, and in the past couple of decades, the performance gap has been found to be increasing.
To point this out has nothing to do with sexism. What can be construed as sexism is how this is presented to the world, and it may very well be that Nigel Short could have chosen his words a little more carefully. "Women don't have what it takes" can apply to the world championship title according to current statistics, but it certainly does not apply to playing high-level chess in general. And who knows, the conditions driving the statistics may change as time goes on; the only thing that can then be brought to question is the ability of these statistics to make accurate long-term predictions. But for the foreseeable future, I would advise a little bit more respect for statistics as a predictive science.
Actually Judit Polgar was "the best" in chess at a very young age. Besting all male grandmasters and chess champions before her. That was conveniently forgotten by you now, wasn't it, Azukikiru? What YOU need is a male player better than her in the history of chess, and that only comes down to a handful of men.
Nigel Short could have chosen his words more carefully, yes, that way his sexism could have been covered up from public view and you wouldn't have to apologize for him
NewArdweaden wrote:
Azukikuru wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
in india for example women are more intelligent ?
I don't think there are IQ differences between any countries. There COULD be, we know populations have sligthly different genes, so theoretically there could be differences in the genes that are involved in intelligence stuff. But it doesnt seem to me at all that there is.
Some have tried to quantify this.
There were some studies which showed that Ashkenazi Jews had the highest IQ followed by East Asians.
There were plenty of Jewish world champions, but East Asians didn't seem to be among the top.
Unlike "women in chess discussion", where the same phenomenon occurs in all age groups in all countries, "race and chess" must consider that different countries have different chances to grow. Either due to financial, cultural or oraganisational reasons.
Scientists are finding that IQ score is not as reliable a measure of intelligence as once thought. And, certainly no indicator of future success:
http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure
It is highly dependent on motivation to take the test. IQ is a very innacurate way to measure autistic kids intelligence, because they don't usually have the motivation to takes tests just for some kind of intellectual social standing.
May 10, 2015
0
#1355
I'm not a mother....but that's a beautiful thing to extend out PttP. Thank You.
H
NewArdweaden wrote:
Masamune314 wrote:
I still don't understand the difference between a more woman chess friendly country and a lesser one. What does that actually mean? Is it attitudes toward women playing chess competitively against men? Or is just more acceptance of women playing as long as it is against women? Even really backwards countries don't mind women competing against other women much of the time. So what is meant by women friendly, and specifically within the chess world?
https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml
Look at countries such as Saudi Arabia or Oman. They don't have rated female chess players.
Well, yeah, they don't even let women drive in Saudi Arabia. And of course Russia and China would be cool with more women playing other women and not rising to the men's level (on a broad cultural scale). Just as an aside, it is interesting that most of,the top women listed for the U.S. seem to be of cultural descent from those countries with traditionally strong chess programs (by last name). Even though they are in the U.S. I have to wonder if the more restrictive culture of these native countries has anything to do with women only competing at a high level against other women? This is just speculation on my part, but even amongst kids who were born in this country, if they have strong cultural family ties to the "old country" wouldn't that have some influence? And perhaps not of the progressive side?
I am also wondering, even in Scandanavian countries that seem to be more progressive, what we are talking about is the social acceptability of women playing women vs. women playing men. That seems to be the issue. Perhaps it is seen as overboard for women to compete against me even in more "progressive" counties.
Just thoughts.
power_2_the_people wrote:
masamune and all the others, happy mothers' day before i forget.
Thank you!
I am typing on a tablet so please excuse any spelling/grammatical errors.
power_2_the_people wrote:
Masamune314 wrote:
I am typing on a tablet so please excuse any spelling/grammatical errors.
ok. btw masamune, what do you think IQ has to do with that seriously? maybe nothing i may have been mistaken myself about that i think
In reference to chess ability? I think in part it has to do with specific skills not so much exactly what is measured in a standard IQ test, but you get a lot of people still trying to equate the two. A lot of folks say that chess is a test of traditional definition of intelligence, which I hope is not true since I suck, but then I play for fun.
I'm not sure if this is what you are asking. I would guess that most people good at chess would have a high iq, but that unless you were trained in some part and motivated to play, high IQ wouldn't necessarily mean you take to it right away. There is spatial reasoning, which seems to be what Short is calling the province of men, and emotional reasoning, the province of women, but there are also many other types of intelligence including the classical verbal reasoning and logical reasoning. perhaps someone out there on the forum can speak more in depth to this issue of different intelligences.