power_2_the_people wrote:
in james bond's movie ''moonracker'' chang , the japanese doing kendo to try to kill james bond, is played by toshiro suga
the scene here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I0EmYJyCX0
That is awesome. :)
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
power_2_the_people wrote:
Elubas wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
women also have to balance career and motherhood
If the woman decides to become a mother. Don't summarize the lives of people who focus on their career and just so happen to be a woman.
i don't know exactly how to make sense of what you are saying. of course i can post other parts of the interviews with judit or susan or sofia polgar if you want. helps you understand further . what is not to be found on the internet tell me?
I mean, there isn't that much to make sense of. You say women have to balance motherhood as if being a woman forces you into being a mother. Some women might decide not to become mothers. I will say again, don't summarize the lives of all women, because you can't.
"It's like trying to prove that men and women doesnt have different gender profiles for body height by finding one "tallest woman in the world"."
Yeah, so for example, if the tallest person in the world happened to be a woman, I don't think it would change our overall thoughts about how gender is linked to height. This analogy holds in that we should probably care more about the averages than the extreme highs and lows (although those can still be interesting, of course). Then again, there have been those saying that men are more likely to be a genius but also more likely to be retarded, and maybe some of the geniuses get into the top levels of chess.
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.
I guess I would beg to differ? Have you ever seen Buzzfeed's videos on youtube? They always have titles like "things every man does," or "things every short girl understands," and then when people say "oh, not every man/woman does this" that person gets criticized for not being humorous or something. Honestly, I think using "every" to mean "most" (or something similar) is done way too often, but it seems rather dishonest of you to simply ignore the conventions such as using "women" to mean "some women," whether you agree with that convention or not.
With that said, I try to use "some men" instead of "men" when I can. I probably don't always succeed, but I think the extra word really does help with the clarity.
power_2_the_people wrote:
Elubas wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
Elubas wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
women also have to balance career and motherhood
If the woman decides to become a mother. Don't summarize the lives of people who focus on their career and just so happen to be a woman.
i don't know exactly how to make sense of what you are saying. of course i can post other parts of the interviews with judit or susan or sofia polgar if you want. helps you understand further . what is not to be found on the internet tell me?
I mean, there isn't that much to make sense of. You say women have to balance motherhood as if being a woman forces you into being a mother. Some women might decide not to become mothers. I will say again, don't summarize the lives of all women, because you can't.
all women that want to have children know that it would be a balancing act between the children and the activity and the carreer. it is a balancing act and it is one for men too
Right, all women/men that want to have a child, not all women/men period.
trysts wrote:
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.
Same goes for females. There's a lot we don't know. There's a lot that we wish we knew, but don't.
"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)."
Yeah, I sort of kept this at the back of my head. I still tend to think though, if you're trying to find an exceptionally strong person, it would be more likely in a group with the better average. It would be sort of like if you took two people, and they both were exceptional in that they devoted their whole lives to chess, they both might be very good, but the person who started with the better talent would probably be a tad better.
But, still, it's not totally easy to say. I mean, if one gender is particularly good with churning out extreme outliers, then to produce a super strong player that gender might not need a great average.
"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"
I don't really agree here to be honest. I could gracefully accept that there will be more top level women multitaskers (provided there was satisfying evidence, which there may or may not be; same goes for the case of chess). It wouldn't make me worse at multitasking compared to if I didn't gracefully accept that there will be more top level women multitaskers.
I'm not going to know how good I am at multitasking based on how people who are not me multitask. So, no, I wouldn't gracefully accept that I, personally, couldn't be a top level multitasker, but that's different. That's on the individual level.
"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."
I actually agree with what you're trying to say I think, but isn't there a bit of a contradiction here? If there might be one kid who is really good at speaking, as you say, then it's not "100% true" to tell your kids that they will never be as good at speaking as neurotypical kids. Because there's a chance that they will.
May 10, 2015
0
#1392
Elubas wrote:
Same goes for females. There's a lot we don't know. There's a lot that we wish we knew, but don't.
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Elubas wrote:
"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"
I don't really agree here to be honest. I could gracefully accept that there will be more top level women multitaskers (provided there was satisfying evidence, which there may or may not be). It wouldn't make me worse at multitasking compared to if I didn't gracefully accept that there will be more top level women multitaskers.
I'm not going to know how good I am at multitasking based on how people who are not me multitask. So, no, I wouldn't gracefully accept that I, personally, couldn't be a top level multitasker, but that's different. That's on the individual level.
Individual level is the only thing that matters unless you are trying to make some broad, sweeping policy that will negatively affect some group of folks, but I don't see women with pitchforks standing in front of Nigel's house yelling for the dismantling of the current chess system, so what's the point. In the end everyone thinks on an individual level. And to address a group of people and say they should as a whole accept limitations gracefully kind of puts a damper on individual initiative, if you ask me. That's just my opinion though.
Also, no one is really good at multitasking, or should they be. Otherwise everyone is just fine to text and drive. They have done experiments showing that people think they can multitask much more than they actually can and it's not good for anyone. It's not a strength. At all. I don't know why it is considered a virtue.
"Maybe the statistics can be read as you being likely to be a rapist, since statistics show that men are overwhelmingly rapists? Does that mean anything whatsoever to you? It shouldn't. It doesn't mean that you are a rapist or that men will always overwhelmingly be rapists."
Hehe... well, it means a lot to women at least; it makes a lot of them much, much, much more suspicious towards men it seems, at least based on feminist discussions I've seen. And I mean, I get it, it's really horrible to be raped so you want to be cautious, and yet, there does become a level of caution that starts to become non-functional (as well as even rude). If I worried about every stranger who got semi-close to me (say they walk by me in the store) murdering me, I'd be running away from people all day. I do have to take a chance when I decide to not run away from people all day, but the chance is so low it's not even perceptible.
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Same goes for females. There's a lot we don't know. There's a lot that we wish we knew, but don't.
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Well, it's the sad truth, many people don't realize how little we know. Their normal reaction to something they don't know is to explain it by making up a story that means something to them and trick themselves into thinking they know the answer now.
May 10, 2015
0
#1396
Elubas wrote:
"Maybe the statistics can be read as you being likely to be a rapist, since statistics show that men are overwhelmingly rapists? Does that mean anything whatsoever to you? It shouldn't. It doesn't mean that you are a rapist or that men will always overwhelmingly be rapists."
Hehe... well, it means a lot to women at least; it makes a lot of them much, much, much more suspicious towards men it seems, at least based on feminist discussions I've seen. And I mean, I get it, it's really horrible to be raped so you want to be cautious, and yet, there does become a level of caution that starts to become non-functional (as well as even rude). If I worried about every stranger who got semi-close to me (say they walk by me in the store) murdering me, I'd be running away from people all day. I do have to take a chance when I decide to not run away from people all day, but the chance is so low it's not even perceptible.
Assault changes people, so others will just have to deal with that caution whether or not they think it's rude.
"I say we err on the side of caution and have everyone shoot for the moon. As far as I know we have only one life anyway, so why put shackles of lowered expectations on any individual?"
I guess, though, I don't think lowered expectations are contradictory with wanting to try, and having optimism. It just means you admit you might run into a limit -- you try to have optimism within the scepticism, rather than deny the scepticism if that makes sense. I don't think I will become a GM, but that doesn't mean I think the world would turn upside down if I did, or that it's not worthwhile to shoot for it.
May 10, 2015
0
#1398
Elubas wrote:
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Same goes for females. There's a lot we don't know. There's a lot that we wish we knew, but don't.
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Well, it's the sad truth, many people don't realize how little we know. Their normal reaction to something they don't know is to explain it by making up a story that means something to them and trick themselves into thinking they know the answer now.
So you really try to be as vague as Donald Rumsfeld on purpose?
Elubas wrote:
"I could tell my kids, hey, because you have autism you will never be as good at speaking as ok 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."
I actually agree with what you're trying to say I think, but isn't there a bit of a contradiction here? If there might be one kid who is really good at speaking, as you say, then it's not "100% true" to tell your kids that they will never be as good at speaking as neurotypical kids. Because there's a chance that they will. Ok, maybe I should restate that, that they could get to 95% or so, so I get it, that it will never be 100% but you have to try for 100%.
Temple Grandin, who is arguably the most famous autistic person of our time was diagnosed with Classic autism in the 50's. Not Asperger's, but "Rainman" type autism (which is more like my own kids). They told her folks that there was no way she would ever talk and that she needed to be institutionalized. Now, maybe every other kid who was diagnosed up to that time would never be able to talk or function, but because of incomplete information and the statistical probabilities of the time, that was the assumed outcome. They said to put her in an institution. Her mother did not, but instead went about the business of getting her therapy and using her obsessions (her disabilities) to bring out her strengths. This woman can see the finest details of a schematic in her head. She can play them over and switch them around with a visual-spatial acuity that is mind-numbing. She is a world-famous professor of animal science. She lectures all over the world. She has found creative ways to overcome her faults and leverage her weaknesses. She has gone farther than anyone, anyone thought an autistic person could go, especially at the time and she did it in a male dominated field. She is right now RIGHT AT THE TOP of that field.
I wonder if instead of cows she had taken an interest in chess, what would have happened?
This is why in the end we have to look at everything in the final analysis on an individual level. There may never be her like again, but these are the people that truly change the world.
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
"Maybe the statistics can be read as you being likely to be a rapist, since statistics show that men are overwhelmingly rapists? Does that mean anything whatsoever to you? It shouldn't. It doesn't mean that you are a rapist or that men will always overwhelmingly be rapists."
Hehe... well, it means a lot to women at least; it makes a lot of them much, much, much more suspicious towards men it seems, at least based on feminist discussions I've seen. And I mean, I get it, it's really horrible to be raped so you want to be cautious, and yet, there does become a level of caution that starts to become non-functional (as well as even rude). If I worried about every stranger who got semi-close to me (say they walk by me in the store) murdering me, I'd be running away from people all day. I do have to take a chance when I decide to not run away from people all day, but the chance is so low it's not even perceptible.
Assault changes people, so others will just have to deal with that caution whether or not they think it's rude or not.
This is just too strong a statement I think. Now, we all often have irrational things we enjoy, and that's fine, even cute. But when a certain level of irrationality gets in the way of other people, that becomes a problem. And I mean irrationality not about 1% probabilities, but more like, 1 in a million probabilities of something happening to you. (Not a man following you, but more like, lots of harmless men and women "strangers" waiting with you at the bus stop) I'm not feeling great all the time myself, but I don't transfer that energy into making life bad for other people.
In the same way that, yeah, as in my earlier post, if I ran away from people because they talked to me, my caution would be hurting people. What am I going to say in my defense? Oh, I lowered the chance of me getting killed or robbed to .000000001% instead of .0000001%?
So, yeah, I understand the irrationality, but that's not going to stop me from telling people to try to change that.
electricpawn wrote: Fillipinos learn weapons before the get into hand to hand.
That makes the most sense since you only want to resort to hand to hand after you've lost your weapon.