probably some kind of unconscious filter then. just wondered why my post was quoted.
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
power_2_the_people wrote:
keep calm
and spend 5 minutes
on something
This would make a good OT thread. Just like that old SNL sketch: Coffee Talk. Ok, does free will exist? Discuss. (You have 5 minutes) :)
Colin20G wrote:
In actual data what is "the hole" (in the Galton table you decide the average value from the beginning)? Aren't the players given the same elo rating at the moment they become rated? Also the size of elo variations between rating updates is not constant (in the bean model it is).
Since we only have the evidence of where the balls land, we have to deduce the location of the hole as the peak or mean value of the distribution. So we work backwards there. It's true that players are given the same starting rating, which means that in order for an inter-gender gap to appear in the first place, males have to defeat females more often on average, and they have to keep doing it for the gap to persist.
Continuing the metaphor, the whole would be nature and the pegs would be nurture. Those who are in the 100% nurture camp imply that the hole is a single point, but a more realistic approach would be that the hole has a certain lateral dimension to it, making it easier for the people at the rightmost edge of the hole (the talented ones). It may even be that the holes for the blue and red balls overlap, but their geometric centers do not coincide.
It's not a perfect metaphor, but I think it successfully addresses several issues that keep resurfacing in this debate.
trysts wrote:
Azukikuru wrote:
What do you mean by "besting"?
Judit Polgar was the youngest International Master in history at the time she became one--two years younger than Kasparov or Fischer. She was the youngest Grandmaster in history at the time she became one. That's what I mean by "besting".
I'm not debating that. In fact, I proved it in my analysis (and showed the relevant graph in the post that you just quoted) that Polgar was an early bloomer (as is Yifan). The problem is that she didn't keep it up. As far as I know, the studies about girls maturing faster than boys have gained wide acceptance, even though they do indicate a difference in the development of cognitive abilities in the two sexes. What is much less accepted, or even speculated, is what happens after the boys catch up.
Anyway, as I understand it, the actual debate centers around the top-rated players, who are all male and past the age where girl prodigies such as Judit Polgar or Hou Yifan dominate.
May 11, 2015
0
#1426
Yes, free will exists. It's self-evident. Every social justice system is based upon it. The entire idea of a "self", and an "autonamous individual" is based upon it. And to believe otherwise opens the door to fate, predetermination, gods, and any other form of mysticism one could imagine. To not believe in free will is to really believe that no one is responsible for their own actions.
*that was my five minutes*:)
Philosophical zombies. They have every possibility of being true but we must base our society on the assumption that everyone around us is a conscious being. (Just in case.) That's my lat 2 minutes on this. :)
I have absolutely no #2 intelligence.
May 11, 2015
0
#1429
Masamune314 wrote:
Philosophical zombies. They have every possibility of being true but we must base our society on the assumption that everyone around us is a conscious being. (Just in case.) That's my lat 2 minutes on this. :)
There was a philosopher named Hans Vaihinger, who had a philosophy called "As if", meaning we think and act "as if" something is true in order to understand our world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Vaihinger
I never read his books, we only reviewed him briefly in my philosophy classes:)
British gene pool is a cup (or a spoon, for that matter).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
Please don't blame Nigel, blame Darwin.
Also, please stop with this SJW threads, it's getting boring.
May 11, 2015
0
#1431
Azukikuru wrote:
trysts wrote:
Azukikuru wrote:
What do you mean by "besting"?
Judit Polgar was the youngest International Master in history at the time she became one--two years younger than Kasparov or Fischer. She was the youngest Grandmaster in history at the time she became one. That's what I mean by "besting".
I'm not debating that. In fact, I proved it in my analysis (and showed the relevant graph in the post that you just quoted) that Polgar was an early bloomer (as is Yifan). The problem is that she didn't keep it up. As far as I know, the studies about girls maturing faster than boys have gained wide acceptance, even though they do indicate a difference in the development of cognitive abilities in the two sexes. What is much less accepted, or even speculated, is what happens after the boys catch up.
Anyway, as I understand it, the actual debate centers around the top-rated players, who are all male and past the age where girl prodigies such as Judit Polgar or Hou Yifan dominate.
I don't think there is any debate. I think the idea that men are somehow "hardwired" for the game of chess, while women are not, has already been proven wrong. So if you would like to turn your statistics towards individual accomplishments regardless of sex than you may find what should be common sense, which is that nurture, upbringing, social differences are the reasons for low partcipation numbers, drive, ambition, desire, etc., for each individual;)
May 11, 2015
0
#1432
power_2_the_people wrote:
tryst.''as if'' means the first step to understanding is believing if i'm not mistaken. i even wonder if there was not some truly psychological studies on that recently. is that possible? i don't know. but i never have read that book you refer to either
The idea is interesting, but it seems like other philosophers would have made criticisms of that philosophy already? That's probably a good place to start. I'll look up whatever criticisms there are, today:)
May 11, 2015
0
#1433
(#1927) Women have good memory...they forgive but never forget...
That's a bit much.
power_2_the_people wrote:
Masamune314 wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
and start here: free will is a fantasy, we're all bound together
There is a cause and effect web that is there. It's only philosophically significant though. Practically speaking we can only live like there is free will. That is the conclusion I have come to. The cause effect web of the world is too big for any one human to comprehend. I think it always will be.
The greatest philosophical minds of our time go back and forth on this. I think I've heard the compatibility argument before, but since ai am definitely NOT even a crumb on the coat of the greatest philosophical minds to date, I will never get to the bottom of this either. :)
the cause and effect web is the deterministic universe so to speak . and it can be seen as a incompatible with free will. but it is not according to Daniel Dennet the author i've quoted. don't get me wrong i'm not an expert on anything. i'm just a ''five minutes to think about something'' kind of guy
Sorry about my reply in the middle of your post.
trysts wrote:
I don't think there is any debate. I think the idea that men are somehow "hardwired" for the game of chess, while women are not, has already been proven wrong. So if you would like to turn your statistics towards individual accomplishments regardless of sex than you may find what should be common sense, which is that nurture, upbringing, social differences are the reasons for low partcipation numbers, drive, ambition, desire, etc., for each individual;)
I thought I did - those individuals being Judit Polgar and Hou Yifan. 
Unfortunately, the scope of statistics is limited to things that can be quantified. Nurture, upbringing, and social differences aren't such things, which is why I have reduced them to disclaimers accompanying the actual statistical observations. My point has been to work around this deficiency and to show only how things are; why things are as they are has been addressed by others in this thread, but as far as I can tell, nobody has produced anything more than opinions until now. There is nothing I can do to verify whether or not there are biological differences between the sexes when it comes to chess ability - there is nothing that anyone can do.
May 11, 2015
0
#1437
Reading a little wikipedia article on Hans Vaihinger leads me to Afrikan Spir (who I never heard of), who leads me to Neitzsche, who leads me to Schopenauer, who leads me to Kant, then back to Vaihinger. Ya' gotta' love Philosophy
That's not because of phillysopho but wikiopidea 
May 11, 2015
0
#1439
Azukikuru wrote:
There is nothing I can do to verify whether or not there are biological differences between the sexes when it comes to chess ability - there is nothing that anyone can do.
What do you mean by "besting"?
Judit Polgar was the youngest International Master in history at the time she became one--two years younger than Kasparov or Fischer. She was the youngest Grandmaster in history at the time she became one. That's what I mean by "besting".