Probably a good move on Chess.com's part there
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
May 12, 2015
0
#1503
power_2_the_people wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
i've just posted a new forum topic : sex
it has been deleted by chess.com maybe because of the word sex in the title. anyway it was based on the comments # 45 -54 in the thread Nigel Short is a sexist buffoon. read that and tell me what is your opinion about it.
I don't think he knows that you're a guy, Power
Anyway, he seems to think that chess ability is located within grey matter exclusively. That sounds absurd to me.
May 12, 2015
0
#1504
I don't know what that has to do with Descartes, but I'm pretty sure that chess ability has never been located in any one part of the brain;)
Anything in any way beautiful derives it's beauty from itself and asks nothing beyond itself. Praise is no part of it, for nothing is made better or worse by praise. - Marcus Aurelius Antonius Augustus
“The important thing is to polish wisdom and the mind in great detail. If you sharpen wisdom, you will understand what is just and unjust in society and also the good and the evil of this world; then you will come to know all kinds of arts and you will tread different ways. In this manner, no one in this world will succeed in deceiving you. It is after this stage that you will arrive at the wisdom of strategy. The wisdom of strategy is entirely distinct. Even right in the middle of a battle where everything is in rapid movement, it is necessary to attain the most profound principle of strategy, which assures you an immovable mind. You must examine this well.” -Miyamoto Musashi
"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."
Wow, I acually remember a little French. A little. 🐩
I rip it hardcore, like porno-flick b*chs
I roll with groups of ghetto bastards with biscuits
Check it, my method on the microphone's bangin'
Wu-Tang slang'll leave your headpiece hangin'
Bust this, I'm kickin' like Segal, Out For Justice
The roughness, yes, the rudeness, ruckus
Redrum, I verbally assault with the tongue
Murder one, my style shot ya knot like a stun-gun
I'm hectic, I wreck it with the quickness
Set it on the microphone, and competition get blown
Bring Da Ruckus - Wu-Tang Clan
power_2_the_people wrote:
Elubas wrote:
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 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
Well, indeed, that explains why you hold the belief you hold :)
was it not you that suggested the idea of puting 5 minutes into something? its like you turning a good idea into a bad idea. well its all so full of irony. maybe you don't understand.
and then after all your comments today, isn't right to assume you take everything literally . sometimes i wonder if the debate here is not between autistic and non-autistic interpretation. i've nothing against autistic but i believe there would be a difference. i'm a little bit curious about that.
I said the idea of spending 5 minutes on something is bad. Sure, joke around with that, no problem, but it is a real issue, and it makes it harder for people to learn and get along with each other because they always think they are right. It's sort of like how a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous -- because people feel like, ok, I want to pretend like I researched, so I'll spend 5 minutes on it, then I can say hey look I did research! And now I don't have to listen to other arguments, how fun :)
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
trysts wrote:
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*:)
Are you sure it wasn't more like one minute? :)
It actually took me ten minutes to write that:)
Well, ten minutes is much better than average, I'll give you credit :)
power_2_the_people wrote:
its a number games. if you have more girls playing chess you'll have more girls being good at it while if the percentage is 10% less girls or 100% less girls that play chess there will be very few who excell at it, especially if there is an environment as the one Nigel tries to create. it is sad because women chess players, which is already quite a small number, quit because they feel uncomfortable. they just feel disgusted by this type of sexist and demeaning comments.
I would think though that for example, more white Americans play basketball than black ones (just based on the fact that the majority of Americans are white), yet you see many more black players in the NBA. I feel like the participation idea is sort of a lazy explanation that we apply only in situations where we feel like it. Talking about cultural and social factors is quite legitimate, but the participation idea is a lazy way of going about it.
So to my above example, culture probably has a lot to do with it; the mere number of whites/blacks playing though? Not as much.
power_2_the_people wrote:
its a number games. if you have more girls playing chess you'll have more girls being good at it while if the percentage is 10% less girls or 100% less girls that play chess there will be very few who excell at it, especially if there is an environment as the one Nigel tries to create. it is sad because women chess players, which is already quite a small number, quit because they feel uncomfortable. they just feel disgusted by this type of sexist and demeaning comments.
trysts wrote:
You have a bunch of people in a room. You let Nigel Short walk in. Your social intelligence score will be rated by how quickly you leave the room
Do you mean that it takes social intelligence to tolerate all kinds of people and opinions, even if they differ from your own? So the longer you can tolerate to stay, the more intelligent you are? I guess you're right... Throwing your hands up in despair and saying, "I don't get this guy, I'm outta here" is pretty much the same as saying, "I don't get math, I'm outta here" and walking out of the exam room.
power_2_the_people wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
electricpawn wrote:
When one considers the strong response to Nigel's remarks among men, and since the use of statistics has been discussed, it would be interesting to see what traits are most prominent among this subset of individuals who are so adament about women's brains not being hardwired for chess.
For example, what percentage of women would consider these men desirable sex partners? Do these men bear a resentment toward women in general because they had domineering mothers? Absent mothers who never displayed any love or affection for them?
Are these men athletic, or were they always the last selected for dodgeball teams in gym class? I think a major university should do some research on this subject.
This is a typical example of the loosing side of a discussion shiftting the nucleus of the debate from arguments to ad hominem stuff and jokes and such.
i don't think so. that was an interesting attempt at thinking of a study design for those of us in the forum who might have some background in social sciences or the likes. which obviously is not your case. well nobodys's perfect of course. and please do not take offense of this remark if you were just kidding lol
It would be impossible to do such a study. You'd want to build a group of people who share an opinion and try to find a correlation with their physical characteristics or life history. Opinions can be changed instantly upon receiving new knowledge, while the latter two cannot - i.e. the same person could have opposite opinions from one day to the next, while still being as desirable/undesirable to women or having the same good/bad relationship with their mother.
In short (no pun intended): you're not born into an opinion.
SheridanJupp wrote:
Anyway, there's a good chance that in a couple of decades, more women will be among the top 100, perhaps even top 30 of best chess players as more and more young children develop autism and it tends to happen to boys more often (boys are 5 times more likely to develop autism) than girls.
That's false. It's only the number of diagnosed cases that's currently going up, because they're constantly lowering the threshold of diagnosis.
power_2_the_people wrote:
to test Garry kasparov’s famous claim that women don’t succeed at chess because they are too easily distracted by ''extraneous events, such as a baby crying upstair'' I propose that a tournament with one hundred female and one hundred male participants be held underneath a baby nursery. it would then be possible to see how men and women react and adapt their play to the distracting cries of babies
My wife's always getting mad at me when I start telling her some funny story or other while our baby is crying. She'll be like, "I can't listen to you right now, can't you see he's crying?" And I'll be like, "Oh, I didn't notice."
But that's just anecdotal.
Azukikuru wrote:
trysts wrote:
You have a bunch of people in a room. You let Nigel Short walk in. Your social intelligence score will be rated by how quickly you leave the room
Do you mean that it takes social intelligence to tolerate all kinds of people and opinions, even if they differ from your own? So the longer you can tolerate to stay, the more intelligent you are? I guess you're right... Throwing your hands up in despair and saying, "I don't get this guy, I'm outta here" is pretty much the same as saying, "I don't get math, I'm outta here" and walking out of the exam room.
No no. She's saying that the quicker you leave, the higher EQ you have. (Emotional Intelligence)
Azukikuru wrote:
SheridanJupp wrote:
Anyway, there's a good chance that in a couple of decades, more women will be among the top 100, perhaps even top 30 of best chess players as more and more young children develop autism and it tends to happen to boys more often (boys are 5 times more likely to develop autism) than girls.
That's false. It's only the number of diagnosed cases that's currently going up, because they're constantly lowering the threshold of diagnosis.
I agree with this for 80% of it. The other 20 though, idk. I don't think it's anything like vaccines, but I think there is also something else going on for a smaller portion of cases. I think there are a certain number of cases where the severity is worse than it might have been if the same people were born a few decades ago. So, an increase in severity for a small portion of cases. That's just my personal opinion. I'm thinking of people who are having severely autistic children who may have traits in their family but no severe cases in the family history, kind of like my own. I'd like to find some more research on this but family history can be unreliable, especially with the difference in diagnosis these days.
Actually, I wonder what the rankings would look like if the top young chess players did chess boxing? It is indeed a problem for us to probosculate upon.
"Probosculate" is a new word for me. Cool!