That was pretty "convenient" of you to know the difference between "tolerance" and "intolerance", Power.
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
May 15, 2015
0
#1602
Ramona-Carbona wrote:
yes, chess is macho in the UK.
Just look at Nigel Short. Such a masculine beast of a man. Just his charisma makes women go all girly and "tee hee", and they cannot play him because they prefer to loose on purpose to flatter his ego.
May 15, 2015
0
#1604
power_2_the_people wrote:
i don't know if there is a difference if someone says 'choose your battles', and 'choose your battles wisely' ?
"Choose your battles wisely", seems better:)
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
trysts wrote:
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.
A big part of tolerance is to know when to walk away
i think a big part of tolerance is to know what you want to tolerate.
Oh come on lol. I mean I get your point, but that's awfully convenient. Yeah, I just decided not to listen to this person, I decided to symbolize tolerance by not being tolerant. Yeah, because I'm just that awesome that I am above contradictions :)
You obviously don't get my point, Elubas. If some moron likes to be sexist, then I have many choices--"intolerance", where I confront the sexist, or "tolerance", where I don't confront the sexist. Who knows why this has to be explained to you...
Well, thanks for insulting my intelligence. You're almost contradicting yourself as you make your point. You're being bigoted towards who he is just based on an article he wrote, among some other small things, and yet, you are the one telling us what tolerance is, by being intolerant.
I think, generally, the best reaction to someone you disagree with is to listen to their point of view, and simply proceed to show what you believe to be wrong with it. If you walk away just because you are hearing an opinion different from yours, you have your own problems. I'm not saying Nigel doesn't have his, but walking away like that is really catering to your own opinion and not being flexible to others. It's the easy way out, to just assume someone is wrong because of one little thing or because the view sounds different from yours. It's the same kind of thing that can make us assume anyone who has a different accent from us "doesn't know how to talk right" or something silly.
You'll probably respond to this by saying "but Nigel is an asshole and a sexist," but that proves my point. Just to make huge judgments like that doesn't make you look like you are trying to listen to the other side.
So, no, I don't disagree, confront people who have opposing views to you. But to do that, you don't have to assume they are overall a bad person right off the bat (and even if you are right, that kind of name calling still doesn't really add to the discussion). Good people can actually disagree on things. I think you and I are good people, trysts, but we disagree on things. So point proven :p
power_2_the_people wrote:
Who knows why this has to be explained... Yesterday Elubas was still going on like he ever did until now and i thought, my gosh i begin to figure out the kind of people... so i think i might have been tolerant yesterday because of that
I'm not sure what you're saying but it's probably something negative. Oh well. I don't have anything against you, power. I just respond to your points. And I feel like I get a lot out of that. But eh, sorry if I somehow did something wrong.
trysts wrote:
That was pretty "convenient" of you to know the difference between "tolerance" and "intolerance", Power.
Well no, it's convenient to change the definitions of things when it suits you. What if I said, well, always tolerate me, but when I am intolerant towards you, just assume there's some deep reason behind it that you are just too dumb to find and just let me be intolerant whenever I want.
Indeed that would be a convenient lifestyle for me, inconvenient for everyone else.
And tolerance doesn't mean liking. You can tolerate views that annoy you. Tolerance is just seeing the bigger picture. You want to automatically harass someone who disagrees with you, but instead you step outside to try to look at their perspective, even if you are totally unconvinced by it. Looking at things from just one perspective is so dangerous -- your ego can spring awful things on a person, anyone's can.
Another option would be to just use your brain as nature intended.
bstevewander wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
after what i have seen yesterday in my research on women in chess by countries, i'm just wondering why i've find so few women chess players in England and i wonder if it has something to do with the culture. not an exhaustive research i admit, that i've done. but you know. russia has more women in chess, china, india also maybe...
It's becase women in general have much better conditions in Russia and China, whereas in England they are discouraged from developing their thinking and encouraged to only care about raising chidren. "Macho" culture is very strong in England, while in Russia a "good man" is a much more softer and understanding figure, that understands that women need to have space to emancipate their spirits.
Bollocks.
As an ex-Russian I may point out that an average Russian men is a sexist brute compared to even to average Aussie bloke, not speaking of English gent. BUT - there is big BUT; starting from WWII, when about 20 million Russian males were killed, there was such a horrid shortage of males in the workforce that women got pushed into all sorts of professions and occupations, including chess. This did not create any better or happier women and men, instead in my humble opinion it made a horrid mess of affairs, with some of consequences still visible in the state of current Russia. For example it made a certain class of utterly unpleasant female official, somewhat between doorman and a ticket inspector - it is ubuqitous in every hospital, hotel, hostel, metro kiosk or passport office. If you ever live in Russia for more than three month, you'd have an abrasive encounter with this class of humanity for sure. They would check your documents, tickets, or deal with your enquiry with uttermost rudeness and snarling disrespect. Why? They are generally miserable in their position of some power, small responsibility and very little meaning. So the only joy they may derive from it is by making you miserable too.
Same goes for female teachers, especially in primary schools. Women make about 80-90% of teacher profession in general, less in the universities. Although there are very good examples of high pedagogy, they are particular exceptions, but the majority are miserable with themselves and bad with children. The amount of scorn and derision they pour on pupil is hard to imagine, if, again, you've never been to Russian school. Are these female teachers with steady jobs empowered? Oh, yes, in a way that they can make hundreds of children suffer a lot. Are they better off or at least happier, compared to the so called patriarchical past? I seriously doubt that. Most of them feel trapped in slave-like routine, and toying with children's emotions is the only fun they may ever have.
And then surprisingly (or rather not sururprisingly) there is a lots of prostitution in various forms. In fact Russia+Ukraine exports the bulk of white females into the sex trade all over the globe. One may consider it empowerment, but some may say it is the worse form of slavery. Go figure.
The so-called female empowerment in Russia (not sure about China) - is generally dangerous communist myth. And it is kept perpetuated by the lefties in the West.
While there are some 1% of women in these countries that may really enjoy high positions, high income and a lots of freedom, they are not making the overall picture.
And how about chess? Oh, there are about 10 high ranking female chess players indeed, and their victories are portrayed as high achievement for the whole country, much like a flight in space.
But take any chess club - rarely you may see any women coming and really enjoying casual game. In fact, I seen none in my school and student years over there, and I was a regular.
Nonono the wisdom of the anti-Short here prooves with iron logic necessity that Russian and Ukrainian women are happy and liberated, whereas the UK women are oppressed and downtrodden.
Let me summarize:
Women and men's brains are for all purposes, neuron for neuron, molecule for molecule, EXACTLY AND TOTALLY the same. We know this simply because we do.
This means women are precisely as good as men at being world champions in chess.
So why dont we have 50/50 gender disstribution in world class chess players?
OPPRESSION! The womans chess brains are destroyed by nasty macho remarks.
THEREFORE the world map of where the good woman chess players are also a MAP OF WHERE WOMEN SUFFER THE LEAST OPPRESSION.
And countries such as UK and USA should look to Ukraine. SO to speak, the goal it to make USA and UK women's lives resempbe AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE those of Russian and Ukrainian women. Knowing off course that the perfection of these temples of womans's liberation is hard to emulate in backwards macho places such as the UK.
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
Let me summarize:
Strawman!
Such nonsense:
@Gender essentialists still reading this:
Are you aware that if you take two humans, of the same sex for instance, their brains are already different? What do the sentence "men brains and women brains differ" actually mean?
I don't think that black and white phrasing is ideal -- I try to avoid it -- but surely you could imagine that they mean men are more likely to have certain types of brains whereas women are more likely to have other, different types of brains? Basically that there are certain tendencies men and women may have, and that these may be different. They're not saying anyone's brains are exactly the same, but that there are tendencies that change with gender.
Still though as I said, I think we shouldn't act as if men are bound to a certain brain, and women are bound to another. For a woman to know her capabilities there is no need for her to look at the fantasy "average woman"; because if her brain is not like the average woman's, then it has nothing to do with her. And I think as you pointed out before, a female 2500 is the same as a male 2500. She has to play chess of the exact same quality that men do to get there, so there is no point in assessing her skill based on the "average woman," or for that matter the "top woman." Just look at how she plays. If not many other women get to 2500, well, it's kind of irrelevant -- a female GM's skill is independent of what other women (or men) do with their own individual lives. Obviously.
(Although despite the above paragraph, that doesn't mean I think the idea of the "average woman" or "average man" is pointless, but it just has a different purpose. It would be better for making certain statistical predictions, which has nothing to do with the above.)
I apologize for my poorly organized post. I'm kind of tired but I do realize that it may not be very easy to read and I apologize for that.
In a few centuries, science will probably be regarded as a joke.
Colin20G wrote:
Such nonsense:
@Gender essentialists still reading this:
Are you aware that if you take two humans, of the same sex for instance, their brains are already different? What do the sentence "men brains and women brains differ" actually mean?
Are you aware that if you take two animals of the same species, for instance turtles, then they are already different? What then do the sentence "turtles and human brains are different" actually mean?
Solution: Individuals vary within a spectrum of possibilities, which is defined by their group / class. There can still nevertheless be boundaries between the groups: If variation becomes to great, we does not count the individual as a member of its group anymore. This is a general thing, and it blows my mind it's possible to mess this up and think that members of a class need to be perfectly identical :) :) :). For instance, everyone pronounces a given word, say "nigel" a tad different, nevertheless, the different versions of "nigel" are clearly recognized as tokens of the word NIGEL, as long as you stay withing the boundaries. If you stray to far from the boundary of the word's pronounciation, as when trying to learn a foreign language, the word can become incomprehensible as it has ceased to belong the class of for instance "pronounciations of NIGEL".
These boundaries can be difficult to find sometimes, they are still there though.
If your rather confused ideas about individuals and classes were true, we wouldnt be able to say a single word to each other; we would be unable to identify anything whatsoever as a member of a class. Which we obviously are.
power_2_the_people wrote:
People can be misled by 'scientific' statements. Just because scientific-like terminology is used to propagate a belief does not make that belief scientifically valid. Lots of alternative medications and health products are promoted with language which is frequently scientifically meaningless but designed to impress and/or confuse the consumer. Lots of paranormal ideas are put forward with references to 'quantum theory', which is very difficult even for a scientist to understand, or to 'energy', which is used in a generalised and ultimately meaningless manner.
Yes and sometimes you meet wrong ideas on Tuesday. So avoid Tuesdays or what?
power_2_the_people wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
People can be misled by 'scientific' statements. Just because scientific-like terminology is used to propagate a belief does not make that belief scientifically valid. Lots of alternative medications and health products are promoted with language which is frequently scientifically meaningless but designed to impress and/or confuse the consumer. Lots of paranormal ideas are put forward with references to 'quantum theory', which is very difficult even for a scientist to understand, or to 'energy', which is used in a generalised and ultimately meaningless manner.
Yes and sometimes you meet wrong ideas on Tuesday. So avoid Tuesdays or what?
get the data
Here you go.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-Science-Mind-Edition/dp/020501562X
It's an overview thing, so there's plenty of references in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
Still controversial...
In science, evidence is not only vague plausability.
power_2_the_people wrote:
Here is for you yoghurt.
While working in an executive position at Ford, Robert McNamara commissioned several studies aimed at getting information on everything from buyer demographics for certain vehicles to accident reports to make cars safer. He used this information to design cars that were great successes. In July 1960 Henry Ford gave McNamara the job as president of Ford. Four months later he had quit the position after being offered the job of Secretary of Defense.
... in 1963 South Vietnam saw its president murdered, making it harder for the U.S. to pull out. McNamara says he never saw JFK more upset, particularly because the U.S. was partially responsible for the coup.
McNamara and LBJ disagreed on the severity of the situation in South Vietnam. McNamara believing that if escalation was needed to improve the deteriorating condition, the American people needed to be educated on the dire circumstances of that country.
Hence lesson #6: get the data from: The Fog of War a film about the life and times of Robert S. McNamara, the former Secretary of Defense under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The piece is a mix between historical footage and an interview with Robert McNamara by the director, Errol Morris. While allowing McNamara to tell the story from his perspective, Morris also divides the film into eleven lessons that can be taken away from McNamara’s life. What results is an inside look at one of the most important and controversial figures of 20th century American government. The film is also a candid look at the human side of the decision makers that run the United States and how their personalities can affect policy.
lol why are you sending that to me? I'm not even American. Looks interesting though.
Evo Psych has nothing to do with government, and it's not especially American anymore, it's global. Few random links to illustrate
Czech
http://www.epjournal.net/articles/human-preferences-for-colorful-birds-vivid-colors-or-pattern/
China
France
http://www.pug.fr/produit/645/9782706115523
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
Colin20G wrote:
Such nonsense:
@Gender essentialists still reading this:
Are you aware that if you take two humans, of the same sex for instance, their brains are already different? What do the sentence "men brains and women brains differ" actually mean?
Are you aware that if you take two animals of the same species, for instance turtles, then they are already different? What then do the sentence "turtles and human brains are different" actually mean?
Solution: Individuals vary within a spectrum of possibilities, which is defined by their group / class. There can still nevertheless be boundaries between the groups: If variation becomes to great, we does not count the individual as a member of its group anymore. This is a general thing, and it blows my mind it's possible to mess this up and think that members of a class need to be perfectly identical :) :) :). For instance, everyone pronounces a given word, say "nigel" a tad different, nevertheless, the different versions of "nigel" are clearly recognized as tokens of the word NIGEL, as long as you stay withing the boundaries. If you stray to far from the boundary of the word's pronounciation, as when trying to learn a foreign language, the word can become incomprehensible as it has ceased to belong the class of for instance "pronounciations of NIGEL".
These boundaries can be difficult to find sometimes, they are still there though.
If your rather confused ideas about individuals and classes were true, we wouldnt be able to say a single word to each other; we would be unable to identify anything whatsoever as a member of a class. Which we obviously are.
The difference between humans and turtles are more more bigger than difference between men and women don't you think :)
If the difference in some brain feature between male and female is the same order of magnitude as the difference between two males, it is ok not to draw defiinite conclusions about "obvious gender difference".
Ridiculous. Did you know that all humans were once female in the womb? That's why men have nipples. There is a sociological difference in raising and expectations that makes the sexes think differently and value different things. Other than that no problem. I think we should all be cast into the same pool and compete equally at mental games like Chess.
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.
A big part of tolerance is to know when to walk away
i think a big part of tolerance is to know what you want to tolerate.
Oh come on lol. I mean I get your point, but that's awfully convenient. Yeah, I just decided not to listen to this person, I decided to symbolize tolerance by not being tolerant. Yeah, because I'm just that awesome that I am above contradictions :)
You obviously don't get my point, Elubas. If some moron likes to be sexist, then I have many choices--"intolerance", where I confront the sexist, or "tolerance", where I don't confront the sexist. Who knows why this has to be explained to you...