The problem is that even though you may not believe that it's sexist, other people may (I don't really think it's that offensive, though).
Not trying to be a jerk but. Are women worse at chess than men?
Sort:
That has a bad end, if you can't say what you see for fear, you contribute to blindness.
(Thank you for the fair-minded discussion, I´m out of here, good luck!)
In truth, I'm not sure it's a very interesting topic. Chess playing men, on average, just aren't better at chess than chess-playing women, except maybe at the highest levels, the latter of which can be easily explained away based on the male gender clustering further away from the mean. The interesting question is really: why don't more women play chess.
Dec 21, 2018
0
#45
TheTaleOfWob wrote:
LewisTu wrote:
OZmatic wrote:
LewisTu wrote:
OZmatic wrote:
Dear Not-a-jerk,
You are asking the wrong question. Chess is almost maybe sort of for geeks. Women are naturally less geekish then men. Maybe ask why men are more prone to geek or geeklike things. (Women, in general, are more interested in, uh, less hyper-intellectual things.)
You're being a jerk here.
------------------------------------------
Reply: I didn`t call anyone a geek, as if that were bad.
Sorry, I meant you were being a little bit sexist.
Is it also sexist to say women have had different gender roles for millions of years, have different physical traits and differently wired brains and instincts?
Not at all, as long as you can provide evidence.
Dec 21, 2018
0
#46
TheTaleOfWob wrote:
The concept of sexism doesn't have a throne to sit on in the first place. There is no burden of evidence.
There is always the burden of evidence. Thinking you can believe whatever you want to believe without evidence is the mindset of the lowliest scum of the earth. It is a philosophy that is like a virus on humanity and can not be given respect or even tolerated or ignored. It must be crushed for the good of mankind. No burden of evidence? HA!
Dec 21, 2018
0
#47
forked_again wrote:
Thinking you can believe whatever you want to believe without evidence is the mindset of the lowliest scum of the earth. It is a philosophy that is like a virus on humanity and can not be given respect or even tolerated or ignored. It must be crushed for the good of mankind.
Sounds like stuff I've said.
We might agree on a lot of things 
As long as you're willing to let it cut both ways (and by your strong words I assume you are).
For example if there were evidence for an idea or existence that you find personally offensive, what then? IMO if such a thing is well supported, has answers for its strongest criticisms, (and there are no equivalent alternatives, etc) then we're required to acknowledge / believe it, ideologies be damned.
Dec 21, 2018
0
#48
stiggling wrote:
forked_again wrote:
Here is an article that talks about the primary reason for the difference in rankings between men and women is the smaller population of women playing, not inherent difference of ability:
https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html
Here is a thread that shows data breakdown of Men and women FIDE rankings mean for men =2016 mean for women = 1920. I'd call that a small difference, but for men who need to feel proud of themselves for owning a set of balls, I'm sure they'd say that difference is huge.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/statistical-analysis-on-gender-difference
Here is another scientific article, with statistical data analysis of the difference in ranking between the 100 best German men players and the 100 best German women.
Quote from the article:
"96 per cent of the observed difference would be expected given the much greater number of men who play chess."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679077/
Here is a scientific analysis of the performance of women chess players that concludes that women do better against men than their ratings predict.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180130090837.htm
Quote from the article:
"Data from 160,000 ranked chess players and more than 5 million chess matches suggest that women playing against men perform better than expected based on their official chess ratings"
Another scientific analysis that says the difference is explained by the number of men vs women who begin playing at a young age. Quote from the abstract:
"We conclude that the greater number of men at the highest levels in chess can be explained by the greater number of boys who enter chess at the lowest levels."
Nice post, and I'm glad people take the time to answer seriously.
Even so, it's too bad these are always troll topics.
Thanks. It was a post I made in a different thread back in September after looking into it a bit. I had to rummage through old threads for a while to find it again. I should probably store it in a safe place as this topic will never die. I will gladly post it again in this thread or any other, where people, without evidence, spout off about "inherent differences" that make women less capable. It's really nauseating.
Dec 21, 2018
0
#49
TheTaleOfWob wrote:
forked_again wrote:
TheTaleOfWob wrote:
The concept of sexism doesn't have a throne to sit on in the first place. There is no burden of evidence.
There is always the burden of evidence. Thinking you can believe whatever you want to believe without evidence is the mindset of the lowliest scum of the earth. It is a philosophy that is like a virus on humanity and can not be given respect or even tolerated or ignored. It must be crushed for the good of mankind. No burden of evidence? HA!
You don't need to prove something is not sexism until sexism is defined and appreciated in the first place.
Dec 21, 2018
0
#50
TheTaleOfWob wrote:
stiggling wrote:
forked_again wrote:
Thinking you can believe whatever you want to believe without evidence is the mindset of the lowliest scum of the earth. It is a philosophy that is like a virus on humanity and can not be given respect or even tolerated or ignored. It must be crushed for the good of mankind.
Sounds like stuff I've said.
We might agree on a lot of things
As long as you're willing to let it cut both ways (and by your strong words I assume you are).
For example if there were evidence for an idea or existence that you find personally offensive, what then? IMO if such a thing is well supported, has answers for its strongest criticisms, (and there are no equivalent alternatives, etc) then we're required to acknowledge / believe it, ideologies be damned.
[Leftist students walkout when speaker says Men and Women biologically different]
Ideologues are idiots like that. They're part of the cancer of humanity forked was talking about. They place their system of ideas and values above evidence.
Although people who celebrate videos like you posted are just as bad, working to demonize "the other side" and educational institutions in general.
Dec 21, 2018
0
#51
TheTaleOfWob wrote:
Women are dramatically less capable in chess
Factually false.
Also this guy is a shameless troll account, so... don't waste too many posts on him...
Dec 21, 2018
0
#52
TheTaleOfWob wrote:
Women are dramatically less capable in chess just like they are in boxing or baseball. I will leave "why" for you to figure out all on your own because you will find a lot of things you seem to be missing as a person along the way
I know you are retarded and stuff and I forgive you, but I posted evidence that you are wrong. You probably don't understand the concept. but just wanting to believe something doesn't make it so. Your words are worthless.
Dec 21, 2018
0
#55
Tale of Wob joined yesterday. Recurring troll scum that keeps coming back with different accounts. Must be a sad loser life to find entertainment baiting people into stupid arguments.
Dec 21, 2018
0
#57
TheTaleOfWob wrote:
the Carlsen of today would be looking up to either or both with stars in his eyes
Oh, my
Starry eyed surprise
Sundown to sunrise
Dance all night
We gonna dance all night
Dance all night to this DJ
Dec 21, 2018
0
#59
Even worse, it's like the laws of physics themselves would collapse, truly a delete button for the universe.
Dear Not-a-jerk,
You are asking the wrong question. Chess is almost maybe sort of for geeks. Women are naturally less geekish then men. Maybe ask why men are more prone to geek or geeklike things. (Women, in general, are more interested in, uh, less hyper-intellectual things.)
You're being a jerk here.
------------------------------------------
Reply: I didn`t call anyone a geek, as if that were bad.
Sorry, I meant you were being a little bit sexist.
----------------------------------------------------------
Right, by California standards, yes. (I'm from there myself BTW.) But personally I don´t believe it´s sexist to acknowledge or celebrate differences, and there are differences between the sexes. The problem is that people are not so good at being clear about what they are and are not, so much so that it is safer to pretend that there are not any differences, which is what we generally do in California and elsewhere. (Suppose I put it this way, tongue-in-cheek: most women have better things to do than play chess.)