# 97
but while im waiting, i will pull up a few more points, mainly. it seems the only example of what "women are better at" and "what men are better at" are that of your own parents, take a look outside of that and you will find much different results for things.
#106 then why do we acsept women in now? was the belief that "oh women are weak" just a escuse to not let them vote? is this not the claims masogonists use to "justify" doing what they do? as for #103 those 2 examples do have one explanation, that being it could have been translation issues.
The word translated as "women" in both of those verses is נשים nashiym, which literally means "women" XD It's the same in modern Hebrew.
besides, ive looked over @ronarprfct claims, the only examples he has provided is that of his wife being good at a set of tasks, and he hasnt even brought up his example for "men being stronger in general" and before you immedeatly put mike tyson, he TRAINED to get there, anyone could train to the strenght theoretically.
The word translated as "women" in both of those verses is נשים nashiym, which literally means "women" XD It's the same in modern Hebrew.
This word can also mean “wives” or “females,” but those are really the only possible definitions of the word.
@RevenantTheCleansed back me up here. #97 could you perhaps recite Peter 3:7. for me?
It is 1 Peter 3:7: "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. "
besides, ive looked over @ronarprfct claims, the only examples he has provided is that of his wife being good at a set of tasks, and he hasnt even brought up his example for "men being stronger in general" and before you immedeatly put mike tyson, he TRAINED to get there, anyone could train to the strenght theoretically.
I didn't realize more examples than we've all had going through life were really necessary. Your claim that women can train to be as strong as Mike Tyson is obviously untrue. Women have lesser bone density, less muscle, less testosterone, differences even in the tendons IIRC: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8477683/
Notice how men that were nowhere NEAR the top of their sport when playing with the men suddenly dominate when they decide to play with the women instead? The male bench press record is more than twice the female bench press record. That men are naturally stronger should not be a controversial statement, nor that men are naturally better at executing war. Look at how many videos of female cops absolutely getting owned by perps there are. Look at the women's soccer team getting trounced by a bunch of 15-year-old boys. You are denying reality if you say women can be as strong as men in general. Perhaps a strong woman could be as strong as or stronger than an average man, but if both train for strength the man will beat the woman the majority of the time.
It is true that neither strength nor intelligence give a human their value. Their value comes from being made in the image of Almighty God . That is true of men AND women.
#112/111 okay, hm, i see.... i, did not mean to cause much of a fuss here...
There's a ton of actual literature on this.
Bilalić has a bunch of papers, and they generally show there isn't much difference, and its largely due to participation.
The one linked here suggests that women may actually be better at chess in that the women who play maintain higher rankings with less effort than their male counterparts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541096/
The question of gender differences in chess performance is complex and multifaceted. While chess is indeed a game that primarily involves mental skills rather than physical prowess, there are several factors that have historically contributed to the perception that men perform better in chess than women.
One factor often cited is the difference in participation rates. Historically, chess has been a male-dominated activity, with fewer opportunities and support for female players. As a result, there have been fewer women competing at the highest levels of the game. However, this is changing, with efforts underway to promote and support female participation in chess.
Another factor is societal attitudes and stereotypes about gender and intelligence. These stereotypes can influence the way boys and girls are encouraged to pursue certain activities, including chess. Cultural norms and expectations may also play a role in shaping the confidence and competitive drive of male and female players.
Additionally, there may be subtle differences in the ways that men and women approach and think about chess. Some research suggests that there may be differences in cognitive abilities or preferences that could influence performance in certain aspects of the game. However, it's essential to note that these differences are generally small and don't imply any inherent superiority of one gender over the other in chess.
Overall, while there may be historical and cultural factors that have contributed to differences in chess performance between men and women, it's crucial to recognize that individual ability and dedication play a significant role. With greater opportunities, support, and recognition, there's no reason why women can't excel in chess just as much as men.
The question of gender differences in chess performance is complex and multifaceted. While chess is indeed a game that primarily involves mental skills rather than physical prowess, there are several factors that have historically contributed to the perception that men perform better in chess than women.
One factor often cited is the difference in participation rates. Historically, chess has been a male-dominated activity, with fewer opportunities and support for female players. As a result, there have been fewer women competing at the highest levels of the game. However, this is changing, with efforts underway to promote and support female participation in chess.
Another factor is societal attitudes and stereotypes about gender and intelligence. These stereotypes can influence the way boys and girls are encouraged to pursue certain activities, including chess. Cultural norms and expectations may also play a role in shaping the confidence and competitive drive of male and female players.
Additionally, there may be subtle differences in the ways that men and women approach and think about chess. Some research suggests that there may be differences in cognitive abilities or preferences that could influence performance in certain aspects of the game. However, it's essential to note that these differences are generally small and don't imply any inherent superiority of one gender over the other in chess.
Overall, while there may be historical and cultural factors that have contributed to differences in chess performance between men and women, it's crucial to recognize that individual ability and dedication play a significant role. With greater opportunities, support, and recognition, there's no reason why women can't excel in chess just as much as men.
Then why didn't one of the Polgar sisters become world champion or even get close? They were raised from a very young age specifically to play chess against men and become world champions. At least one of them desperately wanted to. At her best she was only able to win 1 game against Kasparov. He won 12 and there were 4 draws.
Is there any data about the historic evolution of the percentage of female chess players?
I couldn't find any study or graphics about that. Maybe it's not easy to find "historical" (evan 20-30 years back would be fine...) data on the percentage of female players? Not only in the GM range (that should be easier to find), but also for, say, titled or just FIDE licensed players?
Old post, but whatever. Statistically speaking, there are two problems with the OP.
First, the standard deviation is not taken into account and, unfortunately, I cannot see the graphs of the two distributions. As a rule of thumb, in statistics, we use the standard deviation, not personal opinion or intuition, to measure whether the difference between two distributions is small. Because, obviously, personal opinion and intuition are subjective. Any difference below one standard deviation is considered a small difference. For example, if the difference of performance is exactly equal the standard deviation, then choosing randomly a male and a female, there is around 26% of chance that the female player has higher ranking than the male player.
Second, there are around 170 thousand FIDE-rated chess players, but it is estimated there are 600 to 800 millions of chess players around the world. In other words, the FIDE database represents less than the top 0,03% chess players. Therefore, this difference can indeed be attributed to there being an order of magnitude less female chess players. Bot averages of ratings of players which are much above average and, statistically speaking, they are extremes.
In any case, since there is no real evidence that the difference of performance is due to biological differences, the question in the OP begs another questions: (1) why few women learn to play chess and (2) why is there little investment in female chess competitions?
The second question has a straightforward answer, as an ABBA music says: this is a rich men's world. Rich men choose where they invest their money, they won't invest their money if profit is not expected.
As for the first question, we should take a look at cultural factors, as other people here have already commented.
Then why didn't one of the Polgar sisters become world champion or even get close? They were raised from a very young age specifically to play chess against men and become world champions. At least one of them desperately wanted to. At her best she was only able to win 1 game against Kasparov. He won 12 and there were 4 draws.
The question has been responded in the OP: in statistical distributions, a larger population leads to larger extremes.
The ELO rating of chess players is approximately a normal distribution (Gaussian distribution) with average of 1500 points and standard deviation of 200 points. Using the cumulative distribution, on average, one in 43 is at least 2 stds above average (1900 points), one in 159 is at least 2.5 stds above average (at least 2000 points), and one in 667 people is at least 3 stds above average (at least 2100 points).
Therefore, for example, if in a chess competition with 1000 players, 900 men and 100 women, supposing both men and women follow the same probabilistic distribution, there it is likely there is at least one men above 2100 points and it is unlikely there is a woman above 2000 points, simply because there are much more men than women.
this has been going on for 5 pages i think its ok
Hm, alright then.
Well, if we're talking biblically, then Scripture makes it clear that women aren't adept in battle/war.
"The mighty men of Babylon have ceased fighting, They stay in the strongholds; Their strength is exhausted, They are becoming like women; Their dwelling places are set on fire, The bars of her gates are broken."
Jeremiah 51:30 NASB1995
"In that day the Egyptians will become like women, and they will tremble and be in dread because of the waving of the hand of the LORD of hosts, which He is going to wave over them."
Isaiah 19:16 NASB1995
These passages (and a few more) indicate that soldiers being weak and afraid in battle is being "like women." Does this refer to physical strength? Or does it refer to wartime strategic ability? Or both? It doesn't say. All it indicates is that soldiers being "like women" will negatively impact their abilities in war.
Men and women are definitely equal, but they are also definitely not the same, and have different strengths and weaknesses. I don't think we can make a biblical case one way or the other about how gender plays a role in chess, but we can make a biblical case that (generally speaking) men are better at some things than women are, and (generally speaking) women are better at some things than men are.