So men can't show empathy and women can't systemize? Well, I must be a girl then.
Why most girls drop out of chess by the age of twelve
Sort:
Mar 10, 2019
0
#3
mbereobong wrote:
So men can't show empathy and women can't systemize? Well, I must be a girl then.
No, he said better, not they only can.
Mar 10, 2019
0
#4
@nimzomalaysian. I share two of your observations: on average men and women differ in their anatomy and physiology, and there are a lot more men than women that are playing chess. But you can't make up your argument by saying stuff like "we know something from study xyz" without citing the research you are talking about. Second, Cohen's two-dimensional scale is heavily discussed (and critizised) in the psychological community. One can not just measure two traits and take the results as an explanation for every difference in men's and women's behavior.
There is a heck of research on gender differences in interest development, that is related to boys and girls general identity development, gender stereotypes, individual interest, peer interest, task value, outcome expectation, support through family and significant others, role models, ... And all these factors influence an individuals decision-making and choice, when it comes to hobbies, school subjects and vocations (e.g. Wigfield & Eccles 2000, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X99910159). The explanation they offer is far more structured and provides significant insights into children's choices (they would endorse Mrmerbs57 observation).
My proudest achievement was not teaching either of my daughters chess. Hope that helps.
Mar 10, 2019
0
#6
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
Well-done, Rat! They just would've lost interest at 12 anyway (and then all that effort would be wasted).
Biggest troll on chess.com....my idol
Mar 10, 2019
0
#7
@ABergmann What the science suggests for example is that when it comes to IQ, it is distributes differently across the sexes. Now IQ gets a really bad rap because it's not a great indicator of some things, it's said to be sexist, it's said to be biased towards white people or whatever. But the point is that it tests all of the skills that make you good at chess really well, it's about puzzles, it's about games, it's about pattern recognition, so all of the skills that make you good at chess make you good at IQ.
Now the way IQ is distributed across the sexes is that women tend to cluster around the mean, women are more likely to have an IQ that is somewhere near the average whereas men can go right to the top or right to the bottom more often which is why you get great genius male artists, and philosophers, and mathematicians, and chess players but it's also why men fill the prisons because men seem to occupy the ends of the IQ scale.
ABergmann wrote:
@nimzomalaysian. I share two of your observations: on average men and women differ in their anatomy and physiology, and there are a lot more men than women that are playing chess.
On "average" men and women differ in their anatomy?? That's quite the observation. I'm just wondering, to get that average, how many times their anatomy must be identical.
Mar 10, 2019
0
#9
drgordon126 wrote:
Uhh because women don't like chess very much, on the whole... This is like asking why don't more men join knitting circles, listen to Justin TImberlake, and enjoy shopping. We're different. Men have larger brains, are more analytical, score 3.6-5 points higher on IQ tests, and do better on every standardized test (MCAT, LSAT, SAT, GRE) on average.
The title isn't a question. Read the OP.
Mar 10, 2019
0
#10
CountryGirlsSurvive wrote:
because they are tired of desperate leering
As 10 and 11 year olds there is a lot of "desperate leering" and so they quit by 12?
What?
nimzomalaysian wrote:
Firstly, it simply isn't true to say there's no difference whatsoever between the aptitudes of men and women. And it is without a question true that there are some biological differences between men and women, we know that from our anatomy. We also know it from the studies that we've done on young children before they've had the opportunity to be socialized, for example the sorts of toys that they go for.
Some of the reasons why girls drop out of chess clubs is because they keep losing and one of the reasons they keep losing is because chess as a game plays to some of the male intellectual virtues, as Simon Baron Cohen puts it, men are good at systematizing and women are good at empathizing. It's very trendy these days to say that everything is socially determined but that's not what the science says and it's not either what common sense says because if it were true, these days there would be a lot more representation of women in sciences, in astrophysics, in philosophy, in mathematics and in chess. But there isn't.
Oh, I think I might have the wrong Baron Cohen...
Mar 10, 2019
0
#12
lfPatriotGames wrote:
ABergmann wrote:
@nimzomalaysian. I share two of your observations: on average men and women differ in their anatomy and physiology, and there are a lot more men than women that are playing chess.
On "average" men and women differ in their anatomy?? That's quite the observation. I'm just wondering, to get that average, how many times their anatomy must be identical.
On average, a human has one breast and one testicle.
Mar 10, 2019
0
#13
nimzomalaysian wrote:
Firstly, it simply isn't true to say there's no difference whatsoever between the aptitudes of men and women. And it is without a question true that there are some biological differences between men and women, we know that from our anatomy. We also know it from the studies that we've done on young children before they've had the opportunity to be socialized, for example the sorts of toys that they go for.
Some of the reasons why girls drop out of chess clubs is because they keep losing and one of the reasons they keep losing is because chess as a game plays to some of the male intellectual virtues, as Simon Baron Cohen puts it, men are good at systematizing and women are good at empathizing. It's very trendy these days to say that everything is socially determined but that's not what the science says and it's not either what common sense says because if it were true, these days there would be a lot more representation of women in sciences, in astrophysics, in philosophy, in mathematics and in chess. But there isn't.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. It's trendy to pretend everyone is the same, but we're not.
In countries with high equality women don't go into STEM. In countries with high oppression women and men go into STEM almost equally. One explanation is women see it as one of the tickets out of that country. But when people are free to choose...
So if you want equality, either get more men OUT of STEM (because maybe no one naturally likes it, and men choose it because they have to make money) or just admit that it fits the male brain. Like chess.
Mar 10, 2019
0
#14
Maybe it's like the Three Stooges. Ever notice how most women can't stand the Three Stooges?
Mar 10, 2019
0
#15
Rat1960 wrote:
My proudest achievement was not teaching either of my daughters chess. Hope that helps.
???
There's very little science in this thread despite all the talk about science in this thread.
jfiquett wrote:
There's very little science in this thread despite all the talk about science in this thread.
well, gop did mention einstein.
On average, a young girl until around 10 years old will see herself as just like "one of the boys" and therefore not feel discriminated against for playing chess.
But once she reaches the adolescent age of around 12, hormones and social conditioning start to play a larger role in her thoughts and decision making process and she usually starts to feel a sense of being discriminated against, whether real or imaginary, but just the perception in her mind starts to eat away at her, that she could be spending her time doing so many other things than playing chess.
nimzomalaysian schreef:
@ABergmann What the science suggests for example is that when it comes to IQ, it is distributes differently across the sexes. Now IQ gets a really bad rap because it's not a great indicator of some things, it's said to be sexist, it's said to be biased towards white people or whatever. But the point is that it tests all of the skills that make you good at chess really well, it's about puzzles, it's about games, it's about pattern recognition, so all of the skills that make you good at chess make you good at IQ.
Now the way IQ is distributed across the sexes is that women tend to cluster around the mean, women are more likely to have an IQ that is somewhere near the average whereas men can go right to the top or right to the bottom more often which is why you get great genius male artists, and philosophers, and mathematicians, and chess players but it's also why men fill the prisons because men seem to occupy the ends of the IQ scale.
I never heard about this difference in distribution. But in your graphs it is showing precisely the opposite.
The orange of the women is showing a bigger difference in distribution then the blue of the man.
Thus I suppose you must have drew them vise versa.
Firstly, it simply isn't true to say there's no difference whatsoever between the aptitudes of men and women. And it is without a question true that there are some biological differences between men and women, we know that from our anatomy. We also know it from the studies that we've done on young children before they've had the opportunity to be socialized, for example the sorts of toys that they go for.
Some of the reasons why girls drop out of chess clubs is because they keep losing and one of the reasons they keep losing is because chess as a game plays to some of the male intellectual virtues, as Simon Baron Cohen puts it, men are good at systematizing and women are good at empathizing. It's very trendy these days to say that everything is socially determined but that's not what the science says and it's not either what common sense says because if it were true, these days there would be a lot more representation of women in sciences, in astrophysics, in philosophy, in mathematics and in chess. But there isn't.