4 ms·

If the differences are insignificant then why are most sports segregated by gender? Why does the entire female FIDE rating distribution sit 200 points lower tha

If the differences are insignificant then why are most sports segregated by gender? Why does the entire female FIDE rating distribution sit 200 points lower than the male distribution? The FIDE gap is not one that can be hand waved away as under-representation or discrimination or anything else. There are clearly differences between genders and races, and sometimes they are clearly significant. Whatever your views may be regarding how society should treat those differences, don't insult your own intelligence by claiming they don't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_world_rankings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_world_rankings

kthejoker2 8y ago
How can you say FIDE isn't just an under representation gap caused by culture or the federation itself? The number of boys who play chess dwarf the number of girls. If we took 1000 random 5 year olds and subjected them to 3 years of Magnus Carlsen style coaching I'm confident there would be no "FIDE gap."
- mg96226 8y ago
  Because FIDE ratings encompasses the entire distribution, from left tail to right, across every participating nation, age group, and interest bracket. If the delta was due to males getting additional coaching, then the left tail of the distribution would be different in shape for males and females. It is not. Nor do more progressive countries show any signs of closing the gap. The best evidence we have right now suggests it is in fact inherent in gender. Just like the women's 100m record is a full second slower than men's. This kind of blatant ignorance of simple statistics and experiment design seems to be rife in the gender debate.
  - hef19898 8y ago
    That kind of ignorance goes both ways. I for my part become suspicious of any Argument that is using data with a limited amount of context and Details on how the data was collected and analysed. Especially if the aim is to have some kind of "proof" for the superiority of one group of people over another. Using your specific example of the 100m-record. Women's 100m 1988: 10.49s, men's 100m 1987: 9.93s. Less than a second difference. And I would argue that with a time of 10.49 even a women would have been competitive during the 60s. And now I stop this arguement, as long we are talking at this level of who is superior there is no way we reach the point where we talk about how we act on those, most of the time only perceived, differences. Which is the more important question, right?
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > Less than a second difference. A second is a massive amount of time in the 100m. Compare male 100m world records with female: http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w_100ok.htm http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w_100ok.htm Most of the fastest women in the world can be beaten by high school male runners. For example Michigan high school mens third place in 2018 was 10.66. That’s top 10 women’s world record.

kthejoker2 8y ago

How can you say FIDE isn't just an under representation gap caused by culture or the federation itself? The number of boys who play chess dwarf the number of girls. If we took 1000 random 5 year olds and subjected them to 3 years of Magnus Carlsen style coaching I'm confident there would be no "FIDE gap."

mg96226 8y ago
Because FIDE ratings encompasses the entire distribution, from left tail to right, across every participating nation, age group, and interest bracket. If the delta was due to males getting additional coaching, then the left tail of the distribution would be different in shape for males and females. It is not. Nor do more progressive countries show any signs of closing the gap. The best evidence we have right now suggests it is in fact inherent in gender. Just like the women's 100m record is a full second slower than men's. This kind of blatant ignorance of simple statistics and experiment design seems to be rife in the gender debate.
- hef19898 8y ago
  That kind of ignorance goes both ways. I for my part become suspicious of any Argument that is using data with a limited amount of context and Details on how the data was collected and analysed. Especially if the aim is to have some kind of "proof" for the superiority of one group of people over another. Using your specific example of the 100m-record. Women's 100m 1988: 10.49s, men's 100m 1987: 9.93s. Less than a second difference. And I would argue that with a time of 10.49 even a women would have been competitive during the 60s. And now I stop this arguement, as long we are talking at this level of who is superior there is no way we reach the point where we talk about how we act on those, most of the time only perceived, differences. Which is the more important question, right?
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > Less than a second difference. A second is a massive amount of time in the 100m. Compare male 100m world records with female: http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w_100ok.htm http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w_100ok.htm Most of the fastest women in the world can be beaten by high school male runners. For example Michigan high school mens third place in 2018 was 10.66. That’s top 10 women’s world record.