4 ms·

I would assume that to be due to a smaller selection pool. That is, fewer females play chess, and so fewer climb into the elite ranks. The same reason why Ame

I would assume that to be due to a smaller selection pool. That is, fewer females play chess, and so fewer climb into the elite ranks. The same reason why American football players disproportionately come from the south, where the sport is more culturally prevalent, and hockey players disproportionately come from the north.

adrianN 8y ago
And why Uruguay is punching way above its population weight in the soccer World Cup.
lsd5you 8y ago
You should consider revising your opinions and not making unwarranted assumptions. Or at the very least being open to the idea that it is because they are in fact not (statistically) equal in innate ability at the sport. It is certainly, prima facie, the obvious conclusion to reach. Yes there are other factors such as the massively overburdened 'lack of role model' explanation, but these are better explained as positive feedback from an already unequal situation (and in any case does it matter so much if you can have separate men and women sides to the sport?). The world is a very confusing and complicated place if you don't accept clear evidence however inconvenient!
- specialist 8y ago
  "better explained as positive feedback from an already unequal situation" I thought that was implied.
mcherm 8y ago
> I would assume that to be due to a smaller selection pool. Have you ever considered how you would test to develop evidence of whether or not that assumption is accurate?
biophysboy 8y ago
In Germany, the ratio is about 16:1 (https://m.phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html https://m.phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biolo...). But even with these odds, the chance of picking 20 men in a row is quite small, about 20%. So that leaves us with the more controversial answers. I havent done any research, so I couldnt tell you which it is, bias or genetics. If I had to guess, I would say genetics. I mean, its a game about spatial patterns. But I dont know why people still consider chess to be a good measure of general intelligence. Its not. The newest bot learned how to be better than our centuries of chess knowledge in about 30 mins, but the robot isnt at all intelligent in any general sense.
- cygx 8y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169128/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169128/ Abstract Women remain significantly underrepresented in the science, engineering, and technology workforce. Some have argued that spatial ability differences, which represent the most persistent gender differences in the cognitive literature, are partly responsible for this gap. The underlying forces at work shaping the observed spatial ability differences revolve naturally around the relative roles of nature and nurture. Although these forces remain among the most hotly debated in all of the sciences, the evidence for nurture is tenuous, because it is difficult to compare gender differences among biologically similar groups with distinct nurture. In this study, we use a large-scale incentivized experiment with nearly 1,300 participants to show that the gender gap in spatial abilities, measured by time to solve a puzzle, disappears when we move from a patrilineal society to an adjoining matrilineal society. We also show that about one-third of the effect can be explained by differences in education. Given that none of our participants have experience with puzzle solving and that villagers from both societies have the same means of subsistence and shared genetic background, we argue that these results show the role of nurture in the gender gap in cognitive abilities. Conclusion Our paper shows that the gender gap in spatial abilities in the task that we study interacts with culture. In the matrilineal society, we observe no gender difference in this task. These results show that nurture plays an important role in the gender gap in spatial abilities. Our results also indicate that providing equal education and improving treatment of women at the family level may make a difference; however, this implication should be taken with a grain of salt, because causality cannot be ascertained. Nevertheless, the implications for both policymakers and ordinary people interested in reducing the gender gap cannot be overstated: reducing the gender gap in spatial abilities may reduce the gender gap in the science, engineering, and technology workforce. It is worth mentioning that our results do not provide evidence against the role of nature.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > But I dont know why people still consider chess to be a good measure of general intelligence. Its not. The newest bot learned how to be better than our centuries of chess knowledge in about 30 mins, but the robot isnt at all intelligent in any general sense. That's not necessarily a valid counterargument. Humans and bots may play similarly to some extent (both technically do ranking&searching through space of possible moves, aided by many heuristics), but for humans it's about using the same "mental pathways" that are required by other tasks in life. Bots are just playing chess. It's like benchmarking a CPU vs. an ASIC. ASIC will be better for the task it's designed for, but absolutely useless for everything else.
Shorel 8y ago
> I would assume that to be due to a smaller selection pool. And one "solution" to this is to make a women only tournament. But as your comment shows, even this is viewed in a negative light.

adrianN 8y ago

And why Uruguay is punching way above its population weight in the soccer World Cup.

lsd5you 8y ago

You should consider revising your opinions and not making unwarranted assumptions. Or at the very least being open to the idea that it is because they are in fact not (statistically) equal in innate ability at the sport. It is certainly, prima facie, the obvious conclusion to reach. Yes there are other factors such as the massively overburdened 'lack of role model' explanation, but these are better explained as positive feedback from an already unequal situation (and in any case does it matter so much if you can have separate men and women sides to the sport?). The world is a very confusing and complicated place if you don't accept clear evidence however inconvenient!

specialist 8y ago
"better explained as positive feedback from an already unequal situation" I thought that was implied.

mcherm 8y ago

> I would assume that to be due to a smaller selection pool. Have you ever considered how you would test to develop evidence of whether or not that assumption is accurate?

biophysboy 8y ago

In Germany, the ratio is about 16:1 (https://m.phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html https://m.phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biolo...). But even with these odds, the chance of picking 20 men in a row is quite small, about 20%. So that leaves us with the more controversial answers. I havent done any research, so I couldnt tell you which it is, bias or genetics. If I had to guess, I would say genetics. I mean, its a game about spatial patterns. But I dont know why people still consider chess to be a good measure of general intelligence. Its not. The newest bot learned how to be better than our centuries of chess knowledge in about 30 mins, but the robot isnt at all intelligent in any general sense.

cygx 8y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169128/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169128/ Abstract Women remain significantly underrepresented in the science, engineering, and technology workforce. Some have argued that spatial ability differences, which represent the most persistent gender differences in the cognitive literature, are partly responsible for this gap. The underlying forces at work shaping the observed spatial ability differences revolve naturally around the relative roles of nature and nurture. Although these forces remain among the most hotly debated in all of the sciences, the evidence for nurture is tenuous, because it is difficult to compare gender differences among biologically similar groups with distinct nurture. In this study, we use a large-scale incentivized experiment with nearly 1,300 participants to show that the gender gap in spatial abilities, measured by time to solve a puzzle, disappears when we move from a patrilineal society to an adjoining matrilineal society. We also show that about one-third of the effect can be explained by differences in education. Given that none of our participants have experience with puzzle solving and that villagers from both societies have the same means of subsistence and shared genetic background, we argue that these results show the role of nurture in the gender gap in cognitive abilities. Conclusion Our paper shows that the gender gap in spatial abilities in the task that we study interacts with culture. In the matrilineal society, we observe no gender difference in this task. These results show that nurture plays an important role in the gender gap in spatial abilities. Our results also indicate that providing equal education and improving treatment of women at the family level may make a difference; however, this implication should be taken with a grain of salt, because causality cannot be ascertained. Nevertheless, the implications for both policymakers and ordinary people interested in reducing the gender gap cannot be overstated: reducing the gender gap in spatial abilities may reduce the gender gap in the science, engineering, and technology workforce. It is worth mentioning that our results do not provide evidence against the role of nature.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> But I dont know why people still consider chess to be a good measure of general intelligence. Its not. The newest bot learned how to be better than our centuries of chess knowledge in about 30 mins, but the robot isnt at all intelligent in any general sense. That's not necessarily a valid counterargument. Humans and bots may play similarly to some extent (both technically do ranking&searching through space of possible moves, aided by many heuristics), but for humans it's about using the same "mental pathways" that are required by other tasks in life. Bots are just playing chess. It's like benchmarking a CPU vs. an ASIC. ASIC will be better for the task it's designed for, but absolutely useless for everything else.

Shorel 8y ago

> I would assume that to be due to a smaller selection pool. And one "solution" to this is to make a women only tournament. But as your comment shows, even this is viewed in a negative light.