Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 15:58:24 04/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 1998 at 17:55:41, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On April 19, 1998 at 12:18:56, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi all: >>This is an old issue and has some relations with the infamous idea and >>highly non political one that women are intellectually inferior. >>Infamous and non political, yes, but that is not enough to stop some >>thinking on it. I remember a book that I read very fast in the store, >>but unfortunately I did not buy it -I am a happy married man, not jokes >>with this kind of explosive stuff in my library- and where the argument >>was the following: >>A) In the average section of IQ curve, men and women are equal. I would >>say equally stupid, if you don't mind. >>B) Nevertheless, the shape of the gauss curve is different: men curve is >>flatter, with a higher number of cases in the extremes; that of women >>highly concentrate in the middle. >>C) The result of that fact, said the book, was that you can find few men >>with really high intelligence, but even fewer women.To probe that the >>book produced the following statistics: >>1) In the IQ 120 range, you get 6 men for each women that got that high >>level; >>2 In the IQ 140 dizzy region, you get 12 men for each woman that reach >>that very high peak on intelligence; >>3. In the stratosferic and almost inhuman IQ 170 or more level, you find >>25 men for each woman there. And so and so. >>Conclusion of the book: women, as gendre, is not made out for hight >>intellectual effort, even less than men. After all, only a fraction of >>men are IQ 120 or more, about 6%. And above 140 IQ the number decreases >>eve more, 1%. And so and so. >>If all this is truth, the you have part of an explanation of why you >>does not meet women in CCC or in chess in general. Not that to play >>chess means we are genuses, but at least involves some excedent of >>mental power that is scarce in men and even more in women. I now I will >>post this with the hope my wife never get into this club... >>Fernando > >And what makes you believe it takes such a high IQ to be a programmer, a >chess player or a chess computer freak? Does all this take a higher IQ >than being excellent instrumentalists in classical music, novelists, >poets, scientists, politicians, etc etc etc as many women are? > It is something very easy to test that people engaged in sciences of related thing are high IQ people 99 cases in 100, if not more. The same with people engaged in arts. >I don't know why there are so few women in the cc world, but I do know >it can not be because of anything related to IQ or to intelligence. >Maybe they are less competitive, less inclined to develop a passion for >machines and to focus all energies on a narrow field. But this would >prove higher intelligence, not lower. > To be less competitive can be defined as better and more smart that to be competitive, but that just replace one definition of inteligence by another, and not by a best one. The caricature of the mad genius of the neurotic wizard can be relatively truth, but that does not means that those mad or neurortic people are not highly intelligent people and that any average guy that is happy as a dove is, then, smarter. that's non sense. >Enrique
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.