Author: Oliver Y.
Date: 23:57:54 12/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 1998 at 12:20:05, Fernando Villegas wrote: >On December 11, 1998 at 05:24:48, Oliver Y. wrote: > >>On December 10, 1998 at 18:41:18, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>Hi: >>>In fact i remember I have seen, two or three times, post made by women, very >>>short all of them ,juts demanding some information. Then they vannished. >> >>The above is helpful to know. However, the rest needs some comment. >> >>>This is an old discussion and the first time we did it here i was flamed >because I dared to say that, according to some studies, women mind is -in >average- not fitted to this kind of intelectual endeavour, I mean, >concentrated, logical, obsesive kind of intelection oriented towards abstract >problems. >> >>Hmmm, I assume you were flamed by men, maybe a different approach would evoke >>a better response....naaaaaah....but the concept of fitness or suitability is >>the loaded term. I recall in the 80's few substantial differences could be >>found, and the jury must have returned since then. Any academics out there able >>to help out? >> >>Is being fitted a factual or value based assertion? From a >>socio-biological-evolutionary perspective, what incentive do women have to play >>or endorse an activity such as chess? I was blessed with a girlfriend who was >>very happy to see me gleeful as a kid when I played chess. I am sorry to hear >>the other members experience otherwise...albeit they are probably more firmly >>entrenched in their domesitication... >> >>1. Cultural, sociological, and related reasons explain the lack of incentive to >>develop chess skills... >> > > >I am not saying which are the causes or certain facts yu can observe everywhere. >I am sociologist and so I understand very well the hinderances women has >sufferede to be in the acedemic arena. Nevertheless, I do not close my mind to >the probaility of another causes. > >>2. It is observed that the standard deviation in measurements of g >>(intelligence) is higher in the male subpopulation. This may serve to >>reinforce the effects stated in 1, assuming one accepts the results or >>meaningfulness of such testing... > > >When I recalled this very same fact in the first discussion, I was flamed. Why? >Because the fact you have mentioned means -and it has observed- that in the high > IQ zone the number of males in comparison with females changes radically at >each new degree of higher perfomance. And then I did a little deduction: if >chess and computer nerds are -in average- people located in the high end of the >G curve, the it is just a matter of statistic that fewer women that men appears >in activities that are asociated for a reason or another with high IQ. Is this >so ilogical? Of course is harsh... > >> >>3. Here is a point that is worth more than "my 2 cents" worth: I have an uncle >>who is a world reknown neurophysiologist. He stated long ago that he is firm in >>his emphatic opinion that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in women's native >>ability or potential to excel in chess or any related activity. >> > > > >Which thing your uncle calls "native" ability? He means brain power if such a >metaphisic thing exist? Even if the average difference in weight of male and >female brain does not produce effect, even so we can then resort to sociologiacl >and cultural reasosn to explain why women and men use differently his equipment. >I suppose your uncle is not saying against all evidence that women and men are >equally present in the hadr sciences areas and in any other field where long, >sustained, hard concentraion is required. I wonder how much women works i the >field of you uncle. Just ask him. > > > >>>I do not >>>evaluate that as bad or good; you can define intelligence as you wish and so >>>declare women or men more intelligent than the other side. But it is a matter of >>>fact that not only in chess computers but in almost any intelectual enterprise >>>where abstract reasonning and long and painful research and thinking is needed, >>>women almost disappear from the scenary. Just take a look at math and physics >>>departments, ingeniering, etc in any unversity of the world, not to say the list >>>of the really eminent scientifics and philosophers. >> >>Numbers 1. and 2. refute this embarrassing assertion. >>CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION, remember? > > >And who is speaking of causation? I just pointed my finger to show evidents >facts: wwomen does not seem to be fitted for certain mental operations. That is >to post a fact, not an hipothesis even if the word fittnes seems loaded to you. >The reason of this evident difference in perfomance and presence in certain >intelectual activities is something to be discused and reaserched, if ever a >scientist is galant enough to do it. > > >> >>> Yes, this is an old >>>argument, but gravitation law is old also and still valid as far as I know. >> >>Another fallacy, I know you are more intelligent than to seriously consider >>this, and I assume that you are in the mode of small talk. > >It would be a fallacy If I was meaning what you believed I meaned. I did not say >something is truth because is old, but I said that, on the contrary, nothing is >false because is old. > > >> >>Are you to suggest that all old arguments are valid, since the law of >>gravitation is valid? I believe that we have a duty to edify, or at least do no >>harm with whatever we say. A little care before opining without personal >>attacks would go a long way. Hmmm, should I prefer the contempt for a draw >>features of Chessmaster Human Tester I, or Chessmaster Human Tester II? I'll >>buy both! Perhaps we also have an obligation to entertain, and I must >>compliment Mr. Slug on doing more than his fair share of bringing me back here! >> >>>On the contrary, where intelectual endeavour is oriented more to imagination >and fantasy, as writting, differences is not existent or minimal. >>>Of course there is room to exceptions and of course we can evaluate this fact >in the most politicaly correct way. You always can say that women are smarter >>>precisely because they does not do this or that. In fact, today there are "kind >>>of intelligences" for all tastes. Pick what you like. >> >>I believe rigorous objectivity is superior to political correctness any day, not >>that we are debating choosing between the two. Nor is relativism particularly >>useful (pick what you like). >> >>Does anyone recall how the concept of shareware was invented? >>Use the same techniques to speculate how we could bring women, just as they are >>in their current perfection, into a modified chess arena. This may well require >>a variant on our 'perfect' game. >> >>I purposely leave this above comment open to the members' imaginations--who >>wants all the answers provided for them? >> >>See what I mean by edification? >> >>BTW, so I don't get flamed, if you want to know more about my uncle, just ask. >>I'm too modest for these types of things...what with all you brainiacs in this >>club! >> >>Oliver >> >>>Fernando > > >Sheers >fernanmdo The dearth of women in the fields you mention is the (negative) correlation in question. The statement you made re "women does not seem fitted (sic)for certain mental operations" is presented as a deduction from the above. Am I understanding you correctly so far? If so, then I repeat: it does not follow that it is factual that women are not suited for such "mental operations." I don't want to continue this discussion unless you can tell me which university/college you teach at, or unless you tell me where I can look up your publications. Perhaps there is a language problem here, though I rather doubt it. Nothing personal. I offer little evidence besides the contents of my posts in return, but I make no claim to be an expert in any field germaine to this discussion.
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.