OP is both a run nerd and a chess nerd! I'm guessing that some of my brothers routinely beat the crap out of this guy in middle and high school. Do you know what toilet water tastes like? I bet the OP does! Probably also knows the pain of an atomic wedgie and how cramped a school locker is.
From 2000 to 2023, 42.8 per cent and 38.09 per cent of laureates in Peace and Literature, respectively, were women. However, in Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine, less than 15 per cent of the laureates were women. In Economics, only 7.14 per cent of laureates were women. This includes Claudia Goldin.
In physics it's more like 2% (only 5). Though the fact that Lise Meitner and Jocelyn Bell Burnell never won tells you everything you need to know about the wonderful dudes making the decision.
I'd have given Meitner the peace prize as well as physics since her discovery ended WWII. Maybe chemistry too for good measure.
"...tells you everything you need to know about the wonderful dudes making the decision."
LOL. the dudes making the decision. The Nobel Committee is comprised of 3 women and 3 men as you can see in the picture here. And you can be sure they are very liberal.
Men are smarter on average. Einstein, Newton ,Hawkins, Biden ....men.
I’ve actually read an interesting take on this. Men and women tend to have roughly the same Average IQ, but the bell curve of men is wider. That is, men contain more outliers on both sides. They have more super geniuses, but also more super idiots.
I believe that this is part of the answer. The other part probably has to do with sex-based differences in level of interest in playing chess, as well as cultural factors, which reinforce each other. More males are naturally interested in chess, which causes society to assume that females are not interested, and therefore are not encouraged to play.
I’ve actually read an interesting take on this. Men and women tend to have roughly the same Average IQ, but the bell curve of men is wider. That is, men contain more outliers on both sides. They have more super geniuses, but also more super idiots.
I believe that this is part of the answer. The other part probably has to do with sex-based differences in level of interest in playing chess, as well as cultural factors, which reinforce each other. More males are naturally interested in chess, which causes society to assume that females are not interested, and therefore are not encouraged to play.
The nordic countries are the most egalitarian societies on the planet. With all of this added freedom rather than disappear as the woke people suggest the gender roles become more pronounced. Men and women are not interested in the same things. Most nurses and teachers are women and most construction workers and engineers are men because those roles match our natures. Women like to work with people. Men like to work with things. #notall.
Also, men have bigger brains than women. While the science doesn't show any correlation between brain size and intelligence it seems intuitively true that a larger brain would have more potential for high intelligence than a smaller brain just as a larger quadricep would have more potential for strength than a smaller one.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Also, men have bigger brains than women. While the science doesn't show any correlation between brain size and intelligence it seems intuitively true that a larger brain would have more potential for high intelligence than a smaller brain just as a larger quadricep would have more potential for strength than a smaller one.
And as Font et al note, "Body size correlates with most structural and functional components of an organism's phenotype – brain size being a prime example ..."
Which is, of course, why top performers in math tend to be enormous (think of ex-NFL lineman John Urschel) and one usually finds hulking behemoths overrepresented at top-level chess tournaments.
Also, men have bigger brains than women. While the science doesn't show any correlation between brain size and intelligence it seems intuitively true that a larger brain would have more potential for high intelligence than a smaller brain just as a larger quadricep would have more potential for strength than a smaller one.
And as Font et al note, "Body size correlates with most structural and functional components of an organism's phenotype – brain size being a prime example ..."
Which is, of course, why top performers in math tend to be enormous (think of ex-NFL lineman John Urschel) and one usually finds hulking behemoths overrepresented at top-level chess tournaments.
All of those 5'6 NFL linemen certainly do poke a hole in the theory.
We're comparing women to men not men to men.
Men dominate in all sports.
Is it really crazy to suggest that this innate advantage translates to IQ as well?
Keep in mind that greatness exists on the very ends of the Bell curve and the overwhelming majority of men and women are all in the middle together.
4
4
"Comfort must not be expected by folks that go a pleasuring."
There may be innate differences but self-reinforcing participation rates are undoubtedly a huge factor.
"200 Elo points" sounds like a lot but the best ever women's player [Hou Yifan] has regularly been in an around the edges of the world's top 100 players and is currently ranked 118th.
In athletics terms that's basically like there being a woman who'd run sub 10.20 100 metres this year.
So even if there is a gap it's nowhere remotely as big as the gap in physical capabilities.
There may be innate differences but self-reinforcing participation rates are undoubtedly a huge factor.
"200 Elo points" sounds like a lot but the best ever women's player [Hou Yifan] has regularly been in an around the edges of the world's top 100 players and is currently ranked 118th.
In athletics terms that's basically like there being a woman who'd run sub 10.20 100 metres this year.
So even if there is a gap it's nowhere remotely as big as the gap in physical capabilities.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
All of those 5'6 NFL linemen certainly do poke a hole in the theory.
We're comparing women to men not men to men.
Men dominate in all sports.
Is it really crazy to suggest that this innate advantage translates to IQ as well?
Keep in mind that greatness exists on the very ends of the Bell curve and the overwhelming majority of men and women are all in the middle together.
What on earth caused you to go in some of these directions?
You made a point about women and men on the basis of two factors: “natural” interests and brain size. To the extent that brain size could play a role in intelligence, that would be observable in a comparison among men as well as between men and women.
Is that point really incredibly hard to understand?
And what you say about outliers is true enough. It’s also the case, of course, that very large people (who therefore are those statistically more likely to have large brains) are outliers who are an incredibly small percentage of the population. So there simply aren’t enough people in that category to expect them to predominate in intellectual fields. However, in the simplistic reading you offered, one would at the very least expect them to be substantially overrepresented (so that, for example, a smaller % of 5’4”, 110 lb men would reaching very high levels of intellectual achievement than the % of 6’5”, 260 lb men doing so, because the latter have larger brains overall).
Is that what you see reflected in your world?
I’ve bypassed a lot of the details for lots of reasons. And I don’t have a really strong argument to make about this other than my understanding of the studies on these matters suggests that the science is a good deal less settled than you seemed to indicate.
All of those 5'6 NFL linemen certainly do poke a hole in the theory.
We're comparing women to men not men to men.
Men dominate in all sports.
Is it really crazy to suggest that this innate advantage translates to IQ as well?
Keep in mind that greatness exists on the very ends of the Bell curve and the overwhelming majority of men and women are all in the middle together.
What on earth caused you to go in some of these directions?
You made a point about women and men on the basis of two factors: “natural” interests and brain size. To the extent that brain size could play a role in intelligence, that would be observable in a comparison among men as well as between men and women.
Is that point really incredibly hard to understand?
And what you say about outliers is true enough. It’s also the case, of course, that very large people (who therefore are those statistically more likely to have large brains) are outliers who are an incredibly small percentage of the population. So there simply aren’t enough people in that category to expect them to predominate in intellectual fields. However, in the simplistic reading you offered, one would at the very least expect them to be substantially overrepresented (so that, for example, a smaller % of 5’4”, 110 lb men would reaching very high levels of intellectual achievement than the % of 6’5”, 260 lb men doing so, because the latter have larger brains overall).
Is that what you see reflected in your world?
I’ve bypassed a lot of the details for lots of reasons. And I don’t have a really strong argument to make about this other than my understanding of the studies on these matters suggests that the science is a good deal less settled than you seemed to indicate.
And I’m speaking more about your “intuitively” point even though you acknowledge what the “science doesn’t show” (because one can find some studies reflecting particular types and levels of correlation but others that do not). So perhaps “point is less obvious” would have been better wording than “science is … less settled” in my post.
All of those 5'6 NFL linemen certainly do poke a hole in the theory.
We're comparing women to men not men to men.
Men dominate in all sports.
Is it really crazy to suggest that this innate advantage translates to IQ as well?
Keep in mind that greatness exists on the very ends of the Bell curve and the overwhelming majority of men and women are all in the middle together.
What on earth caused you to go in some of these directions?
You made a point about women and men on the basis of two factors: “natural” interests and brain size. To the extent that brain size could play a role in intelligence, that would be observable in a comparison among men as well as between men and women.
Is that point really incredibly hard to understand?
And what you say about outliers is true enough. It’s also the case, of course, that very large people (who therefore are those statistically more likely to have large brains) are outliers who are an incredibly small percentage of the population. So there simply aren’t enough people in that category to expect them to predominate in intellectual fields. However, in the simplistic reading you offered, one would at the very least expect them to be substantially overrepresented (so that, for example, a smaller % of 5’4”, 110 lb men would reaching very high levels of intellectual achievement than the % of 6’5”, 260 lb men doing so, because the latter have larger brains overall).
Is that what you see reflected in your world?
I’ve bypassed a lot of the details for lots of reasons. And I don’t have a really strong argument to make about this other than my understanding of the studies on these matters suggests that the science is a good deal less settled than you seemed to indicate.
I said directly that the science doesn't correlate brain size alone with IQ.
Apparently my point was incredibly hard for you to understand.
What on earth caused you to go in some of these directions?
You made a point about women and men on the basis of two factors: “natural” interests and brain size. To the extent that brain size could play a role in intelligence, that would be observable in a comparison among men as well as between men and women.
Is that point really incredibly hard to understand?
And what you say about outliers is true enough. It’s also the case, of course, that very large people (who therefore are those statistically more likely to have large brains) are outliers who are an incredibly small percentage of the population. So there simply aren’t enough people in that category to expect them to predominate in intellectual fields. However, in the simplistic reading you offered, one would at the very least expect them to be substantially overrepresented (so that, for example, a smaller % of 5’4”, 110 lb men would reaching very high levels of intellectual achievement than the % of 6’5”, 260 lb men doing so, because the latter have larger brains overall).
Is that what you see reflected in your world?
I’ve bypassed a lot of the details for lots of reasons. And I don’t have a really strong argument to make about this other than my understanding of the studies on these matters suggests that the science is a good deal less settled than you seemed to indicate.
And I’m speaking more about your “intuitively” point even though you acknowledge what the “science doesn’t show” (because one can find some studies reflecting particular types and levels of correlation but others that do not). So perhaps “point is less obvious” would have been better wording than “science is … less settled” in my post.
IQ science is taboo. I think it's more likely that the science isn't even being done.
If you come out and say men are smarter than women your career is over even if you had 50 years of research and lab results behind your claim.
All of those 5'6 NFL linemen certainly do poke a hole in the theory.
We're comparing women to men not men to men.
Men dominate in all sports.
Is it really crazy to suggest that this innate advantage translates to IQ as well?
Keep in mind that greatness exists on the very ends of the Bell curve and the overwhelming majority of men and women are all in the middle together.
What on earth caused you to go in some of these directions?
You made a point about women and men on the basis of two factors: “natural” interests and brain size. To the extent that brain size could play a role in intelligence, that would be observable in a comparison among men as well as between men and women.
Is that point really incredibly hard to understand?
And what you say about outliers is true enough. It’s also the case, of course, that very large people (who therefore are those statistically more likely to have large brains) are outliers who are an incredibly small percentage of the population. So there simply aren’t enough people in that category to expect them to predominate in intellectual fields. However, in the simplistic reading you offered, one would at the very least expect them to be substantially overrepresented (so that, for example, a smaller % of 5’4”, 110 lb men would reaching very high levels of intellectual achievement than the % of 6’5”, 260 lb men doing so, because the latter have larger brains overall).
Is that what you see reflected in your world?
I’ve bypassed a lot of the details for lots of reasons. And I don’t have a really strong argument to make about this other than my understanding of the studies on these matters suggests that the science is a good deal less settled than you seemed to indicate.
This is a great post. It's a pity how discussions of these (very interesting, nuanced, and delicate) topics are so often derailed by spam posters with a political angle. Thank you for taking the time to rebut one of them.
What on earth caused you to go in some of these directions?
You made a point about women and men on the basis of two factors: “natural” interests and brain size. To the extent that brain size could play a role in intelligence, that would be observable in a comparison among men as well as between men and women.
Is that point really incredibly hard to understand?
And what you say about outliers is true enough. It’s also the case, of course, that very large people (who therefore are those statistically more likely to have large brains) are outliers who are an incredibly small percentage of the population. So there simply aren’t enough people in that category to expect them to predominate in intellectual fields. However, in the simplistic reading you offered, one would at the very least expect them to be substantially overrepresented (so that, for example, a smaller % of 5’4”, 110 lb men would reaching very high levels of intellectual achievement than the % of 6’5”, 260 lb men doing so, because the latter have larger brains overall).
Is that what you see reflected in your world?
I’ve bypassed a lot of the details for lots of reasons. And I don’t have a really strong argument to make about this other than my understanding of the studies on these matters suggests that the science is a good deal less settled than you seemed to indicate.
This is a great post. It's a pity how discussions of these (very interesting, nuanced, and delicate) topics are so often derailed by spam posters with a political angle. Thank you for taking the time to rebut one of them.
A "great post" that completely misrepresents what I actually said but is more compatible with your politics... I can't imagine why you like it so much...
The idea that everyone is the same is a political idea not a scientific idea.
Men and women are different no matter how often you're told otherwise.