Man, Woman and Chess.
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
Well, I am not a neuroscientist nor Psychological analyst, but Men beats Women fall to the reason that Men and Women think differently. Men tend to be more analytical and logical, in other words, left-brain oriented.
And here is a link. But oddly, this one says the the opposite.
And according to this. It says that Men are generally smarter, owing to the fact, that men are taller than women.
Boy, did that sound chauvinistic(with heightism).
This tall model can beat Kaze any time of the day(Warning - not suitable for macrophiles):
[spoilera]
[/spoilera]
And here is a link. But oddly, this one says the the opposite.
And according to this. It says that Men are generally smarter, owing to the fact, that men are taller than women.
Boy, did that sound chauvinistic(with heightism).
This tall model can beat Kaze any time of the day(Warning - not suitable for macrophiles):
[spoilera]
I think it's due to a psychological effect. Women see men dominating chess, so women don't try to undo that. The same reason why people actually by into the whole "Women suck at math" and the same reason why most of the engineering fields are dominated by males.
While untrue, that proposition isn't that farfetched.
While untrue, that proposition isn't that farfetched.
It implies that chess is the way of determining intellect. Its making an extremely generalized statement on the basis of one observation.
Its like saying that because men dominate politics, women are therefor inferior politicians. Or because males dominate soccer, women are therefor inferior athletes.
Its like saying that because men dominate politics, women are therefor inferior politicians. Or because males dominate soccer, women are therefor inferior athletes.
Just because there is a possible correlation, doesnt mean there is any actual causal connection. And in this case, the correlation isnt even that clear. What is meant with intellectual? The ability to play a game? The ability to predict possible outcomes? Does being able to play a certain game make you an intellectual? So thats why I was just wondering how he got from chess being dominated by men to females having inferior intellectual capabilities. It was an attempt to discredit the supposed link between chess and intellect.
Sports which require skill, sure, women can compare. However sports like soccer which require both skill AND physical strength, it is beyond a doubt that women are inferior athletes, due to our natural body state. I'm not sure why you are even using that as one of your examples, since it's definitely not a generalized statement.
Six, Lynn and Vanhanen address the question of the causes of national differences in intelligence. They conclude that this lies in the racial composition of the populations. They were led to this conclusion from the observation that national IQs are predictable from the racial composition of the populations. Thus, the six East Asian nations (China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) all have IQs in the range between 105 and 108. The 29 European nations all have IQs in the range between 92 and 102, while the 19 nations of sub-Saharan Africa all have IQs in the range between 59 and 73. They show that there is remarkable consistency in the IQs of nations when these are classified into racial clusters.
Source: http://www.rlynn.co....-Inequality.asp
East Asians are not known for their tall heights.
In regard to Lexus, let us quote his Wikipedia (this time with citation):
The 2005 study "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending at the University of Utah wrote Ashkenazi Jews are greatly overrepresented in occupations and ï¬elds with the high cognitive demands. During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US science Nobel Prizes and 25% of the Turing Awards. More than half of the world's chess champions are Ashkenazi Jews. The authors argue that non-Ashkenazi Jews do not have high average IQ test scores, nor are they over-represented in cognitively demanding occupations.[sup][2][/sup] The study as well as Rushton (1997) argued that despite claims to the contrary, for example in the Mismeasure of Man, also the early IQ testing support a high average Ashkenazi IQ.[sup][6][/sup]
Source: http://en.wikipedia....e-cochranetal-1
On a lighter note, this study actually proves that Aker Chan is slightly smarter than Rah-Rah.
Source: http://www.rlynn.co....-Inequality.asp
East Asians are not known for their tall heights.
In regard to Lexus, let us quote his Wikipedia (this time with citation):
The 2005 study "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending at the University of Utah wrote Ashkenazi Jews are greatly overrepresented in occupations and ï¬elds with the high cognitive demands. During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US science Nobel Prizes and 25% of the Turing Awards. More than half of the world's chess champions are Ashkenazi Jews. The authors argue that non-Ashkenazi Jews do not have high average IQ test scores, nor are they over-represented in cognitively demanding occupations.[sup][2][/sup] The study as well as Rushton (1997) argued that despite claims to the contrary, for example in the Mismeasure of Man, also the early IQ testing support a high average Ashkenazi IQ.[sup][6][/sup]
Source: http://en.wikipedia....e-cochranetal-1
On a lighter note, this study actually proves that Aker Chan is slightly smarter than Rah-Rah.
Sorry, when I meant athlete I meant athlete in general, not just soccer. In the case of soccer, you can probably say that males are better at it then females, however, you cant say that because of that, males are better at every sport compared to females.
Sure, in the case of chess, you can perhaps say that males are better at chess then females, because only males dominate the top. But that doesnt mean you can say males are intellectually superior then females, because intellect generally means a lot more then just your ability to play chess.
Anyways, I do not believe that males are intellectually superior then females and I do not believe that there is any empirical data to suggest such a claim. There is a difference between males and females on certain areas, but even those differences arent supposed to be that big. But all my psychology textbooks are at my parents place and Im not there till friday, so I cant provide any proper sources to back it up.
How deliciously racist. You know that you just quoted saying that the average sub Saharan African is by Western standards mentally retarded? Right, since Africans arent all suffering from Downs syndrome, we can throw this piece of racist bull right into the garbage bin.
IQ is a western invention. All these results are therefor only true compared to the American average. On top of that, standardized testing has become a part of Western culture. As such, we automatically perform better at any standardized test then any other area of the world. simply because we are used to it. Besides that, I do not believe that there are actually standardized tests for Africans, while the standardized tests used in Europe or America are culture context sensitive. In other words, if you let people do an American IQ test, they will perform worse because of the language and the lack of cultural context required to make such a test. On top of that, linking it to 'race' is downright stupid. Africans living in the West long enough will see a drastic improvement of their test results.
And has nothing to do with race or origins. Intelligence largely depends on the surroundings a person is raised in (stimulating parents, wealth, access to knowledge and education, etc) and not their race they descended from. Again, you will have to wait till Friday/Saturday for proper sources, as I dont have access to my Pscyhology books at this moment.
Sure, in the case of chess, you can perhaps say that males are better at chess then females, because only males dominate the top. But that doesnt mean you can say males are intellectually superior then females, because intellect generally means a lot more then just your ability to play chess.
Anyways, I do not believe that males are intellectually superior then females and I do not believe that there is any empirical data to suggest such a claim. There is a difference between males and females on certain areas, but even those differences arent supposed to be that big. But all my psychology textbooks are at my parents place and Im not there till friday, so I cant provide any proper sources to back it up.
How deliciously racist. You know that you just quoted saying that the average sub Saharan African is by Western standards mentally retarded? Right, since Africans arent all suffering from Downs syndrome, we can throw this piece of racist bull right into the garbage bin.
IQ is a western invention. All these results are therefor only true compared to the American average. On top of that, standardized testing has become a part of Western culture. As such, we automatically perform better at any standardized test then any other area of the world. simply because we are used to it. Besides that, I do not believe that there are actually standardized tests for Africans, while the standardized tests used in Europe or America are culture context sensitive. In other words, if you let people do an American IQ test, they will perform worse because of the language and the lack of cultural context required to make such a test. On top of that, linking it to 'race' is downright stupid. Africans living in the West long enough will see a drastic improvement of their test results.
And has nothing to do with race or origins. Intelligence largely depends on the surroundings a person is raised in (stimulating parents, wealth, access to knowledge and education, etc) and not their race they descended from. Again, you will have to wait till Friday/Saturday for proper sources, as I dont have access to my Pscyhology books at this moment.
Post 10 was aimed at debunking a whole lot of racist bullshit when it comes to intelligence and race.
And really, people good at chess are by definition of a higher intellect then people who are less good at it? So, basically, a chess computer has a higher intellect then me because it can beat me at a game of chess. No one would be so stupid to suggest that a simple chessboard with a build in chess computer has a higher intellect then human beings.
And people who are better then me with soccer are by definition also better athletes then me. Nonsense.
And really, people good at chess are by definition of a higher intellect then people who are less good at it? So, basically, a chess computer has a higher intellect then me because it can beat me at a game of chess. No one would be so stupid to suggest that a simple chessboard with a build in chess computer has a higher intellect then human beings.
And people who are better then me with soccer are by definition also better athletes then me. Nonsense.
Now, calm down there, Sporty. The study that I cited is indeed controversial, although opinion alone does not suffice in debunking empirical data.
However, those quotation are clear in showing that;
a. Being tall does not necessarily correlate with high intellectuality.
b. Chess is indeed an indicator of intellectual superiority.
Regardless, as far I remember, soccer and politic has never been used as indicators for intellectual superiority.
However, those quotation are clear in showing that;
a. Being tall does not necessarily correlate with high intellectuality.
b. Chess is indeed an indicator of intellectual superiority.
Regardless, as far I remember, soccer and politic has never been used as indicators for intellectual superiority.
As far as I remember, chess has never been a indicator of intellectual superiority either. Still, to be fair, I can understand that its a possible indicator. However, it is just one indicator and someones ability to play chess alone is far from sufficient to judge someones intellect.
[MENTION=164]noex1337[/MENTION]. I said chess computer. A computer specifically designed to play chess and nothing more.
And a normal computer would be questionable. So far, the computers capabilities of being able to learn are far more limited then those of a human, and their memory recollection method is also only effective because they can process data a lot quicker then a human being. Its the hardware that makes a computer smart, not its software.
[MENTION=164]noex1337[/MENTION]. I said chess computer. A computer specifically designed to play chess and nothing more.
And a normal computer would be questionable. So far, the computers capabilities of being able to learn are far more limited then those of a human, and their memory recollection method is also only effective because they can process data a lot quicker then a human being. Its the hardware that makes a computer smart, not its software.
Well , the citation clearly shows that Chess, along with Noble Prizes (assuming here; within scientific field) and Turing Awards (all three being cognitively demanding) are indicators (not just possible) of intellectual superiority.
EDIT:
The chess computer claim by Lexus is a fantasy.
Chess computer only calculate (which is why they are inferior to human being) and memorize data.
It lack the intelligence part of a human player in term of strategy.
In short, Chess program are no more but brute calculator that will falter against human tactician (see Kasparov vs. Deep Blue).
Conclusion: you don't use chess computer to compare intelligence.
EDIT:
The chess computer claim by Lexus is a fantasy.
Chess computer only calculate (which is why they are inferior to human being) and memorize data.
It lack the intelligence part of a human player in term of strategy.
In short, Chess program are no more but brute calculator that will falter against human tactician (see Kasparov vs. Deep Blue).
Conclusion: you don't use chess computer to compare intelligence.
[quote name-lexus-;143604]
[MENTION=164]noex1337[/MENTION]. I said chess computer. A computer specifically designed to play chess and nothing more.
And a normal computer would be questionable. So far, the computers capabilities of being able to learn are far more limited then those of a human, and their memory recollection method is also only effective because they can process data a lot quicker then a human being. Its the hardware that makes a computer smart, not its software.
[/quote]
I'm afraid it's both hardware and software that make a computer, lexus. That, and you're last statement is utterly ridiculous, but it's a bit off topic so I won't go there.
[MENTION=164]noex1337[/MENTION]. I said chess computer. A computer specifically designed to play chess and nothing more.
And a normal computer would be questionable. So far, the computers capabilities of being able to learn are far more limited then those of a human, and their memory recollection method is also only effective because they can process data a lot quicker then a human being. Its the hardware that makes a computer smart, not its software.
[/quote]
I'm afraid it's both hardware and software that make a computer, lexus. That, and you're last statement is utterly ridiculous, but it's a bit off topic so I won't go there.
No, but if computers beat humans at chess, and you measure intellect by your ability to play chess, a computer is more intellectual then a human being. Thats why chess is a pretty bad indicator of intellect, at least on its own.
Well, let me elaborate on it. One can become the king of chess by purely focusing and specializing in chess. To be able to play chess, you need to understand the rules, and nothing more. To be able to be good at chess, you dont need to be smart, you need to be able to predict your opponents behavior. This can be learned through extensive practice. So in other words, you can be totally retarded when it comes to anything that isnt chess. (This is what a chess computer does).
On the other hand, this doesnt work for winning a nobel price or some other kind of award. It requires specialization, specialization in say physics. But in order to specialize in physics, you need a so much broader base of knowledge and understanding first. Thats why you can rightly say that someone who wins a nobel price for physics or something, is intellectually smarter then most people. A noble price cant be earned through extensive training in 'winning a noble price'.
So this is way chess is a crappy indicator of 'intellect' and winning a nobel price isnt.
Well, let me elaborate on it. One can become the king of chess by purely focusing and specializing in chess. To be able to play chess, you need to understand the rules, and nothing more. To be able to be good at chess, you dont need to be smart, you need to be able to predict your opponents behavior. This can be learned through extensive practice. So in other words, you can be totally retarded when it comes to anything that isnt chess. (This is what a chess computer does).
On the other hand, this doesnt work for winning a nobel price or some other kind of award. It requires specialization, specialization in say physics. But in order to specialize in physics, you need a so much broader base of knowledge and understanding first. Thats why you can rightly say that someone who wins a nobel price for physics or something, is intellectually smarter then most people. A noble price cant be earned through extensive training in 'winning a noble price'.
So this is way chess is a crappy indicator of 'intellect' and winning a nobel price isnt.