For the past few days I've been blogging on racial differences in the short and long distance Olympic races. I noted Jon Entine's argument that such differences may have a biological origin, a taboo subject because once we start talking about physical differences, perhaps some people might then begin to suspect differences of intelligence between the races.
In my book The End of Racism I argued against such differences, noting instead that culture is a far better explanation of ethnic differences in intellectual achievement and economic performance. But when we turn to the issue of men and women, I note an anomaly.
No one denies that men are taller and stronger than women on average. This explains of course why competitive sports is based on the "separate but equal" principle. Men play against men, and women play against women. Segregation on the basis of gender appears to have an obvious rational basis in physical contests of speed and strength.
Yet one of my favorite games, namely chess, is not such a contest. Rather, chess is entirely based on intellectual capacity. It involves planning, calculation, strategy. One would assume that since men and women are equally intelligent, therefore women should be fully competive with men in chess. But it is not so. Consider: of the top 100 players in the USA currently, only two are women. Even more startling, of the top 100 chess players in the world today, only one is a woman.
So embarrassing is male over-representation at the top level that most chess competitions today are divided into two categories. There is a general category that is almost inevitably won by a man, and then there is a separate women's championship obviously designed to give women a chance to succeed as well. Currently there is a World Chess Champion and a World Women's Champion. Somehow the chess world seem to have adjusted to the reality that int his particular mental contest, women simply aren't as good as men.
Can culture account for the difference between the sexes? Actually no. Culture can help to explain why certain countries like Russia are more dominant in chess. They simply play a lot more chess over there. But culture doesn't explain why Russian males are so much better than Russian females in chess. I am not aware of an historical exclusion of women from chess, and even if there was some past discrimination, how come women still fare so poorly in an age of equality? Of the top 20 junior chess players in the world, there isn't a single woman. So in these respects the cultural explanation falters.
Are we forced to conclude then that men are smarter than women, at least when it comes to chess? Not really. The average IQ of both groups is 100. But when it comes to the bell curve distribution, an interesting difference emerges. The female bell curve is taller and narrower, with the vast majority of women bunched in the middle. The male bell curve is shorter and flatter, with more men at both ends of the distribution. What this means is that there are more male geniuses and more male morons. And this would effectively account for why at the very top level of an intellectual contest like chess, we find far more men than women.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 15)
16. dinesh, oh my god your blogs are unfailingly pigheaded, offensive, misinformed, and half retarded. there are so many things wrong with your logic, and does it really even matter anyway who's smarter? not only are you a self absorbed prick, well, actually thats pretty much all you are
d at 9:57AM on Aug 24th 2008
17. It really depends upon how one defines intelligence. The problem lies in attempting to employ the same intelligence standards to both of our sexes and even to our own different cultures. Simply put, a highly intelligent male would be a complete failure attempting to operate as a woman and vice versa.
gshort3011 at 9:57AM on Aug 24th 2008
18. the answer is simple. No, men aren't smarter.
The question is provocative; the blog is trivial, and the responses are all. DD is just trying to get folks to talk.
The better question is; when are men going to write the third book of the bible, so we can go on knowing what is Right?
abbot at 10:09AM on Aug 24th 2008
19.
Are the Amish intellectualy dishonest? As it is understood that christianity is the root of all western advancement, why do the Amish refuse to enjoy the spoils of war?
There are no great Amish architects, philosophers, or astrophysicists. One could surmise that they seek to curry favor with the almighty by sticking to his every word, regardless of proper interpretation....
ex-christian at 10:24AM on Aug 24th 2008
20.
I must apologize. I'm snatching up all the great controvesial topics, and not giving anyone else a chance at them.
Here are several more you can feel free to discuss.
Is Hollywood morally superior to Bollywood?
Secularism - faulty dogma, or moral morass?
What's so marginally acceptable about Canada.
Andy Kaufman/Brittany Spears - brilliance or
insanity?
The moral evolution of flora versus fauna
I would also like to register my disdain for Dinesh, and his refusal to debate me. What a coward.
ex-christian at 10:39AM on Aug 24th 2008
21. Typical dimwit but at least he waited until the second paragraph to use his favorite expression 'in my book'
Geoff Barker at 10:43AM on Aug 24th 2008
22. So we now know that dimwit plays the same game that they can teach dumb computers to play. My, my he is such a brain
Geoff Barker at 10:46AM on Aug 24th 2008
23. Chess is a game of warlike behaviors. Is it any wonder why women don't surpass men while engaging in this game? Sheesh,,give us a break. How about "testing" female knowledge in an enviroment of ethics and moraltiy?
Diane at 10:50AM on Aug 24th 2008
24. Actually I'm going to give this a bit of thought. I don't particularly like chess. It's always seemed to me an aristocratic holdover from greater days. If I want an intellectual contest I'd much rather have a contest in something that matters more than putting the other person in checkmate. Even pointless debate is more entertaining.
I wonder if there is an evolutionary aspect to it. If women have a built in shut off switch that says 'okay, that's enough. Hold back because you need to survive to make babies. Don't waste that energy.' while in men the shut off switch says 'Go for it! Give it everything you've got! If you win you get to breed. If you don't then you'll be dead and won't have to worry about it.'
Then, of course, there is the social aspect to it. In high school the chess club was all boys. In the debate club it was much more even 60/40 or so in favor of the girls. Yet it wasn't an all girl environment. This is what Dinesh would call a 'classic liberal argument': that women having been held back and restrained for so many thousands of years have difficulty asserting themselves in fields that are exclusively male. I have no idea if that all boy's chess club would have welcomed me or not. I do know that I didn't even want to find out. One of my friends was in debate and I found it much more enjoyable. Since then I've come across frequent and subtle (and often not so subtle) discrimination against my gender. I deal with it.
Somber at 10:48AM on Aug 24th 2008
25. I'm surprised to see no one yet has mentioned testosterone. Evidence suggests that testosterone plays a part in competitive, aggressive behavior. New evidence suggests that even in utero, testosterone has an effect.
A study has shown that females who have a twin brother are naturally exposed to more testosterone in the womb, and, on average, seem to express a more competitive nature than other females.
So far as I know, there is no compelling evidence that suggests either males or females are smarter.
naturalpuppy at 10:50AM on Aug 24th 2008
26. What about the considerations of interests? Perhaps the interest of Creation and Mechanics leads many men to construction and mechanics jobs. Perhaps the nurturing instincs of women lead them into more nursing and education/childcare positions. This arguement never takes into account the myriad of diffences in the area of scope of knowlegege spatial/musical/physical etc. Stupid.
kitty sinned at 10:57AM on Aug 24th 2008
27. I would also like to register my disdain for Dinesh, and his refusal to debate me. What a coward.
ex-christian at 10:39AM on Aug 24th 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He is afraid. With you and others who post on his blog he would not have the comfort of familiarity with your tactics or overall strategy.
I miss Peter's comments. Come back, Peter. You are my number one choice to debate DD.
naturalpuppy at 11:04AM on Aug 24th 2008
28. NO, certainly not a conclusion to be drawn because of chess players. This is not up (down?) to his usual level...where are the liberal athiest conspiracies in this? How about a homosexual plot? Surely Barack Obama could be named as a threat in this... Or...could he actually have hit upon a topic that he can't thread that through the dialogue? Jeeez, this one might head right to cookie recipes.
Jude at 11:13AM on Aug 24th 2008
29. LOL! If men are smarter than women, then why do men use the same lines and excuses routinely? As to menbeing physically stronger. I'd like to see a man carry a baby inutero for nine months then go through labor for about 18 hours or more. Abortion would become a sacrament.
Bonjo at 11:27AM on Aug 24th 2008
30. I think that liberal values is the biggest influence on these negative outcomes in the culture and in the individual, concerning the relentless attack on males to be more feminine so that females can be more masculine.
Kathleen Parker has a new book out on this topic, "Save the Males," where she gives an interesting example of the destructiveness of anti-male, anti-father values in our culture. She points out that single motherhood used to be a sad and traumatic situation to be avoided at all costs, but our culture has elevated it into something to aspire to and revel in -- a woman can do it all on her own and she doesn't need a man, after all.
I think liberal values contribute the most to this gender confusion and chaos.
Liberal values teach us that men should be ashamed of being manly, and should instead get in touch with their feelings. At the same time, liberal values teach that woman should be ashamed of being womanly, and that they should especially be ashamed of being a traditional wife and mother, because liberal values teach that being in the rat race at your full-time career is respectable, but being a full-time, stay-at-home mother is not.
The cultural result is that boys grow up without fathers, so they do not know how to be good men, but instead they learn how to be good women. At the same time, women are raised by the liberal culture to believe that they don't need men because they can be their own man themselves. Instead, now women seek out the coolest guy in town, and they want to have his baby, but they don't expect a cool guy like that to have to stick around and be a husband and father, which they don't need.
Come to think of it, this is the life story of Barack Obama and his liberal values.
Just say no to B.O.
Vote McCain.
Rev 3:16 at 11:47AM on Aug 24th 2008