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 4 of 15)
46. It just occurred to me that if gonesh took off his petticoat and went out to try to catch a baseball or a football it would probably punch clean through him, so that might be why he's so invested in chess, and maybe a nifty white plastic pocket protector.
Clif Kuplen at 4:59PM on Aug 24th 2008
47. Oh well. We women just live in the world where only man's occupations matter and respected.
Why no woman is a genius? Because she scarcely can even pretend to be really interested in the rubbish like art, science or politics.
ahealen at 5:44PM on Aug 24th 2008
48. There have been innumerable studies on who is smarter, men or women. All that has been discovered is that men and women think differently. This is directly in line with differences in physiology, language, manual dexterity (women beat men) and other traits that were developed over time as man became more and more a hunter-gatherer than a scavenger-gatherer.
Why would the woman not want the biggest, best hunter to father her child? It ensures the survival of the tribe (society)and in return, the male expects that the woman maintains a monogamous relationship with that male.
As we became more and more diverse, there were other men with skills necessary for continued survival that were able to attract a woman. Women's verbal skills exceed those of most men as does their manual dexterity and color identification. Men are superior in spatial skills (chess) and other areas, but the entire picture is that both sexes have developed compatible traits essential for survival that still exist. You cannot ask small boys to act like little girls because they are wired differently. Competition is natural in boys while co-operation is natural with girls. There are more designers that are female than men unless you include gay males but more engineers than women. There is no basic realistic differences in the intelligence of men or women, just the genetic differences inherent in each developed over the course of human existence.
Dedmanrisn at 6:14PM on Aug 24th 2008
49. Funny, one would think that when trying to prove men are smarter than women that spell check would be used to check for errors. Idiot.
"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."
Next time proof read genius
Sasha at 6:35PM on Aug 24th 2008
50. I know everyone has noticed this sad pattern. Every SINGLE one of his posts...black vs white, men vs women, conservative vs liberal, thiest vs athiests, christian vs other thiests...smh...
How about real news? How about a post with news that provokes thought and makes people question their way of life? Even when you report news it still withered down to the same old this vs that as though the world doesnt have enough division.
We create division in order to elevate our poor self image ie i am somehow better than you. we play up the simplest differences- skin color, gender, sexuality, politics, religion and make them dividing points. We fear admitting that yes there exist small very superficial differences but at the core we are all the same. We should accept and respect one another. If you are debating that truth in your mind as you read, trust that you need to delve deeper, become more self aware and see who you are hiding from your true self.
Dinesh i have no doubt you are a man of high intelligence but i shudder to think how you feel inside. Instead of truly speaking your mind i think you've lowered yourself and continue the one trick pony- creating division to keep getting posts. You should strive to elevate not divide
your brothers and sisters.
I believe we all make decisions daily whether to take the high road, the road less traveled, the road untested, the harder one that would cause us to stick out, the less popular one that may make less money get less posts. I find it unfortunate many choose to not activate the courage and potential that dwells within them and take the easy way out. Dinesh conflict will always likely spike your number of posts. Care to try another way that actually invokes peoples mind, create true value and intelligent discussion rather than emotive name calling. I believe in challenging yourself to make that happen you will find greater fulfillment than writing trash and getting numbers.
Miss K at 6:36PM on Aug 24th 2008
51. uhh duhhh...
Men concentrate on outside factors... building, creating. Women concentrate on coveting those things created or built. Design this...
joker at 6:37PM on Aug 24th 2008
52. There is no basic realistic differences in the intelligence of men or women, just the genetic differences inherent in each developed over the course of human existence.
Dedmanrisn at 6:14PM on Aug 24th 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well said, as far as it goes. But you obviously meant to speak in generalities. There are some posters here who may question some of the statements. I'm sure you have the knowledge and capability to expand them, if asked.
Just as an example, some posters, perhaps mostly female, may wonder why you say it is more natural for males to be competitive and females to be cooperative. Physiology? Manual dexterity? Language? Other traits?
Some may even wonder if competition and cooperation aren't just two sides of the same coin--energetic pursuit of one's goals.
naturalpuppy at 6:46PM on Aug 24th 2008
53. Some of you people sound like a bad case of Jerry Maguire. Every time a discipline is created, we are divided naturally. We are not the same. We can only occupy the same space with alliances between factions. When a part is not needed, the alliances dissolves it unharmoniously. Power is evil, lack of power is unevolved. We should stop talking about peace, and just give everyone a purpose to live, in a discipline that is needed.
aloser at 6:46PM on Aug 24th 2008
54. How about real news? How about a post with news that provokes thought and makes people question their way of life? Even when you report news it still withered down to the same old this vs that as though the world doesnt have enough division.
Miss K at 6:36PM on Aug 24th 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are obviously wiser than DD.
naturalpuppy at 6:53PM on Aug 24th 2008
55. 35.
Here's an overview of an exhaustive brain study, with gender differences - and Einstein's brain.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-brainsex16jun16,0,5806592,full.story
Very interesting, and a little surprising.
ex-christian at 12:49PM on Aug 24th 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for the link. Neuroscience--always interesting, but less surprising as one becomes more informed. Neuroscience, in my opinion, will become the most greatly respected branch of science.
The physical and chemical interactions; the causes and effects of form and function; which physical synthesis or chemical reaction is cause? which is effect?
You and I must wonder--will the discovery of the explanation of consciousness, when it occurs, force believers to once again redefine their belief?
naturalpuppy at 7:44PM on Aug 24th 2008
56. Dinesh.
Does your blog attract idiots or is this simply the norm for internet commenting these days?
Now it is far easier to re hash the more common conclusion the men are more inclined to simply let their accomplishments speak for themselves while women continue to make excuses for their failures.
The reason you hear complaining from one camp and silence from the other is that men find the question stupid and irrelevant and women seem to enjoy focusing on the stupid and irrelevant.
The fact is that we are not comparing apples with apples as both man and woman are fundamentally different. It is merely a question of vanity as to which side wants to stamp their claim as superior in the same way that a ford crown vic is superior to a focus.
The reality is that the crown vic is better in some circumstances but you don't want one once the price of fuel rises. In the same way that the focus is fine with only mom and dad but will be cramped if you throw a couple of kids into the equation.
We should be focusing on combining the two halves to improve the whole, not bickering in an irrelevant excercise in vanity.
allabaster at 7:50PM on Aug 24th 2008
57. ::Funny, one would think that when trying to prove men are smarter than women that spell check would be used to check for errors. Idiot.
Sasha, this is not a thread in which I'm particularly interested (I'm only reading through it waiting on a response from someone about something totally unrelated), but I'd like to point out that Dinesh is clearly not "trying to prove men are smarter than women" -- (many) like-minded accusers notwithstanding.
Jesse at 7:54PM on Aug 24th 2008
58. If men are smarter, why are women the ones that decide who they will marry? Not much different than the strategy in chess.
JefFlyingV at 7:55PM on Aug 24th 2008
59. Allabaster: "The reason you hear complaining from one camp and silence from the other is that men find the question stupid and irrelevant and women seem to enjoy focusing on the stupid and irrelevant."
A man (Dinesh) brought the question up in the first place.
Ryan Anderson at 9:14PM on Aug 24th 2008
60. 37. Hello Natural Puppy.
I haven’t been able to get to the computer much lately, despite the fact that I have been very eager to get a response back to you (from our earlier discussion about naturalism and morality). I have a response ready, but I’m wondering where I should post it.
Jesse at 1:20PM on Aug 24th 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jesse, thanks for getting back to me, but frankly, I don't remember what our conversation was about. But only because I have discussed Naturalism and morality with several folks lately.
I do remember responding to one of your posts, so you are definitely someone with whom I would enjoy continuing a conversation. Please post your response on DD's blog as it could always use a boost.
Apparently you have spent some quality time constructing a response, so please post it publicly. It will certainly cause me to remember our previous conversation, and I'm sure will be worthy of public scrutiny.
If, however, you should be more comfortable with a private conversation, I have no objection to that.
Regards,
naturalpuppy at 8:12PM on Aug 24th 2008