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 5 of 15)
61. Funny I should read this blog after listening to my wife and son chat about a golf tournament they were both in yesterday. My wife was in a 4some with 3 other women; my son with 3 other guys. He talked about how competitve the guys were, counting every stroke, allowing no gimme's. He described each shot he made, particularly proud of the 300 yard + drives. My wife, on the other hand, gave glowing reports of how much better she got to know her golf partners and, horror of horrors, she admitted they didn't even bother to keep score. They both claimed to have had a great day, he in his self-absorbed battle to be best; she in her quest to make the best use of her time getting to know these other women. Who was 'smarter'?
fanman at 8:12PM on Aug 24th 2008
62. The topic of this latest blog post doesn't seem to be getting much traction, so I'll introduce another topic I've been thinking about.
Many atheists attempt to shift the burden of proof =entirely= on to theists by claiming that atheism is simply the 'lack of belief in god or gods.' I don't think this move works, however, and I'd like to see what some of you think about my reasoning.
First, I'd like to ask atheists who make this move if they lack belief for any reason or set of reasons. If they say no, it's not based on any reason or set of reasons, then there's really no need to continue the discussion since the atheist has just admitted that his position is arbitrary (I think it's uncontroversial to say that a position that is held for no reason whatsoever is arbitrary and unworthy of serious consideration. Keep in mind, though, that I'm talking about the specific person's position, and not about the topic itself).
But second, if the person's atheism =is= grounded in some reason or set of reasons, =then his atheism cannot be reduced to a lack of belief=. Why not? Well, now atheism for him is the lack of belief =because= of this specific reason or set of reasons. In short, the atheist who lacks belief for some reason must share the burden of proof with the theist, since atheism in this sense isn't simply the lack of a belief in god, but the position that some particular set of reasons justifies a lack of belief in god. If this is so, then this set of reasons and the conclusion to which it leads must be defended, just as the theist must defend his position.
It seems to me that atheists can only escape their share of the burden of proof by denying that their atheism is rational, and that if the atheist claims his atheism is rational, then he must also bear a burden of proof.
A clarification: I'm not saying that the atheist bears a burden of proof in the sense that he must prove that god doesn't exist (just as the theist need not prove that god does exist), but that he must show that his position, i.e. that his reasons justify his lack of belief in god, are tenable.
Eric at 8:38PM on Aug 24th 2008
63. I am a woman...and I'm also highly competitive - always have been, probably always will. I was competitive when I ran and did gymnastics in school...and I'm still competitive when it comes to things intellectual. I also have an IQ well above that "chess average" you quote. So, I feel I am somewhat qualified to answer this question from a woman's viewpoint.
I played chess twice...when I was about 13. It was against my sister's boyfriend who was roughly ten years older than I was - and, by his own proclamation, a "chess genius". When I beat him the first time...he wrote it off as beginner's luck. The second time he got mad and stomped off; ultimately refusing to play a third.
While you can argue this is not indicative of all males (and I'd agree), I've personally witnessed similar responses numerous times manifesting themselves under situations requiring intelligence and/or skill. So is it any wonder some women don't want to play chess...perhaps we are tired of childlike behaviour and intellectual excuses (and abuses) whenever we do excel at something. And no wonder we also dumb ourselves down...it's just less stressful.
Cadeaux at 9:00PM on Aug 24th 2008
64. ::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.
Well, I had some time this morning so I was able to finally construct something.
The Lewis board, actually, is public, and it is more convenient. Still, I can post it here if you'd prefer not to get involved with another board... As for jogging your memory, in addition to my new responses I will post both your responses and those to which you responded...
So, here, Lewis board, both?
Talk to you soon,
Jesse
Jesse at 9:24PM on Aug 24th 2008
65. The comparison of the bell curve doesn't take into account one thing: women in a group tend to act as smart as the least intelligent woman in the group (it's true). Men don't have this problem.
The bell curve of the women when compared to the men probably had the center of the bell curve lower than the center of the man's bell curve whose standard deviation was of higher distance than the woman's bell curve. This would result in the condition as seen here.
Lauren Glenn at 9:14PM on Aug 24th 2008
66. So, here, Lewis board, both?
Talk to you soon,
Jesse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jesse, I have been unable to get interested in any C.S. Lewis work since I read the Screwtape Letters in 1959, when I was twenty-one. I've managed to get through a couple of essays. One of my sons (the evangelical) gave me a collection of five or six of his books several years ago. I tried them all, but ended up donating them to a thrift store.
This just illustrates the distance between our worldviews.
Nevertheless, I'll browse the blog, for which you have provided a link, for your comments.
naturalpuppy at 9:50PM on Aug 24th 2008
67. Dinesh misses a rather obvious point when he mentions the fact that there are no rules preventing women from playing chess. Chess is simply more popular among men. When is the last time any of you have ever seen two old women sitting at a chessboard in some Eurasian marketplace on the Discovery Channel? Women also seem to under represented here replying to Dinesh's drivel, an indication that they're probably a lot smarter than Dinesh gives them credit for being.
Ed W. at 10:03PM on Aug 24th 2008
68. "First, I'd like to ask atheists who make this move if they lack belief for any reason or set of reasons. If they say no, it's not based on any reason or set of reasons, then there's really no need to continue the discussion since the atheist has just admitted that his position is arbitrary"--------------------------I'm not so sure that I can reply for the Atheists because I'm not entirely sure that there isn't a God. I can tell you why I don't believe in the God who Dinesh and his crew are pushing here. I think that the concept of an all powerful yet jealous God who loves all of his children although he intends to burn most of them eternally is ridiculous.
Ed W. at 10:09PM on Aug 24th 2008
69. That's not God's intent Ed. For a clearer understanding, there's a book on it.
fanman at 10:41PM on Aug 24th 2008
70.
Lauren Glenn said: "To say that men are meaner than women is a lie."
Then Lauren Glenn said: "Women are more deceptive when it comes to lying....."
So, Lauren, are you lying in a deceptive way in statement 1 or statement 2? Or both?
Liar Liar Pants on Fire at 10:56PM on Aug 24th 2008
71. Men think linear, like AC power. Women think intuitively, like DC power. Linear thought is methodical, try this, eliminate that, next step. Intuition operates like a sponge soaking up water, water being the Whole of a matter. Intuition is the small still voice first heard before the clamor of reasoning, analysis,&logical deduction. The intuition is NEVER wrong, (gut instinct),while the best reasoning skills have only a 50% percent chance of being right. If men would LISTEN to the women around them, then we could agree at least they are smart. Smarter? No way.
BeeSeer at 11:41PM on Aug 24th 2008
72. Dinesh gave a link to the top 100 chess players in the world - so that we could all verify that only one is a woman. I clicked on the link but it was not as helpful as I would have liked.
There are a few manly names there - e.g. Alexander and Boris.
However, things go downhill after that.
Is Anatoly Karpov a woman? Who knows? What about Surya Shekhar Ganguly? Sounds like a woman's name but I'm not at all sure. Then there is Ilia Smirin, Pengxiang Zhang, and Andrei Istratescu - at least two of them must be men (strangely enough).
I googled Emil Sutovsky and Gabriel Sargissian - both dudes it turns out.
Maybe its P. Harikrishna - "P" could stand for Penelope I imagine.
So, what is the point of this post? Nothing - I am just really bored.
insaneatheist at 11:42PM on Aug 24th 2008
73. Hmm...last time I checked intelligence was not linked to chess in any way. Yes, I like chess, and yes it does require thought, but saying men are smarter than women because they play more chess??! You never fail to amaze me, and not in a good way, DD. Like other comments have said, I think men and women are intelligent in different ways.
Emma at 12:14PM on Aug 25th 2008
74. That's like asking if white people are smarter than people like you you DD. Stupid question huh? Just like yours
Larry at 11:50PM on Aug 24th 2008
75. Robert@#38
I say the 3rd book of the Bible is Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke.
abbot at 12:03AM on Aug 25th 2008