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 7 of 15)
91. Dear Abbot & Natural Puppy,
Having lived in Utah, I was being semi-serious about the B.O.M. (they are). But I like your answer better - viva la planetary rapture!
But I wonder, no L. Ron Hubbard? LOLOLOL!!!
Robert at 9:33AM on Aug 25th 2008
92. Oh, and this just in...
Proof positive of man's intellectual superiority.
Chess-boxing.
Robert at 9:35AM on Aug 25th 2008
93. I think it might be lack of publicity which in turn does not create an environment for improvement in the skill. Prior to this subject being posted, how many people knew there were two groups in competitive chess? One male and the other female. Until such time that women get enough attention in the field there will not an increase in the number of younger women who want to emulate those female leaders. Once there is a sufficient amount ( the precise amount I do not know), more younger women will make a name for themselves in chess. At a certain point the actual competition between men and women will take place.
Partially because people will want it.
Unlike atheletics where Physical differences do matter, chess would seem to require intelligence as opposed to physical prowess. So what's below the neck is un-important and what sits atop the neck is paramount.
M2D5 at 9:51AM on Aug 25th 2008
94. Maybe women will write the 3rd book.......
nahhh, they're too smart.
abbot at 10:06AM on Aug 25th 2008
95. MM, I wholly disagree with your hypothesis regarding nerds and this subject matter. Why should we be labeled nerds?
I did, however wish to point out that in the tri-level chess games on the Enterprise, it was indeed Spock and Kirk, two MALES, who were the ship's undisputed top players. Furthermore, another male, Colonel Robert Star, was the Starfleet champion, and a male Romulon, Staznak Fguuurwint, was the intergalactic dual-meet champ, three petarts running!
America's Most Gangsta at 10:15AM on Aug 25th 2008
96. I can't believe anyone would consider a single word that this idiot writes.
Mary Ann at 10:13AM on Aug 25th 2008
97. 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.
------------------
Do you believe in vampires? There are a myriad of books about them. There are traits that could be considered universal to vampirism. Holy water, stakes through the heart, and crosses are weapons to be used against them. They are creatures of the night, and sunlight will hurt or destroy them. If you kill the leader, all his infected are released.
Why not believe in them? There is definitely a pattern, sets of things described in a great many books, which appears in the others. I know bats exist, therefore, vampires exist. Some bats are bloodsuckers, therefore, the vampires i believe in are bloodsuckers. The books support that.
The fact that I've never seen a vampire is irrelevant. There's so much "proof," I don't need to see one. If somebody up and disappears, they are probably a vampire. Jimmy Hoffa is most likely an undead creature, lurking in the darkness. Bats, the form that vampires take, are night creatures. I have seen bats, only flying around after the sun sets. There's proof of the night life of vampires.
ex-christian at 10:27AM on Aug 25th 2008
98. AMG,
I stand by my statement. And if you're going to use a Star Trek example of men playing a game of strategy I would suggest Fizzbin.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:36AM on Aug 25th 2008
99.
I don't need to share your burden of proof, eric, as everything you attribute to "god" came from books. Amazing unbelievable stories, which include some elements of reality. Specific patterns that are essentially meaningless. Contradictions, and universal traits that don't fit the narrative.
I need to disprove god as much as I need to disprove vampires.
ex-christian at 10:44AM on Aug 25th 2008
100. Speaking of vampires, when I started coming here I almost named my blog handle "Mamuwalde".
Mokele Mbembe at 10:46AM on Aug 25th 2008
101. This is an interesting topic.... I think men and women definitely have complementary strengths/weaknesses... as for chess, is there a complementary game women excel at?
Shannie at 11:11AM on Aug 25th 2008
102. No game suggestions? well then, time to get something done at Walmart...
Shannie at 11:37AM on Aug 25th 2008
103. I think women have as competitive a spirit as men, just about different things.
a born atheist at 11:38AM on Aug 25th 2008
104. Dinesh,
As my mother says, if men are smarter than women, then why has child rearing been left too women? You would think that women, who aren't as intelligent, would screw up the kids.
I have another theory. Women just don't like chess. Chess is a game of quiet concentration. Women like to talk. So, they prefer games such as bridge, where they can talk and play at the same time.
I know a lot of very smart men who won't play chess, because you can't have a lot of conversation during a game (or smoke cigars and drink beer). That's why they play poker.
Kent at 1:56AM on Aug 26th 2008
105.
Let's bring it up a notch, Eric.
Let's examine the writings of Stephen King. If you are an avid reader of his books, and short stories, a great many are tied together. The "god," in his loosely tied narrative, is embodied as a turtle. A turtle with universes in it's eyes. The evil one has a name, and it's name is Flagg. Randall Flagg.
There are "morals" in the characters. There are things that we know to exist, places, and objects. Plymouth Fury's are real. Las Vegas is real.
Can I conclude that morals come from a turtle? Or that evil is the domain of a timeless "Merlin" that morphs into a crow? How about a mechanism that binds space-time with beams, that is breaking down due to neglect of the machine?
Is it your burden of proof to disprove these things? If I were to claim that these things are in fact real, the onus of proof would be on me.
ex-christian at 11:47AM on Aug 25th 2008