|
How do you know that adjusting for playing time would lead to such a conclusion? You don't.
Accounting for age didn't, because age isn't a major factor and obviously you're limiting your data to 6-12..."even after controlling for age and frequency of play, a highly significant male advantage.".
Again if you can control for a variable why wouldn't you?
I already replied. The first result they get...
You did reply but you didn't address it right, they cherry picked data, there's no pattern on that graph.
|
On April 15 2014 07:12 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 05:22 kwizach wrote:
The first result they get from the data is the overall average ratings difference between young boys and girls, and the second result they get is that there is no ratings difference in areas where there are at least as many girls as boys. So you are the type of person who listens to authority no matters what. We all can see the graph. We all can see that their explanation doesn't fit the data. They randomly picked 4 points to tell the story. The goddamn graph has no pattern to it.
No, I'm the type of person that looks at why they selected these four specific areas. The paragraphs you refer to weren't about interpreting the entire graph but about examining in more detail the four areas where girls were as numerous as boys.
On April 15 2014 07:12 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 05:22 kwizach wrote:
For an in-depth look at increasing proportions of men at the top, which is a different issue than that of average ratings, see the paper I cited on p. 31 of this thread: Merim Bilalić, Kieran Smallbone, Peter McLeod and Fernand Gobet, "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22 March 2009, vol. 276 no. 1659, pp. 1161-1165. nice dodge, say why there is an increasing proportions of men at the top instead of making us read studies. Make a point. I'm not going to read the study, but I'm going to read the article written on the study. http://phys.org/news150954140.htmlShow nested quote +The results showed that the top three women had more points than expected, the next 70 or so pairs showed a small advantage for the men, and the last 20 pairs showed a small advantage for the women. Overall, men performed slightly better than expected, with an average advantage of 353 points, whereas the expected advantage was 341 points. Nevertheless, about 96% of the actual difference between genders could be explained by the statistical fact that the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be larger than those from a small one. Hey look, this study actually supported my argument that men are generally better than women at chess. Thanks.
I didn't dodge anything - the issue of there being more men at the higher levels was extensively discussed in the previous pages and the article I cited then completely debunks the idea that it is because men are better at chess. It directly shows that statistically the ratings difference at the highest levels between men and women is exactly as you would expect it to be based on the differing sizes of the populations of men and women playing. This isn't in itself proof that there aren't differences between men and women, but it is proof that the fact that there are more men at the top cannot be used to support the idea that men are better.
That's the point I made repeatedly for several pages, so I'm a bit surprised you're now accusing me of not making one. Perhaps instead of parroting along Darkwhite you should have taken the time to read my posts and the study. It would also have saved you the embarrassment of claiming that the article you just cited supports your point when it says exactly what I'm saying, which is not surprising since it reports the results of the study I used. Did you perhaps not read the very quote you just used? Here: "96% of the actual difference between genders could be explained by the statistical fact that the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be larger than those from a small one". Also, from the title of your article: Why Men Rank Higher than Women at Chess (It's Not Biological) (bold emphasis mine). Again, nobody is denying that there are more men at the top - the entire point is that it is statistically normal for them to be at the top even if women are just as good as them simply because there are way more men competing. How can you possibly not understand this by now?
On April 15 2014 07:12 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +Nevertheless, about 96% of the actual difference between genders could be explained by the statistical fact that the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be larger than those from a small one. so they found that men are better than women, that go against feminism. They don't want to get in trouble so they decide to explains everything by saying "actual difference between genders could be explained by the statistical fact that the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be larger than those from a small one." They have no explanation as to why as we go forward in ranks, the number of women decrease and the number of men increase in term of %. For you to bring up this study to counter sibs's argument is a fallacy because it doesn't address his argument.
They do have an explanation for it: it's the entire point of the scientific article I cited and of the page you just referred to, as I just explained to you (again). This doesn't "go against feminism" - it precisely debunks an argument used by people who want to use chess rankings to support the idea of male superiority. I don't think you could have misunderstood the argument more if you tried.
We know that participant rate doesn't mean anything because in scrable men still dominate despite being 22% of the population.
1. There are 278 ranked Scrabble Players in NZ of whom 62 are Male (22%)
2. The top 100 players contain 36 men (36%)
3. The Top 50 players contain 23 men (46%)
4. The top 20 players contain 13 men (65%)
5. The top 10 players have 9 men (90%) plus our current national champ, Joanne.
The articles referred to earlier directly show the impact of participation rates for the chess rankings we were discussing. This is not up for debate - Bilalic et al. mathematically demonstrate their impact in the paper cited. You took the NZ scrabble example from a random 2009 internet post - you have absolutely no idea of what other variables are at stake, with a possible influence contrary to that of participation rates. It's impossible to know without more data, which you don't have because you were only interested in copy/pasting a random post as fast as you could just so you could have something to keep defending your preconceived male superiority beliefs. To give you an example, if someone looked at SC2 results, that person would notice Korean players are a minority overall and yet completely dominate the rest of the world. According to your incredibly brilliant logic, this should lead that person to conclude that South Koreans are biologically wired in a way that makes them way better at SC2 than the rest of the world. Of course, we know that non-biological factors are at play, in particular the amount of training and the training environment. You don't know anything about the NZ scrabble situation, so this example should tell you enough about how incredibly ignorant it is to declare that the relevant variable is biology without actually investigating the issue.
That "article" is made of random reader reactions and 10 reasons put together by an outside blog, most of which are actually debunked in the articles I presented you with earlier, in particular those from Janet Hyde. At this point, you're probably typing "brain differences women men chess" in google and copy/pasting the results. Laughable.
On April 15 2014 07:12 Jumperer wrote:
People like darkwhite and sibs will do that and they have already picked apart the studies. These studies clearly have an agendas. They will try to find any possible non biological excuse on why women are worse in chess, darts, scrabble, checkers, poker, pools, video games, etc. As I said, studies can be manipulated to fit the narrative. When they find something that favor men, it's always followed up by an excuse. How about we stop making excuses? Why is there no female tiger woods in anything yet. We have 10 billion people on this earth surely some women should be able to overcome all odds and dominate at something in a competition with men, right? arn't they our equal? If they are our equal then why do they keep finishing up behind men in EVERYTHING.
Darkwhite misunderstood the study he was arguing against, as I showed extensively. As evidenced by your post, you misunderstood it completely, going as far as believing it supported your point, which is quite an achievement in not understanding something. sibs' objection to the latest study I posted is on the selection of data points for the second part of the last section, and does not concern the rest of the findings of the study or the authors' statistical explanation of the higher average ratings for men. In short, neither the preponderance of men at the top nor the higher average ratings for men can be used as arguments to support the idea that men are better at chess, for statistical reasons.
On April 15 2014 07:12 Jumperer wrote:
You can believe in whatever you want. I look at the world around me and I see that at the highest level of anything it's always men at the top. Based on all this it's safe to say that women are not being kept from reaching the top. It seem like they just don't have the whatever it is to be at the top. Sure, there are some talented women who stand out like Danica Patrick(even though she hasn't won a race yet.) But overall, feminists shouldn't complain that the majority of CEOs are men. That's just life, and biology. I'm not against equal opportunities. I'm against stupid policies like forcing companies to have 50% male 50% female on their executive board.
Yes, you can "believe in whatever you want". The bottom line is that you do not have the slightest bit of evidence to support the idea that men are biologically better than women at "chess, darts, scrabble, checkers, poker, pools, video games, etc". It is your preconceived and sexist beliefs which lead you to completely reject statistical evidence and scientific demonstrations which do not go your way. I'd love to see you defend the idea that there being more male CEOs is rooted in biology rather than overwhelming sociocultural and historical factors. What is "safe to say" is that you don't have a leg to stand on.
|
On April 15 2014 07:54 Kukaracha wrote:
Is it me or are people here trying to correlate chess or even Scrabble with intelligence ?
Not only is the argument astonishingly weak, but also surprising if it is supposed to come from psychological studies, which are supposed to share a strong link with other social sciences and humanities that stress the importance of cultural context.
It truly bothers me how some can ironically present such irrigorous arguments while discussing logic and cognitive capacities. Let's not mention the lack of a satisfying definition for the term "feminism" and voilà, armchair philosophy.
The studies I cited are saying the opposite, namely that the statistical data available shows that chess results cannot be used to support the argument that men are better. It's just Jumperer who is spectacularly misinterpreting the studies.
|
On April 15 2014 07:58 sibs wrote:Show nested quote +How do you know that adjusting for playing time would lead to such a conclusion? You don't. Accounting for age didn't, because age isn't a major factor and obviously you're limiting your data to 6-12..." even after controlling for age and frequency of play, a highly significant male advantage.". Again if you can control for a variable why wouldn't you?
They did control for age, separately. That's what I said and it doesn't support your point since they explicitly stated they were controlling for age. They would have done so as well if they were controlling for other variables, as they did in the rest of the paper - and even more so if they were controlling for the other variables except for age, contrary to the earlier sections. Why wouldn't they? Perhaps, as I just explained, because "the data used in that specific sample consisted in different sets of players each year - those who "had established ratings at year end and who did not have a rating in any year before the previous one". Accounting for variables like "playing time in the three previous years", taken into account for previous samples, therefore seems a lot less relevant."
On April 15 2014 07:58 sibs wrote:You did reply but you didn't address it right, they cherry picked data, there's no pattern on that graph.
Cherry picking data would have been randomly selecting all of the data points where girls scored better than boys. In this case, they explained that they wanted to look at "places where girls play competitive chess as commonly as boys" in particular because, according to them, that is where "the social factors ordinarily discouraging girls from playing chess may be minimal". In any case, in addition to the data, they explain that it is statistically unsurprising to find a lower ratings average for women among the competitive players population, which is what the argument was about.
Do you have any other gripe with the paper, whose argument is broader than those four data points and which still addresses the argument that was being discussed here even if you forget about these data points?
|
edit: my bad, double post.
|
|
|
That's the crux of the argument though, they attribute the difference between girls & boys to social factors using a graph that has no pattern, breaking the graph off at an arbitrary point, I wonder if girls had a better performance at 40%+ if they wouldn't have just gone with 40%+  .
Also they're breaking playing frequency in 2 categories:
Number of games in current year: 0–9, 10–50, 51
Number of games in prior 3 years: 0–74, 75–151, 151
Makes no sense to not adjust for a variable that highly pollutes your data, after you already presented a correction for it.
|
While Jumperer def seems to be completely right, being decisively better at strategy games does not make man better than woman. Only nerds think logic the only mental talent, and I would concede woman COULD beat man on other areas (better intuition?)
Obviously, that man and woman might have different talents pisses feminist off in an incredibly funny way.
|
United States42522 Posts
I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
|
The same argument that people use saying that women have succeed in doing w/e at the top level at that industry also backfires when talking about equality of opportunities. That means that girls have those opportunities already thus all those activists shouldn't complain about equality of opportunities as some girls have already demonstrated that as long as you put your mind over it.
Anything else is just artificially created biases for sake of it.
|
On April 15 2014 13:27 KwarK wrote:
I don't think it matters in the least as a feminist. Even if one sex has a slight advantage over another in a given area it doesn't change the fact that the ability of both sexes will be on a bell curve that is mostly overlap, even if we accept that there are differences the number of men so incredibly unique that no woman could replace them is going to be minuscule and have no bearing upon whether a woman is as good as a given man. The vast majority of jobs won't have such extreme requirements that no woman can do them and as long as the women that can do them are equally considered for the position then who cares. I want equality of opportunity.
While we both agree on the premise of equality, feminist advocate positive intervention to promote woman in the workplace, while I consider that incredibly unfair and arbitrary (from a moral standpoint) and more harmful than beneficial (from a pragmatical point). Where do we stop? There is lots of evidence to support heightism, should short people receive benefits as well? Should we limit the amount of CEO's taller than 5 10" ?
So feminists are ok that all top figures in most fields are and will remain to be man ?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
I don't even know what kwizach is arguing anymore. It seems pretty obvious that in some areas either men or women are going to have some kind of advantage. That doesn't make either side unequal, and as others side, as long as there's equality of opportunity, then *shrug*. Also seems kinda obvious that men are still favoured (unfairly) in plenty of areas.
|
On April 15 2014 18:34 marvellosity wrote:
I don't even know what kwizach is arguing anymore. It seems pretty obvious that in some areas either men or women are going to have some kind of advantage. That doesn't make either side unequal, and as others side, as long as there's equality of opportunity, then *shrug*. Also seems kinda obvious that men are still favoured (unfairly) in plenty of areas.
Science and knowledge do not care for the obvious.
Though it may seem reasonable to believe that men and women are different (right?), the true question is: how different? We can either adress these questions or forever bring up weak arguments in favor of a simplistic duality between the two genders, ie. women can't drive and men are bad at multitasking.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:
Nobody says anything about correlating that with intelligence. The reason we go to chess and scrable because women can enter these activities at will and compete with men. Feminists like to say that men keep women on purpose at the bottom in jobs. I argue that there is no significant outside factors holding women back based on women's and men's result in these gaming activities.
Women can enter these activities at will, but apparently don't. Why? This is the first gap in your argument.
Following this odd logical path, if results=causality, then the nation of Urugay is somehow genetically superior when it comes to soccer. Comparatively, their players perform better in average and provide more professionals than, say, South Africa. How come? Aren't south africans fond of the same game? Aren't they free to compete in the same tournaments?
Are we to conclude that Urugay is home to a people that is simply better at soccer?
The missing factor that you are looking at is culture. In the case of Urugay, the immense popularity and pool of potential players, the education of children and the habits it produces among individuals.
Besides, you would probably agree with the fact that women are as free to play chess now as they were at the beginning of the XXth century, right? There was no taboo associated with the activity; and yet there are very few records of female chess masters from that time in comparison to ours. Would you argue that the gene pool has been modified since?
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:
So men in general are not better than women at basketball because the fact that there are more men at the top cannot be used to support the idea that men are better.
*if men in general seem better than women, we should ask ourselves why.
As an example, take the phrase "white men can't jump". Why is it that black men seem better than white men in basketball? Do you believe it to be common sense or don't you think it requires a little more investigation?
Is it a more popular sport among black communities? Do they have stronger abdominal muscles? Or are they simply... "superior" in handling a ball, while white men are superior at punching each other while ice-skating?
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:
Stats can be interpreted in many different ways. They choose to attribute it to the extreme values from a large sample rather than straight up say that men > women. That statement is probably the most flawed statement i've ever seen in a study. They are saying that they fucked up because their sample size is too large. wut? That is extremely absurd.
What is your understanding of statistics?
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:
In SC2 the koreans work harder than everyone else and their culture supported gaming. Thats why they are the best at video games. This is their niche and they are very good at it. They are not biologically superior because they don't dominate the whole world at anything else.
In nz scrable situation, if the women are failing because they refuse to train as much as the top men. Then they have nobody to blame but themselves. Oh wait, it could be culture and society just like south korea and sc2. I'm sure there's a hidden village somewhere in NZ isolated from the rest of the population that does nothing but play scrable all day and doesn't let women inside. So this explains why 9 out of 10 top players are men. Yes, it all make senses now.
Statistically speaking, the large pool of players is bound to produce better players. The culture also makes it acceptable and worthwhile to spend time playing Starcraft, which is not the case elsewhere. Your explanation is a little insulting to NA or EU players who do in fact play 12 hours a day, is it not?
And what do you mean by "culture and society"? What is the difference between these two terms, and their link as you seem to systematically use them together?
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:
Well fuck, if all these world titles and all these higher average rating are meaningless. There is nothing we can do to prove that men are better at chess. I guess women are better afterall, they have all these potential ability but for some reason they can't use it!!!!!
Studies could prove this. The popularization of chess among females could also do the trick. "Observation" doesn't - when the first greeks declared the earth was round, the "observation" of their successors and their "common sense" made them believe otherwise.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:
And those overwhelming sociocultural and historical factors are rooted in biology. Women were the support roles because they were good at it. Men did their part by going out to work and spending resources on women and child.
Women have their own advantages in term of biology. They are better at taking care of the young and elders. They are better at emotional supports etc.
I don't need to cite 500 studies when I can see this with my own eyes. The same reason I don't need to cite that 1+1=2. Go spend more time with women so you can see the differences with your own eyes. You can theorycraft all you want citing studies but reality is reality.
"Reality is reality", what do you mean by that?
You do realize that this is a completely anti-scientific train of thought, right? Before vikings headed to Vinland, their peers could see "with their own eyes" that there was nothing but the sea west from England.
Besides, both men and women occupied support roles, historically speaking. Wether it's in ancient Greece, or in the Renaissance Italy, those who were "active" were the elite, the majority was made of supporting classes of second or third-grade citizens who worked the land or in the industries, men and women alike.
Granted, in our culture the ruling class was composed mostly by males, but ethnology has showed us that it is not the case everywhere - see the different matriarchies that exist, ie. the Na tribe in China.
As a history major, I'm curious to hear about these "sociocultural and historical factors" though.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:
you lose.
This...
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:
It's society's and culture fault.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:
IT'S SOCIETY'S FAULT.
...is...
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:
Also, you should go to feminists meeting and see what they are up to lately. Oh right, #banbossy.
..."unnecessary" and quite eloquent about your position in this debate.
|
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:
I don't need to cite 500 studies when I can see this with my own eyes. The same reason I don't need to cite that 1+1=2. Go spend more time with women so you can see the differences with your own eyes. You can theorycraft all you want citing studies but reality is reality. Also, you should go to feminists meeting and see what they are up to lately. Oh right, #banbossy.
I do not know what makes this thread worse, the rampant sexism, or the lack scientific training/understanding of statics.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 15 2014 20:29 Fwmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:
I don't need to cite 500 studies when I can see this with my own eyes. The same reason I don't need to cite that 1+1=2. Go spend more time with women so you can see the differences with your own eyes. You can theorycraft all you want citing studies but reality is reality. Also, you should go to feminists meeting and see what they are up to lately. Oh right, #banbossy. I do not know what makes this thread worse, the rampant sexism, or the lack scientific training/understanding of statics.
Your post definitely improved matters, thanks.
|
There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman.
|
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +Is it me or are people here trying to correlate chess or even Scrabble with intelligence ?
Not only is the argument astonishingly weak, but also surprising if it is supposed to come from psychological studies, which are supposed to share a strong link with other social sciences and humanities that stress the importance of cultural context.
It truly bothers me how some can ironically present such irrigorous arguments while discussing logic and cognitive capacities. Let's not mention the lack of a satisfying definition for the term "feminism" and voilà, armchair philosophy Nobody says anything about correlating that with intelligence. The reason we go to chess and scrable because women can enter these activities at will and compete with men. Feminists like to say that men keep women on purpose at the bottom in jobs. I argue that there is no significant outside factors holding women back based on women's and men's result in these gaming activities.
The most important factor holding women back is the fact that very few of them actually compete in the activities you listed. The papers I provided show that the preponderance of men at the top in chess is exactly what would be statistically expected based on the numbers of men and women playing.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 08:05 kwizach wrote:
I didn't dodge anything - the issue of there being more men at the higher levels was extensively discussed in the previous pages and the article I cited then completely debunks the idea that it is because men are better at chess. It directly shows that statistically the ratings difference at the highest levels between men and women is exactly as you would expect it to be based on the differing sizes of the populations of men and women playing. This isn't in itself proof that there aren't differences between men and women, but it is proof that the fact that there are more men at the top cannot be used to support the idea that men are better. you lose. If that was the case then the level of women would stay around 6.5% at all level rather than continue to decrease. 5029/77144 = 6.5% (all rating levels) 3587/58179= 6.2% (over 2000, superior to strong club players) 1768/39155= 4.5% (over 2100) 697/20743= 3.4% (over 2200) 223/7971= 2.8% (over 2300) 66/2715= 2.4% (over 2400) 10/771= 1.3% (over 2500, grandmaster level) 1/151 = 0.7% (over 2600)
...no it wouldn't. That's not how statistics work. The higher preponderance of members of the larger groups at the ends of the distribution (in this case, the higher end) is perfectly normal statistically. Bilalic et al. explain this extensively in the paper. Here's a quote from the introduction:
The greater the difference in size between the two groups, the greater is the difference to be expected between the top performers in the two groups. Nothing about underlying differences between the groups can be concluded from the preponderance of members of the larger group at the far ends of the distribution until one can show that this preponderance is greater than would be expected on statistical sampling grounds.
Unsurprisingly, you copy/pasted your argument from another internet post on a blog. Perhaps try to understand the issue before doing so?
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 08:05 kwizach wrote:
This isn't in itself proof that there aren't differences between men and women, but it is proof that the fact that there are more men at the top cannot be used to support the idea that men are better. So men in general are not better than women at basketball because the fact that there are more men at the top cannot be used to support the idea that men are better. It's society's and culture fault.
Basketball is different from chess because of the physical abilities required. And you have to look at the amount of men at the top - in the case of chess, the study demonstrated that there were no more men than would be expected given the differences in population sizes. If there had been even more men than that, then yes, other factors would have been needed to explain the discrepancy. In this case, however, simple statistics suffice, meaning that the fact that there are more men at the top cannot be used to support the idea that men are better.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 08:05 kwizach wrote:
They do have an explanation for it: it's the entire point of the scientific article I cited and the page you just referred to, as I just explained to you (again). This doesn't "go against feminism" - it precisely debunks an argument used by people who want to use chess rankings to support the idea of male superiority. I don't think you could have misunderstood the argument more if you tried. "96% of the actual difference between genders could be explained by the statistical fact that the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be larger than those from a small one" Stats can be interpreted in many different ways. They choose to attribute it to the extreme values from a large sample rather than straight up say that men > women. That statement is probably the most flawed statement i've ever seen in a study. They are saying that they fucked up because their sample size is too large. wut? That is extremely absurd.
At what point are you going to take a step back and realize that you have absolutely no clue of what you're talking about? Who the hell is saying "they fucked up because their sample size is too large"? Nobody is saying that - you just don't have the slightest understanding of what the authors wrote. They did not "choose" to attribute it to anything - they proved that the differences in ratings at the top were virtually exactly (96%) what you would statistically expect them to be based on the respective sizes of the male and female populations (the large and small samples). This finding completely debunks the argument that the ratings of men at the top mean that men are intrinsically better.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 08:05 kwizach wrote:
The articles referred to earlier directly show the impact of participation rates for the chess rankings we were discussing. This is not up for debate - Bilalic et al. mathematically demonstrate their impact in the paper cited. You took the NZ scrabble example from a random 2009 internet post - you have absolutely no idea of what other variables are at stake, with a possible influence contrary to that of participation rates. It's impossible to know without more data, which you don't have because you were only interested in copy/pasting a random post as fast as you could just so you could have something to keep defending your preconceived male superiority beliefs. To give you an example, if someone looked at SC2 results, that person would notice Korean players are a minority overall and yet completely dominate the rest of the world. According to your incredibly brilliant logic, this should lead that person to conclude that South Koreans are biologically wired in a way that makes them way better at SC2 than the rest of the world. Of course, we know that non-biological factors are at play, in particular the amount of training and the training environment. You don't know anything about the NZ scrabble situation, so this example should tell you enough about how incredibly ignorant it is to declare that the relevant variable is biology without actually investigating the issue. In SC2 the koreans work harder than everyone else and their culture supported gaming. Thats why they are the best at video games. This is their niche and they are very good at it. They are not biologically superior because they don't dominate the whole world at anything else. In nz scrable situation, if the women are failing because they refuse to train as much as the top men. Then they have nobody to blame but themselves. Oh wait, it could be culture and society just like south korea and sc2. I'm sure there's a hidden village somewhere in NZ isolated from the rest of the population that does nothing but play scrable all day and doesn't let women inside. So this explains why 9 out of 10 top players are men. Yes, it all make senses now.
Yes, we know why Koreans finish higher in SC2 tournaments, but that's the entire point - if we didn't know that they trained harder and lived in a favorable training environment, and if we followed your logic, we would conclude that they are biologically better than non-Koreans. We don't know anything about the NZ scrabble scene, so similar factors could be at play - you say that women should "blame themselves" if they do not train as much as men, but then this would clearly mean training would be the relevant factor and not biological differences. It also could be that most of the men come from the capital and practice more intensively in a few clubs where few women are found, it could be that more women treat it as a hobby, etc. - the point is that we simply do not know and that it is therefore nonsensical to conclude that men are biologically better than women at scrabble based on that extremely limited data.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 08:05 kwizach wrote:
Darkwhite misunderstood the study he was arguing against, as I showed extensively. As evidenced by your post, you misunderstood it completely, going as far as believing it supported your point, which is quite an achievement in not understanding something. sibs' objection to the latest study I posted is on the selection of data points for the second part of the last section, and does not concern the rest of the findings of the study or the authors' statistical explanation of the higher average ratings for men. In short, neither the preponderance of men at the top nor the higher average ratings for men can be used as arguments to support the idea that men are better at chess, for statistical reasons. Well fuck, if all these world titles and all these higher average rating are meaningless. There is nothing we can do to prove that men are better at chess. I guess women are better afterall, they have all these potential ability but for some reason they can't use it!!!!! IT'S SOCIETY'S FAULT.
As the Bilalic study explicitly states, non-statistical factors would be needed to explain the rating differences at the top if those differences in ratings were even higher (or lower) than statistics would predict them to be based on the respective sizes of the female and male populations - but that's not the case, the differences are exactly as expected statistically. Also, nobody is saying that "women are better". All the study shows is that the particular argument of these higher male ratings cannot be used to support the idea that men are better. And let me point out that even if you had presented the slightest bit of evidence showing men to be better at chess - which you haven't -, your claim is that they are better because of biological reasons, for which you have zero evidence.
On April 15 2014 10:52 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 08:05 kwizach wrote:
Yes, you can "believe in whatever you want". The bottom line is that you do not have the slightest bit of evidence to support the idea that men are biologically better than women at "chess, darts, scrabble, checkers, poker, pools, video games, etc". It is your preconceived and sexist beliefs which lead you to completely reject statistical evidence and demonstrations which do not go your way. I'd love to see you defend the idea that there being more male CEOs is rooted in biology rather than overwhelming sociocultural and historical factors. What is "safe to say" is that you don't have a leg to stand on. And those overwhelming sociocultural and historical factors are rooted in biology. Women were the support roles because they were good at it. Men did their part by going out to work and spending resources on women and child. Women have their own advantages in term of biology. They are better at taking care of the young and elders. They are better at emotional supports etc. I don't need to cite 500 studies when I can see this with my own eyes. The same reason I don't need to cite that 1+1=2. Go spend more time with women so you can see the differences with your own eyes. You can theorycraft all you want citing studies but reality is reality. Also, you should go to feminists meeting and see what they are up to lately. Oh right, #banbossy.
I gave you examples of egalitarian societies which survived perfectly fine. The "rooted in biology" part of your argument can apply to biological differences such as women giving birth and not men, but the scientific research done on cognitive differences simply does not support the idea that "biology" explains the huge differences in gender roles in our societies. Sociocultural and historical factors are the overwhelming reason behind such differences, as is well recognized by scientists. Nobody is "theorycrafting" - you're not seeing reality, you're seeing your own version of reality through sexist goggles which refuse to take into account evidence contradicting your view.
|
On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote:
There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman.
No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article:
This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts.
You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances.
|
On April 15 2014 23:36 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 23:28 Crushinator wrote:
There seems to be some confusion here. The studies clearly and unambiguously show that, in male dominated samples, women underperform even when adjusted for participation rates, so to state that it is statistically normal for women to underperform the way they are is simply incorrect. However, many authors have found evidence for socio-cultural explanations for the underperformance. For example one author finds that women perform dramatically better in chess when they incorrectly believe that their opponent is also a woman. No they don't. As Bilalić et al. demonstrate in "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains", Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, no. 1659, 2009, pp. 1161-1165, participation rates explain 96% of the differences in ratings at the top between men and women, meaning that women do not underperform at all. To quote the article: Show nested quote +This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts. You are right, however, with regards to the sociocultural and psychological explanations for the remaining differences in performances.
The study you cite is methodologically flawed and discredited in a number of articles, including a critical addendum on the journal's website. It also appears to be the only in a great many studies that come to such a conclusion.
Howard, Robert W. "Gender differences in intellectual performance persist at the limits of individual capabilities." Journal of biosocial science (2013): 1-19.
Entries solely devoted to discrediting the Bilalic et al. article:
Knapp, Michael. "Are participation rates sufficient to explain gender differences in chess performance?." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277.1692 (2010): 2269.
Glickman, Mark E., Christopher F. Chabris, and Bedford Excellence. "Comparing Extreme Members is a Low-Power Method of Comparing Groups: An Example Using Sex Differences in Chess Performance."
|
On April 15 2014 11:13 sibs wrote:That's the crux of the argument though, they attribute the difference between girls & boys to social factors using a graph that has no pattern, breaking the graph off at an arbitrary point, I wonder if girls had a better performance at 40%+ if they wouldn't have just gone with 40%+ .
No, their use of the data is not the crux of the argument. Even if they had not studied any data in that section, their statistical argument for the differences in ratings would remain. With regards to where they decide to explore the data in more detail, there is nothing arbitrary about looking specifically at the areas where there are at least as many girls playing as boys. They specifically explain why they do so, as I reminded you in my previous post
On April 15 2014 11:13 sibs wrote:
Also they're breaking playing frequency in 2 categories:
Number of games in current year: 0–9, 10–50, 51
Number of games in prior 3 years: 0–74, 75–151, 151
Makes no sense to not adjust for a variable that highly pollutes your data, after you already presented a correction for it.
What would make no sense would be to suddenly adjust for a variable without presenting the non-adjusted data and without stating which variable was taken into account, contrary to what they did in the entirety of the rest of the paper. Each time they controlled for/took into account a variable, they explicitly stated so, including in the "sex differences in initial ratings" section, in which they explicitly provided a second, age-adjusted, result, twice. Nowhere do the authors say the first results were adjusted for frequency of play without age. There is nothing that indicates that the frequency of play "highly pollutes the data" for the specific sample under study in that section, because "the data used in that specific sample consisted in different sets of players each year - those who "had established ratings at year end and who did not have a rating in any year before the previous one". Accounting for variables like "playing time in the three previous years", taken into account for previous samples, therefore seems a lot less relevant". Nothing indicates that the number of games in the current year would have "polluted" the data for that specific sample in a significant way either. The authors clearly did not adjust for that variable, otherwise they would have stated so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
