~ archived since 2018 ~

The actual reason vs. The feminist reason

sub36_ · 2022-12-07T03:56:15+00:00

PreviousNextBack to Grid ViewPreviousNextBack to Grid ViewPreviousNextBack to Grid...

sub36_

December 7, 2022

64 upvotes

/r/AntiFeminists

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	The actual reason vs. The feminist reason
Author	sub36_
Upvotes	64
Comments	12
Date	December 7, 2022 3:56 AM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/AntiFeminists
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/zercbu/the_actual_reason_vs_the_feminist_reason/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/AntiFeminists/the-actual-reason-vs-the-feminist-reason.1142628 https://theredarchive.com/post/1142628

Comments

[–]Good_Ad6723 23 points24 points25 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkeletonKiss78 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dependency_injector 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]onlyidiotsgoonreddit 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]incorrect_bones 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Why is there such a huge difference between men and women at chess

Not the reason you think. It's just straight up statistics.

From a national geographic article on the topic because they can phrase it better than I can:

"In an elegant new study, he has shown that the performance gap between male and female chess players is caused by nothing more than simple statistics.

Far more men play chess than women and based on that simple fact, you could actually predict the differences we see in chess ability at the highest level. It’s a simple statistical fact that the best performers from a large group are probably going to be better than the best performers from a small one. Even if two groups have the same average skill and, importantly, the same range in skill, the most capable individuals will probably come from the larger group"

"both sexes improve at an matching pace, and they concluded that the success of men at chess’s highest tiers is fuelled by the overwhelming majority of boys who enter the game at its lowest levels."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-are-there-so-few-female-chess-grandmasters#:~:text=In%20an%20elegant%20new%20study,ability%20at%20the%20highest%20level.

Not to mention that for most of it's existence, chess was considered a traditionally male subject matter and at points women were not allowed to play it. Logically, traditions carry some influence and do carry over to an extent. Many women don't run into people that could get them interested at a young age. Just like how many boys will not be introduced to dance classes at a young age, so the top ballerinas will be female and the majority of ballerinas as a whole are female.

Here's another source about cognitive ability as a whole.

https://www.apa.org/topics/neuropsychology/men-women-cognitive-skills

"In a 2005 report, Hyde reviewed 46 different meta-analyses on sex differences, not only in cognition but also communication style, social and personality variables, motor behaviors, and moral reasoning. In half the studies, sex differences were small; in another third they were virtually nonexistent."

[–]onlyidiotsgoonreddit 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]incorrect_bones -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're right, they didn't do the experiment that you suggested. They did a better one :

"In fact, Christopher Chablis and Mark Glickman recently found equal drop-out rates for boys and girls among 600 budding chess players of comparable age, skill and interest. Their study also found that both sexes improve at an matching pace, and they concluded that the success of men at chess’s highest tiers is fuelled by the overwhelming majority of boys who enter the game at its lowest levels."

They took 600 people who had the same experience, age, and interest. In order to conduct a proper study, you have to have control variables.

Men are earlier and more frequent players, but they aren't biologically better players.

Another study from the source:

"Bilalic looked at a set of data encompassing all known German players – over 120,000 individuals, of whom 113,000 are men. He directly compared the top 100 players of either gender and used a mathematical model to work out the expected difference in their Elo ratings, given the size of the groups they belong to.

The model revealed that the greater proportion of male chess players accounts for a whopping 96% of the difference in ability between the two genders at the highest level of play. If more women took up chess, you’d see that difference close substantially.

Overall, the women actually performed slightly better than the model predicted and the top three in particular were playing well ahead of expectations. From positions 3 to 73, the men have a small but consistent advantage, wielding a competitive superiority that slightly exceed what statistics would predict. From the 80th pair onwards, the advantage shifts back to the fairer sex.

Bilalic describes the world’s top female player, , as “a phenomenon, by far the strongest female player the world has ever known [and] the only female player in the top 100”. But according to Bilalic’s study, the exceptional thing about Polgar is not necessarily that she is an incredible female chess player, but that she is a female chess player at all. Increase female representation in this game and you would probably see many more prodigies rising to the fore.

Bilalic’s analysis is a scathing blow against people who claim (and frequently so) that the dominance of men in the world of chess is a sign of their intellectual superiority."

it has already been tried and the boys annihilated the girls so badly that girls lose all interest in the game

Any sources for this claim?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]onlyidiotsgoonreddit 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The article is subscriber-walled. But it doesn't matter, because we are saying the same thing. Women would be just as good at chess as men, except that they do not have the same willingness to put in the effort to improve for years. If they put in the same effort, they would be just as good, since it requires no strength. But because it requires mental effort, they get involved at lower rates, and once involved, put in less effort.

You think you are contradicting that, but you are just confirming it. You are saying that if women put in the same hours men put in, there would be female champions. That is true. But that will never happen, because it involves effort. Women do excel that other things, like posting selfies and buying clothing at expensive stores. Because those things do not involve effort.

You're sort of conjecturing that there are a bunch of female chess champions out there who just never bothered to try their hand at chess. But a far more reasonable way to say the same thing is to say that there are potential female chess champions out there, but they don't put any effort into chess or anything else. Thus, among the best players, women are also underrepresented. Because the best players invested even more effort than the average players.

[–]incorrect_bones -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It's national geographic, its literally just an email address to subscribe.

And you obviously didn't bother skimming the second source, which is not subscription walled, detailing the specific peer reviewed studies showing that men and women have the same cognitive ability.

That is not at all what you've been saying and you damn well know it.

What you've claimed is that men have a biological intellectual advantage over women and that's why they're better. And I showed you the sources that say that's not the case and now you're trying to switch your narrative to maintain your superiority complex.

Women do excel that other things, like posting selfies and buying clothing at expensive stores. Because those things do not involve effort.

Ok now you're just devolving into some truly sexist shit. If you truly believe that women don't put effort/ don't care about/ don't excel at things, then that's extremely disappointing. Your inability to recognize women as thinking and feeling individuals with independent thought is on you.

Some things women excel at (that do require effort, I can't believe I even have to specify this):

Archery, graduating college, dancing, ice skating, cycling, softball, golf, horse racing, sailing, motor racing, tennis, swimming, writing, art, music. I could keep going but I think you get the gist. The world isn't as black and white as you believe it is.

If you genuinely believe that women are some separate species that have no interests, skills, or efforts other than 'taking selfies' then you need real help

[–]-Parannoyed 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]M_Salvatar 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link