Male superiority at chess and science cannot be explained by statistical sampling arguments posted by agnostic @ 2/24/2009 05:37:00 PM

A new paper by Bilalic et al. (2009) (read the PDF here), tries to account for male superiority in chess by appealing to a statistical sampling argument: men make up a much larger fraction of chess players, and that the n highest extreme values -- say, the top ranked 100 players -- are expected to be greater in a large sample than in a small one. In fact, this explanation is only a rephrasing of the question -- why are men so much more likely to dedicate themselves to chess.

Moreover, data from other domains where men and women are equally represented in the sample, or where it's women who are overrepresented in the sample, do not support the hypothesis -- men continue to dominate, even when vastly underrepresented, in domains that rely on skills that males excel in compared to females. I show this with the example of fashion designers, where males are hardly present in the sample overall but thrive at the elite level.

First, the authors review the data that male chess players really are better than female ones (p.2):

For example: not a single woman has been world champion; only 1 per cent of Grandmasters, the best players in the world, are female; and there is only one woman among the best 100 players in the world.
The authors then estimate the male superiority at rank n, from 1 to 100, using the entire sample's mean and s.d., and the fraction of the sample that is male and female. Here is how the real data compare to this expectation (p.2):

Averaged over the 100 top players, the expected male superiority is 341 Elo points and the real one is 353 points. Therefore 96 per cent of the observed difference between male and female players can be attributed to a simple statistical fact -- the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be bigger than those from a small one.
Therefore (p. 3):

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.

MORE: Gene Expression: Male superiority at chess and science cannot be explained by statistical sampling arguments

Maybe it should be whether or not the toilet seat should be vertical or horizontal..

It's just so hard !!

Should men stand to pee or sit down.

An age old question..

I would like to take some 'male' pride in the outcome of that statistical foray but it overlooks the clear fact that the 99 in the 100 top players also beat all the other male players.

I play a lousy game of chess and Rebellious Vanilla regularly leaves my pants on the floor as she walks off with the points!

So men can play chess better than women. (except me) Big deal.

Can we deal with more pressing matters like why do women come off far better in the friggin' Family Court.

______________________________________

Here's a better question. Why was I able to predict you'd be the first to answer this thread and the first to trash it?

____________________________________

I'm unpleasantly surprised that you of all members missed the point.
A larger representation of males in a test sample doesn't account for their ability to excell in the area being tested ... be it architecture, science or chess. Even in the area of fashion design, where they are outnumbered 13 to 1, they still manage to meet the criteria for successful achievement as well or better than their female counterparts. Family Court notwithstanding, another important issue for MRA's is the constant bombardment of males with the 'women are superior' message.

__________________________

I put threads up to be read primarily by other members and by guests.

Oddly enough, that was what stuck out for me..

Men, are better, even in areas where they are under-represented..

Tera makes an interesting diversionary point..

I throw far less clothes in that direction than women would do, but I score many more "baskets"..

We see the same thing in many walks of life where women are dominant in numbers..

Cooking, cleaning, sucking cocks, etc..

Men are alleged to excell at the top end (I have it on good authority !)

I think women do excel at one thing though, Breast feeding!

I dont think computer based chess is the same as proper chess played in person, its SO EASY to cheat!!

_________________________________

Good post HH! Well-written and funny as hell!

Glad you liked it, I like to have a bit of fun as I travel along lifes grey highway.. If you cant have a bit of fun, the journey is very tedious!!

The destination is not so good either!!

"Family Court notwithstanding, another important issue for MRA's is the constant bombardment of males with the 'women are superior' message."

Unlike you, it's not always about me. Once again you're projecting your
own blindspot. Don't play counselor with me; I was one when you were four years old. Would you like help with your A.D.D., self-absorption and reading comprehension deficits???

wimyn play chess with men as the pawns

she of course is the Queen

momma teaches dar daughters these chess rules when they are still peeing their knickers

in real life chess she wins cause her rules guarantees it most the time

sometimes wimyn lose too - they only get 50% of the marital assets instead of 90%

same with snakes n ladders

the ladders are for the wimyn and the snakes for the men but sometimes men win by dint of sheer luck - she drops dead !!

_____________________________

Yeah, OK, well ... that was an important observation to make on THIS website, I guess. It says more about you than anything else. And, uh,
you're here because you support men's fight against ... ummm ... misandry, right? Hey, how 'bout those Blue Angels?

_________________________________

Lay off the rum TERA. It's begining to show.
Facts and Figures
A place to keep all the pertaining information within one section.
Explaining Male Superiority in Chess( 12)
bababob 17114Facts and Figures

_________________________________________

Maybe you should start with Aricept (10mgs.). I was being facetious with you, in view of your foot-in-mouth problem.

TERA, pull your foot out of your mouth and give up the rum. Besides yourself, do you think anybody reading this thread would automatically react to it the way you did, interpret it the way you have ... and push it to the extreme you have??? Have you really forgotten the content of your initial post? Or are you simply 'in denial' about it?