batgirl wrote: But this has nothing to do with brain size, intelligence, stoicism, spatial abilities, cognitivism or capabilty. Those differences either don't exist or they don't matter.
Please explain
why are women worse at chess than men?
Sort:
red-lady wrote:
PhoenixTTD wrote:
pdela wrote:
LoekBergman wrote:
Kant? In comparison to Socrates, Spinoza, Augustinus and Plato? Not my opinion. :-)
Without doubt, deeper and influential even today
Immanuel Kant was the paradigmatic philosopher of the European Enlightenment. He eradicated the last traces of the medieval worldview from modern philosophy, joined the key ideas of earlier rationalism and empiricism into a powerful model of the subjective origins of the fundamental principles of both science and morality, and laid the ground for much in the philosophy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
I really hate Kant...but lets not get that debate started.
I never understood why people use the word 'hate' so easily. You can disagree with him, yes. You can even think you know better, but hate?? Why?
Because his philosophy led to great evil.
PhoenixTTD wrote:
red-lady wrote:
PhoenixTTD wrote:
pdela wrote:
LoekBergman wrote:
Kant? In comparison to Socrates, Spinoza, Augustinus and Plato? Not my opinion. :-)
Without doubt, deeper and influential even today
Immanuel Kant was the paradigmatic philosopher of the European Enlightenment. He eradicated the last traces of the medieval worldview from modern philosophy, joined the key ideas of earlier rationalism and empiricism into a powerful model of the subjective origins of the fundamental principles of both science and morality, and laid the ground for much in the philosophy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
I really hate Kant...but lets not get that debate started.
I never understood why people use the word 'hate' so easily. You can disagree with him, yes. You can even think you know better, but hate?? Why?
Because his philosophy led to great evil.
Fine, but maybe it is better to give him an answer in that case, instead of hating him? Isn't that just weak? No offence, but it is an easy way out, isn't it?
Of course, I'm just a woman, how would I know, right 
schlechter55 wrote:
There is a very high percentage of chess WCs and Super GMs (Steinitz, Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Spielmann, Nimzowitsch, Lasker, Botwinnik, Bronstein, Flohr, Reshevski, Geller, Najdorf, Tal, Stein, Gufeld, Dzindshichashvili, Fischer, Kasparov, Psachis, Svidler, Gelfand, ... to name a few) and Nobel Prize winners among jews/people with jewish heritage in their family.
Arguing the same 'empiristic way' as some people here do, it would mean that jews have different genes concerning intellectual capabilities than others. Yet all neurological research has failed to prove this.
If one looks at the average IQs of nationalities, then highest rank some east Asian populations: Chinese, Japanese, Korean.
I do not remember in which order, but only then follow some European, Northern American and mediterranean nations, among them also jewish Israeli.
I have the strong opinion, and most scientists also, that IQs do not measure the genetic capability for intellectual tasks. In particular, Super GMs have sometimes not a very high IQ.
What I mean is, one has to look at reasons other than brain size, genes, etc. why 'jews generally play better chess than other folks', and why men have much more Super GMs than women etc.
They must ly (they do) - and this is persistently denied/ignored by some people here - in the sociological determination of those groups.
It is not just intellegence, but that is a component. It is drive as well as support. And there is some luck (or random variables). Exactly how many a group gets to the top is not as significant as a large group getting no one or nearly no one. That requires explanation.
red-lady wrote:
PhoenixTTD wrote:
red-lady wrote:
PhoenixTTD wrote:
pdela wrote:
LoekBergman wrote:
Kant? In comparison to Socrates, Spinoza, Augustinus and Plato? Not my opinion. :-)
Without doubt, deeper and influential even today
Immanuel Kant was the paradigmatic philosopher of the European Enlightenment. He eradicated the last traces of the medieval worldview from modern philosophy, joined the key ideas of earlier rationalism and empiricism into a powerful model of the subjective origins of the fundamental principles of both science and morality, and laid the ground for much in the philosophy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
I really hate Kant...but lets not get that debate started.
I never understood why people use the word 'hate' so easily. You can disagree with him, yes. You can even think you know better, but hate?? Why?
Because his philosophy led to great evil.
Fine, but maybe it is better to give him an answer in that case, instead of hating him? Isn't that just weak? No offence, but it is an easy way out, isn't it?
Of course, I'm just a woman, how would I know, right
Its a whole nuther thread longer than this one. But what he claimed was reason, was faith, with no real morality, and the evolution of it led many astray including the justification for the holocaust. I mentioned earlier that Ayn Rand (female) was my favorite philosopher. You can read her take on Kant to get my opinion as well.
Ruby-Fischer wrote:
PhoenixTTD wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
I would suggest searching and reading about the history of women's education to get a better understanding. However, at this point, i'm guessing you'd say "They were treated differently because they're different."
As to the first paragraph, you would never had thought otherwise had women never been given the chance. Your reasoning of "they're treated differently because they're different" doesn't allow for it.
I totally get the education thing and it is not all in the past. Recently a muslim man gouged out his wifes eyes, and another cut off his wifes fingers because they were pursing higher education. Excellent top notch reasons why they may not reach their potential.
Some privileged white girl in America getting a girl toy in her happy meal...not so much.
Terrible things have been done to women during many parts of history. It still does not explain the results we see because the mistreatment is not universal or as close to universal as male domination in elite performances.
Change takes time.
True. I think they have had enough time since the new chess generation born into free countries have lived their entire lives in a different world but I could be wrong. Like I said earlier in this thread, if I am wrong, eventually women have to prove it.
PhoenixTTD wrote:
red-lady wrote:
PhoenixTTD wrote:
red-lady wrote:
PhoenixTTD wrote:
pdela wrote:
LoekBergman wrote:
Kant? In comparison to Socrates, Spinoza, Augustinus and Plato? Not my opinion. :-)
Without doubt, deeper and influential even today
Immanuel Kant was the paradigmatic philosopher of the European Enlightenment. He eradicated the last traces of the medieval worldview from modern philosophy, joined the key ideas of earlier rationalism and empiricism into a powerful model of the subjective origins of the fundamental principles of both science and morality, and laid the ground for much in the philosophy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
I really hate Kant...but lets not get that debate started.
I never understood why people use the word 'hate' so easily. You can disagree with him, yes. You can even think you know better, but hate?? Why?
Because his philosophy led to great evil.
Fine, but maybe it is better to give him an answer in that case, instead of hating him? Isn't that just weak? No offence, but it is an easy way out, isn't it?
Of course, I'm just a woman, how would I know, right
Its a whole nuther thread longer than this one. But what he claimed was reason, was faith, with no real morality, and the evolution of it led many astray including the justification for the holocaust. I mentioned earlier that Ayn Rand (female) was my favorite philosopher. You can read her take on Kant to get my opinion as well.
I don't know if I agree with you here. It would depend on how you read him, I guess. But isn't that what philosophy is about? Can something be 'good or bad', that simple? Isn't that a bit 'gratuit' if you realize there are so much layers in what he says? There is much to say about other philosophers too, you know. The question is: can you give him an answer?
Rand answered Kant. i would just be repeating what she said.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html
What I was trying to say is: it's fine to disagree. To hate is something else.
And if you disagree: use your own words, not those of someone else. Think for yourself. Kant did the same
Aug 3, 2013
0
#791
One fact which may be gleaned from this thread and the many others on the topic is just how difficult it is to agree any common ground in the battle of the sexes. In war truth is the first casualty.
>:)
red-lady wrote:
What I was trying to say is: it's fine to disagree. To hate is something else.
And if you disagree: use your own words, not those of someone else. Think for yourself. Kant did the same
I do think for myself. Kant tried to destroy man's mind by using it. What we think is inherently flawed because it is influenced by our flawed senses we cannot excape. His agument is invalid on its face because he used his mind to make it.
I also think that Kant made his work incoherent on purpose so normal people wouldn't see how stupid it was. It is fun as a mental challenge in a coffee house discussion, but if someone completely lived their life with only the beliefs that Kant proposed they would not be able to find the toilet.
Kant was a thinker not a guru. So, by any means, there was and there is room for discussion. It's easy to counter someone's thoughts, imo, it's harder to produce them yourself.
So if you'd completely follow his ideas, you're probably right, I suppose. But was that what his intention was?
hey, ladies.
why should you care much about some mysoginists saying women are worse in chess? ya know what. in other hand, men suffer retardation worse than women (but not because we are discriminated). it should not be a secret anymore. most of students who are in the lowest ratings in schools and universities are males. and we commit much more crimes too.
we maybe stronger and faster than you women but our genes also make us have shorter lifespan. we only have one X chromosom. is this considered inferiority?
shockinn wrote:
Both men & women are stupid.
Most of them are, yes, including you 
shockinn wrote:
Both men & women are stupid.
Are you a snail, by any chance?
red-lady wrote:
Kant was a thinker not a guru. So, by any means, there was and there is room for discussion. It's easy to counter someone's thoughts, imo, it's harder to produce them yourself.
So if you'd completely follow his ideas, you're probably right, I suppose. But was that what his intention was?
Its hard to express them but not necessarily produce them. Rand was by far the best at explaining common sense. It is a bit weird that after my arguments in this thread, the intellectual giant I look up to the most was a women. More weird that she said a woman should not be president. Even more weird that is something I disagreed with her on.
Reading Critique of Pure Reason was just horrible. It took too long. I felt sick the entire time. I kept having to reread portions because he won't speak in normal terms. I felt he was anti-human. Besides, why read a book that challenges your ability to see the book?
Speaking of performative contradictions in philosphical literature, I once saw a book by Machiavelli for sale. So I took it. Don't need him using my morality against me.
Victor-Servranckx wrote:
Ayn Rand does not come to the ancles of Kant when you look at her impact on the evolution of thinking, but she had her opinion on Kant.
If you have not noticed, ad populum arguments are not persuasive to me. Just reread this thread.
PhoenixTTD wrote:
schlechter55 wrote:
Men have ruled as long as human fought each other for property, land, goods (the neighbor, the next village, town, state...) with weapons.
That one is the only reason for the patriarchat, and the rule of the men until now (it is shaken, though).
That explains a lot, but translating that into all elo scores in 2013...a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
If we disconsider the 'punchhole thing', G.W. Bush won the election against Gore because there was september 11. Bush is the cowboy, in the eyes of americans the one ready to kill (he did go to Arghanistan then, and stayed there, with false reasoning).
We are not yet moving away from the atavist times.
schlechter55 wrote:
PhoenixTTD wrote:
schlechter55 wrote:
Men have ruled as long as human fought each other for property, land, goods (the neighbor, the next village, town, state...) with weapons.
That one is the only reason for the patriarchat, and the rule of the men until now (it is shaken, though).
That explains a lot, but translating that into all elo scores in 2013...a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
If we disconsider the 'punchhole thing', G.W. Bush won the election against Gore because there was september 11. Bush is the cowboy, in the eyes of americans the one ready to kill (he did go to Arghanistan then, and stayed there, with false reasoning).
We are not yet moving away from the atavist times.
Men are certainly still in control. However women are no longer held down to the point they cannot win the chess title. They have the ability to spend their entire lives playing chess and to go as far as their tallent takes them without reprisal. The patriarchy does not explain current chess results.
Kant? In comparison to Socrates, Spinoza, Augustinus and Plato? Not my opinion. :-)
Without doubt, deeper and influential even today
Immanuel Kant was the paradigmatic philosopher of the European Enlightenment. He eradicated the last traces of the medieval worldview from modern philosophy, joined the key ideas of earlier rationalism and empiricism into a powerful model of the subjective origins of the fundamental principles of both science and morality, and laid the ground for much in the philosophy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
I really hate Kant...but lets not get that debate started.
I never understood why people use the word 'hate' so easily. You can disagree with him, yes. You can even think you know better, but hate?? Why?