Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
Women are so much better than men at so many things. But according to a report published by the Royal Society, chess is not one of them. The topic of sex differences when it comes to matters of the mind is, needless to say, a divisive one. Those who wish to argue that women are just not as smart as men often point to chess as their proof. Although girls can obviously play, no woman’s ever been world champion. But before looking for cultural or biological explanations for the disparity, scientists say you need to do the math.
Serious chess players are assigned ratings based on their performance against other players. So the scientists compared the ratings of the top hundred male and top hundred female players from Germany. And they found that the men indeed outperformed the women. However that difference can be almost entirely explained by statistics. Because the larger the population, the wider the range of measured scores—the bell curve has a longer tail. And because many more men play than women, the best male players are extreme outliers on that bell curve. As more women play, a few should also reach those extremes, right out there with the men. To which one might be tempted to say: Checkmate.
—Karen Hopkin
60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes
See what we're tweeting about
34 Comments
Add CommentThe topic of sex differences is a divisive one because of sham commentary like this one. I understand the value of a snappy opening line but you are doing massively more harm than good by engaging in one-upsmanship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not empowering to women because it still treats them as though their value is derived because of its comparison to men.
"This is not empowering to women because it still treats them as though their value is derived because of its comparison to men."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBo-ho-ho...do you want the facts or do you want to hear what you want to hear?
Regardless of where one falls on the topic, derision certainly doesn't advance one's argument .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskirkbrew:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFacts are facts. I take issue with the commentary. It is a sham because it is taking a topic that attempts to better sex relations and ruins the entire attempt with trite witicisms
The Royal Society's argument is similar to the one made so famously by former Harvard University President Larry Summers: greater variability yields a marked difference in the tails of the distribution. (In other words, more "brilliant" men than women; of course this also implies more male imbeciles.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSummers based his argument on research in sociology that originated in the 19th century [Ellis, H. (1894). Man and woman. London: Walter Scott.], remained of interest throughout the 20th century (e.g., [McNemar, Q., & Terman, L. M. (1936). Sex differences in variational tendency. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 18, 1-65.] and the "classic review" of the literature on gender differences [Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.], which concluded that "the sexes were equally variable in verbal ability but that males were more variable than females in mathematical and spatial abilities.") (Feingold 1994.)
However, more recent research exposes a cultural bias [Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in variability in intellectual abilities: a cross-cultural perspective. Sex Roles, 30, 81-92.] and concludes "the well-established U.S. findings of consistently greater male variability in mathematical and spatial abilities were not invariant across cultures and nations." (See also [Spelke, E.S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science?: a critical review. American Psychologist, 60, 950–958.])
I have not seen the Royal Society's study, but I suspect it will suffer the same fate as the earlier studies that drew false conclusions from errant measurement of gender differences in variance of ability.
Woman are so much better than man at so many things. But men are so much better than woman at so many other things. The way you lead off your article seems quite divisive and sexist. Why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yes, women can be sexist, and minorities can be racist.
This seems like really poor science to me. It overlooks the question of why more men play chess. I believe that if you took a group people who didn't know how to play chess and tought them to play that on average the man would do better. I am not saying they are better or even smarter, I just think they would be better chess players.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing the same logic someone may conclude that the reason the best basketball players are tall is because there are more tall players?
I agree with edjohn333's point. Aptitude is much more than just intelligence and it's aptitude that often steers people towards the hobbies and occupations that they enjoy most. The constant drive to prove men are not better than women at anything is very sexist. The same feminists that do this are the same ones who try most to show that women are better at their preferred hobbies and occupations. It's hypocritical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, as an old chess player, duplicate bridge player and a long time player of the game of Go, I disagree. Many women play bridge and there are a few very good players but men dominate the top ranks. The same is true of the game of Go. In the top ranks of professional Go players in Japan, Korea and China there are only a couple of Women, but there are many in the lower ranks and they make good teachers but don't win the big prize money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis reminds me of the dreary old attempt to show that women on average are as capable as men at engineering, physics, and computer science by assessing their math scores. Math ability is helpful for these sciences, but it is not the essence of these sciences. The proof once again is in the pudding, and various (often female) sociologists have shown through their studies that most women simply are not as interested in pursuing the technical sciences as are men.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAggression is the key, not numbers. Men are more aggressive the women and chess is a game of aggression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a highschool education and a smattering of college. Hardly a scholar. But, uh, the science here smells a bit fishy. Pardon the pun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is crap science that gets published to be antagonistic. I'm hope it's because they want to sell more advertising but I suspect a scheme of sorts. A dumbing down? Ahah! A new conspiracy to roll around in!
Yes, I am a woman. Yes, I play chess. Yes, my husband kicks my butt every time. He can think more spatially than I can. But you should see him try to load the dishwasher. What a rube!
I have a highschool education and a smattering of college. Hardly a scholar. But, uh, the science here smells a bit fishy. Pardon the pun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is crap science that gets published to be antagonistic. I'm hope it's because they want to sell more advertising but I suspect a scheme of sorts. A dumbing down? Ahah! A new conspiracy to roll around in!
Yes, I am a woman. Yes, I play chess. Yes, my husband kicks my butt every time. He can think more spatially than I can. But you should see him try to load the dishwasher. What a rube!
I have a highschool education and a smattering of college. Hardly a scholar. But, uh, the science here smells a bit fishy. Pardon the pun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is crap science that gets published to be antagonistic. I'm hope it's because they want to sell more advertising but I suspect a scheme of sorts. A dumbing down? Ahah! A new conspiracy to roll around in!
Yes, I am a woman. Yes, I play chess. Yes, my husband kicks my butt every time. He can think more spatially than I can. But you should see him try to load the dishwasher. What a rube!
People use the same logic to argue why women receive lower pay.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot as many in the high-risk, often fatal, positions. Coupled with the pay women receive in the form of benefits, like maternity leave or scaling back to part-time work after childbirth.
*Shrug* the only for sure difference I've noticed is that I always hear that high-pitched electric sound that she can't, and she always smells things that I can't.
The headline is provocative, as it should be. The summary is completely nonsexist and cogent - men as a gender aren't necessarily better at chess than women, it's just that many more men play chess competitively, so the pool is larger and the tail of the distribution is larger. Reading more into it than that from this atricle shows a reader's bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is definitely NOT what the idiot Summers said. He thinks there are real gender differences in mental science and math abilities.
I often hear feminists say women can excel at the same things and to the same degree that men can excel at, and then go on to say why women are better at certain non-physical activities than men are, which defeats their whole argument. My guess is that women as a gender really are better at some things and men are better at other non-physical things. However, as individuals, there are men who are better at things that women are supposedly good at and vice versa, which makes the whole point of gender generalizations moot, other than the idea of "class superiority," a typical male trait, pontificated most often while watching TV on the couch with a six pack, not that there aren't some women who do the same thing.
What we don't know is if there were more women playing competitive chess than men, would men still be better at the top? That makes one of Cadal's points most interesting: Are there more competitive female Bridge players than male? If there are, then why do men tend to win more than women? I'm guessing that in Go, it's like Chess, where more men play to begin with, so that example doesn't apply. Anyone know whether there are more female competitors than men in Bridge?
marjhughw, you need to educate yourself about Summers' remarks:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top twenty-five research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it's not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it's talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out."
Of course, the flaw in Summers' argument is his assertion that these attributes are "not plausibly culturally determined", an unsubstantiated and unscientific expression of ignorance. Had he consulted the literature, he would not have gotten it so wrong.
I suggest you consult the literature as well, markhughw, lest you fall prey to the same errors as "idiot Summers."
The report does not sound implausible. If I were a woman I'll feel happy that the reason for men's domination in chess is a matter of numbers and not intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe same logic may be applied to Golf...in which men reign superior. And to, as a reader put it, loading the dishwasher...in which women rule. The only difference being that Golf and chess are professional sports(and hence recognised widely) while loading a dishwasher is not. But skills are skills. Aren't they?
pegdashfab, I think you are needlessly attacking markhughw when you say 'you need to educate yourself about Summers' remarks.' I am not familiar with the literature at all, but I can certainly say that your quote seems to confirm that you are wrong about his relevance and markhughw is right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point Summers makes in your quote (which you take as evidence for markhughw's need for education) is entirely about the standard deviations being different for the male and female populations. That has no clear connection to what is asserted in this article. This article seems only to assert that in two populations with the same standard deviation - one male, and one female, in this case - the larger population will a numerically (not proportionally) greater number of outliers. I can see no mention of or implied reference to a difference in standard deviations between the male and female chess-playing populations, and that is why Summers - in the passage you cite, at least - is not relevant. That appears to me to be exaclty the point that markhughw is making.
Of course, if Summers said something which is of direct relevance to the claims of the article, please do reply citing that, so that the rest of us - not familiar the literature - can evaluate whether you or markhughw is correct about his pertinence to this discussion. On the evidence before me right now, you have not made your case.
sensible analysis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissensible analysis!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeg, I agree with you, I don't agree with Summers and therefore I don't understand your point, as well as your tone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheckmate or barely check? The research says in 96% (attributed to statistics) of certainty. But and about the 4% (that they attribute to cultural and biological influence) for complete 100%? Neither the Abstract neither the part of the Introduction available freely explains this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo reach the top in chess requires immense dedication and focus. Chess must be your only top priority. You give up the rest or fall to a lesser level. Some men are good at that and society rewards and encourages them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWomen, on the other hand, have lives with social responsibilities. Kids have problems, aging parents need care, friends need a little quality time. For women, chess can be a high priority but other responsibilities will dominate. He who can blow off his kids, parents, and friends for chess will win, at least at chess.
I came back to see if you'd responded, and now I read your quote from Summers again, I wonder if you aren't misrepresenting him. He says that there are differences in standard deviation for the male and female populations for two kinds of attributes; some which are, and some which are not, plausibly culturally determined. He does not specify for any of the attributes he lists which of these two categories they fall into. He does not, then, make the assertion which you describe as unsubstantiated and unscientific. At least, not in the quote you present. Again, if he does so elsewhere, please present that evidence for your case. Given markhughw's gracious response, your position looks mean and unjustified; it looks as though you have thrown some mud at both Summers and he, and as far as I can see, none of it has stuck. Perhaps you ought to tone down your language, and use the more appropriate lexis that, say, this article and markhughw have used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a wise man once said, when you sling mud, all that happens is that you get your hands dirty, and you start to lose ground ;-)
The comments are much more interesting than the article, starting with yours!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy only addition (to these first ten comments) is, essentially, vive la difference, or more specifically, it isn't unreasonable to expect that women will have as yet undiscovered talents that men have less of and that these talents will move the human race forward at a faster pace once they are discovered.
But this relentless quest to prove men and women and everyone else equal (the same) is ... well ... stupid.
As a chess teacher, I can say that there is no disparity in the ability to learn chess between male and female children (ages 6-12). In fact, individual traits substancially outweigh any sex-linked traits. Even if males do have an advantage in spacial intelligence, one cannot claim that this is the only indicator of chess ability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other ground breaking research news:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why more men than women are incarcerated for extreme violence"
There are fewer women than men incarcerated for extreme violence because there are fewer women than men in the population of violent criminals. If the female population of violent criminals were to increase we'd likely see more women incarcerated for extreme violence.
These comments are more interesting then the article. I must agree with many people on their commentary. Where is the science behind men being better at chess then women? I think we need to look for more advantages in men and women then what each gender lacks. I think each sex balances each other out on a general basis. If we are to say men are more mathematic and spaitial, then at the same time we can state women are more verbal and have better emotional intelligence (which has been proven). I also think being interested in chess is on the interest/intellectual side. Women are more social creatures who tend to thrive in interactive environments between others (yes, I understand this is not true to every woman and is a general statement) but I like to conclude that in a game of chess you are sitting their, thinking to ones-self, and moving pieces around the board. Do you think this really appeals to a woman? Not entirely. Women are more drawn to social interaction and sitting with a board of chess thinking of the next distinguishable move isn't naturally desirable to a woman.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel this topic shouldn't become sexist in any aspect because we need to explore the advantages each sex has, not each other's superiority/inferiority.
Hey this girl is good at chess. Maybe the author of this article should interview her and get her perspective on playing the game of chess.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.miamiherald.com/277/story/847451.html
That's fair; I apologize for my snarky tone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI apologize for the tone of my reply to you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat said, I don't think Summers is an idiot -- far from it -- but I will grant that he has some despicable qualities.
I readily admit I am little more than an idgit myself. The male population is and has been dominant by certain chosen measures. At least that's what's claimed by feminists and misogynists alike. But which one of us is a population? Categories are interesting, but I sure don't want to be treated as one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI happen to be a woman with extremely high spacial abilities, tested above almost all men, have degrees in mathematics, and belonged to a chess club in my youth. I won most of the games I played with my favorite being 3-d chess. I got bored with regular chess and moved on to other things. The statement that men a better than women or women are better than men is hogwash. We are all different, a part of or abilities belongs to our genetics but a large part belongs to our environment with our interest giving us the desire to further investigate and try to master a topic. There is a lot of pseudo science out there with many "scientists" lacking the ability to correctly carry out a valid statistical study. The best thing to do is to believe in yourself and not listen to this nonsense about genders. Be all you can be, ignore the rest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this