Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (171839)	10/4/2005 4:50:39 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

And if she wins, that doesn't change the point that women aren't as good at men at chess. As Griffe explained, there's a probability that women will win. It's low. But well above zero. Now, if you got a bunch of women winning at chess and maths and physics, and blokes hadn't give the game up, then the theories would be falsified. But in that case, there wouldn't be the whining at Harvard that women aren't doing so well and "something should be done". Mqurice

To: bentway who wrote (171839)	10/4/2005 5:12:23 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Google says chess.gr that Judit was asked: <What are the reasons in your opinion that women’s chess is not at the same level with men’s? First of all, in the total number of chessplayers only five percent are women, so obviously there are fewer possibilities for them. Another problem is that very few women take chess seriously as a profession and that’s why they don't become stronger. There is also the traditional belief that women play at a lower level and as a result they keep their goals at a much lower level. For example, the women’s champion today is number 150 in the world. So, women set their goals to reach some level and when maybe they reach that they do not aim for greater goals, to become absolutely best, to spend many hours working on it. They have different terms and they set their goals at a lower level. Another problem is the traditional opinion that chess is a men's sport and there are very few women who compete. Also to live this lifestyle is hard for a girl or for a woman, to travel all the time alone when you are young or when you are older. It is not nice, it is a lifestyle more suited to a man. > Good points all. But she doesn't mention age of full brain growth. Note that she says she started playing at age 5. NOT after she reached puberty. So she had LOTS of chess while her brain was growing. <How has occupation with chess contributed to your life? Of course it gave me a lot, chess made me who I am. Because I started playing when I was five years old and I was traveling a lot, I met all kinds of different people, I know a lot of different cultures and that is why I became the person I am. This is basically my life style, that’s why I am open. That’s what it gave me, it made me an independent person.> According to Mq's theory on girls becoming great at maths, girls should be taught maths at a younger age. Such as age 5. They should NOT be left until post-puberty age 14 to be given any serious introduction to maths, at the same age as boys. Teaching should be individualized. Mqurice