(untitled)

There is a study that showed that women tend to perform better in chess if they believe they are playing against another woman rather than against a man. https://youtu.be/ZHFZOXiM9SM (10:41) Do you still believe that gender roles have nothing to do with women being "intellectually inferior" and "poor performing in science"? Doesn't it make you at least think about the implications of (if "discrimination/segregation is too harsh word for you) different treatment of women in society? For those who like to throw the "women aren't oppressed" or even "women are in more favorable position and yet they achieve less than men" argument.

No, obviously women should have low self esteem because otherwise they wouldn't fuarrrk me. Maybe you would understand this if you weren't a stupid woman.

I've always disliked gender roles (masculinity and femininity", even in their "non-toxic" varieties as seemingly provided by progressive movements such as LGBTQIA+ for this exact reason. There's a lot of subconscious sexism to gender roles which doesn't seem to be addressed by any progressive movement at all, and I duly hope that changes some day. I've noticed among even progressives in the LGBTQIA+ community that often masculinity is tied to being "strong" whilst femininity is tied to being "weak" in some form. The worst part of it all is that people often describe other people as "masculine" or "feminine" even if they didn't consent to being judged by the gender role system.

>>64263 you should read about women only companies. The tlrd is they fail because of too much infighting and too little work done. Bitches would spend days running to the CEO to talk about what the other bitches did all day playing blame games like its middle school. CEO Women quit supporting women because they couldn't make women only companies work. So no, men arent ant fault for dumb bitches being useless because they cant do it in absence of men either.

>>64268 Reminds me to this episode of this TV show in which Amador Rivas, knowing he's addicted to sex, decides to go on therapy and he starts to be completely sex-free. He even tells his ex wife (la cuqui) that he doesn't want to "give her salami". Thing is that he gets a job at one women's magazine. But he gets fired because he did not want to have sex with his boss.

one cherry picked study that makes a pretty narrow claim as it is should not revolutionize anyone's worldview. there's other studies that claim this isnt the case (at least at high level Chess) but weakly (one by a bloke named smerdon). seems like maybe something where there's noise or inconsistency. fact of matter is top women have lower elos, less performance. everyone I know whos into Chess is so autistic that they wouldn't care about things like sexism if there was a competative woman player, there just isnt. claims like ops are clever tricks to try and justify insane and unjustified beliefs and should not be called Science. study may be honest but elephant in room is obviousness of dirth of female high performers. women in modern west, even like soviet union wouldnt have been encouraged supported and celebrated if any great promise had been detected. sex roles are there for a reason: they are to a certain degree natural and effective. its not oppression to treat women different then men, its a basic acknowledgement of difference.

>>64281 >wouldnt have bah, editing mistake. *would have

>>64263 >There is a study that showed that Men tend to perform better in chess if they believe they are playing against another man rather than against a computer. Does this mean that men are equal in chess ability to computers? No. Does this mean that the reason men are worse at chess than computers is because men are treated differently than computers in society? No. Chess is a game of autism. Computers are more autistic than men. Men are more autistic than women. That's all there is to it. >>64265 >that often masculinity is tied to being "strong" whilst femininity is tied to being "weak" >if they didn't consent to being judged Oh so now you are judging people who didn't consent as "strong" and "weak"? You also earlier judged people who didn't consent as "toxic" and "non-toxic". >>64281 >everyone I know whos into Chess is so autistic that they wouldn't care about things like sexism if there was a competative woman player If there was a competitive woman player those autists would swarm her like flies on a piece of soykaf, non-sexists or not. They would swarm her like bees would swarm the last queen on earth, because to them she would be. Obviously, this would be extremely distracting to the woman, either because she spent all her time reveling in it, or because she spent all her time reviled by it.

>>64265 >I've noticed among even progressives in the LGBTQIA+ community that often masculinity is tied to being "strong" whilst femininity is tied to being "weak" in some form. This is actually worse because there is a taboo about acknowledging it. Lots of dicks and bitches get put up with in those spaces because people are scared of calling them what they are. It is fine to consider people either 'feminine' or 'masculine' if you use a metaphysics like the yinyang or whatnot, where you note that duality is important, softness can be stronger than hardness, etc. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there is some real duality of that sort in how people are and it's worth considering how such people can live together in harmony. >>64268 Is this a business case study or something? I imagine a women-only company would only exist to be a political statement so this isn't too surprising of an outcome considering how extremely toxic feminists can be. >>64281 >women in modern west, even like soviet union wouldnt have been encouraged supported and celebrated if any great promise had been detected. Sure, but that's a pretty recent phenomenon. Many colleges didn't even allow geniuses like E. Noether into their faculty. Also in a lot of ways the USSR wasn't as feminist as the west, maybe more accurately their feminism was different. >>64299 >Chess is a game of autism. >Computers are more autistic than men. >Men are more autistic than women. >That's all there is to it. This pretty much sums it up.

>>64300 >this isn't too surprising of an outcome considering how extremely toxic feminists can be. Sure but if the premise is men are the issue then the conclusion "the women who want no men are a cohort of crazy harpies" works just as well to refute it.

>>64303 No? "women who want no men are awful, therefore men are not the issue" is a non sequitur.

>>64306 More like "women who want no men actually fail in a women only environment which shows its their own awful personality and not men".

>>64263 That is a very well researched and eloquent video. I agree with it. I don't believe gender roles have anything to do with women being "intellectually inferior" nor that there is a significant genetic/physiological disadvantage. There is a lot more in that video to support that claim than just the one study you mention. Maybe, posting that video here and attempting to start a conversation around it you wanted to draw out similarly well constructed arguments in favor of the opposite position. I am afraid you won't. When it comes to discussions about topics like this, this site unfortunately is no different to 4chan anymore. Posters will only bring up anecdotes, personal observations, and "gut feelings" (like >>64299, >>64281) in opposition. Take for example: >Chess is a game of autism. >Computers are more autistic than men. >Men are more autistic than women. >That's all there is to it. Why should we accept the first statement? What is meant by autistic? Why should we accept that men are more autistic then women? Why should we accept that "that is all there is to it"? Their answers to these questions would be that it's self evident, and you must have some nefarious agenda to question these things or that these things would only not be obvious to someone extremely stupid. And discourse ultimately won't move beyond that.

>>64319 >Why should we accept the first statement? ("Chess is a game of autism.") You would accept the first statement if you accept the second statement. ("Computers are more autistic than Men.") >Anticipated follow-up: Why should we accept the second statement? You would accept the second statement if you accepted that Men are worse at chess than Computers, just as Men are worse at factoring large numbers into primes than Computers. Now, you could make an argument that Men are better at finding the algorithms necessary to play chess and factor large numbers into primes than Computers; and you could even argue that FINDING these algorithms (rather than EXECUTING them) is the "true meaning" of being "good" at chess and factoring large numbers into primes. That's an interesting argument. However, none of OP nor their Ft. Black Pigeon video nor all your beloved "studies" (/me spits) make this interesting argument. To them, being "good" at chess means your (potential, if you dedicated yourself to it without stereotype threat) maximum rating if you sit down at a board with no assistance to find correct moves. And under such circumstances, EXECUTING algorithms (rather than FINDING them) is the bottleneck. And thus under this measurement, Men are worse at chess than Computers, just as (under such circumstances) Men are worse at factoring large numbers into primes than Computers. >What is meant by autistic? So, in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner, I chose to summarize this class of tasks which Computers are better at than Men, tasks which are bottlenecked by blind, rote, mechanical EXECUTION of a pre-existing algorithm; as "autistic". You are welcome to insist on an alternative semiotic signifier - but good luck finding a pithier one. >Why should we accept that men are more autistic then Women? Anon, I DON'T accept it. I want nothing more than to find my autistic Queen. However, babying Women with unearned praise and victim narratives which do not apply to them does not cultivate their autism. And so, I will not tolerate it. When Women behave like morons, I will bully them as morons, just as they deserve, just as I would a Man. P.S. Women know this and Women want this and Women respond to this, just as Men do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdzNaqISu0I&t=4762 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_5zqDjGd5s&t=5409 >Why should we accept that "that is all there is to it"? That was a rhetorical statement intended as laying down a challenge. - >Their answers to these questions would be See above. >I am afraid you won't. >And discourse ultimately won't move beyond that. Now, I'll be the first to admit that most people on "my side" give worse answers than me. But you had best concede most people on "your side" are giving soykafty answers as well. >When it comes to discussions about topics like this, this site unfortunately is no different to 4chan anymore. And what's better? You prefer the "discussions" (one-way monocussions dominated by mod and mob violence) on reddit, stackoverflow, and academia? >that it's self evident People on "my side" say this because people on "your side" consistently deny self-evident things. >have some nefarious agenda People on "my side" say this because people on "your side" consistently censor anything that questions their narrative. Like it or not, this site is the best there is. >Posters will only bring up anecdotes, personal observations, and "gut feelings" It astounds me that you consider "people who make personal observations" an insult. You must have forgotten that observation is the FIRST step of the scientific method. >But the other steps. I'm aware of the other steps. For example, I'm aware that the SECOND step requires constructing a differential hypothesis. You blindly accept that if a "study" (/me spits) showed that "Women tend to perform better in chess if they believe they are playing against another Woman rather than against a Man"; that somehow implies Women suffer from stereotype threat. However as I pointed out with my counterexample, Men may tend to perform better in chess if they believe they are playing against another Man rather than against a Computer; not because Men suffer from stereotype threat, but because they correctly expect the Computer to play better and not be worth trying to beat. >But the other steps. I'm aware of the other steps. For example, I'm aware that the THIRD step would require performing a causally-controlled experiment on Women subjects. Well I'm more than willing to do this ;-), but as you can imagine both the Women themselves not to mention their gatekeepers the State take a dim view on this. >But you can examine statistics. SET-MINING STATISTICS IS NOT SCIENCE. NO CAUSAL-CONTROL == NO THIRD STEP == NOT SCIENCE SET-MINING STATISTICS == https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-experiment QUASI == PSEUDO SET-MINING STATISTICS == QUASI-EXPERIMENT == PSEUDO-EXPERIMENT == PSEUDO-SCIENCE So. Do you like the way I dance? Read my name.

>>64319 >Posters will only bring up personal observations >This place is just 4chan Appeal to 'reason', ad hominem. >I agree with it >I don't believe it Concrete arguements here. >Why should we accept X and not Y? You can't prove it. Appeal to ignorance. >There will be NO discourse here. Period. With posts like yours — absolutely.

>>64281 >one cherry picked study that makes a pretty narrow claim as it is should not revolutionize anyone's worldview Well, what can I do. I am by any means no professional researcher and I do not know how many similar researches there are. But the fact that this same dude, in his other videos, points at obvious arithmetic errors (miscalculations), which are kinda obvious (for anyone who attended school in 5th grade) ONLY if you actually read the study ITSELF as well as: - Ststs manipulation; - Misrepresentation of studies by those seeking to confirm their conservative bias (when in "conclusions" sections it outrightly says the opposite of what they say in their headlines, ghahahaha, but you know, who cares, right? Yellow headlines have already been made by conservative media, its not like their readers actually going to go and check the study they are referring to). Makes you wonder: — How smart are people who are so eager to say that women playing chess worse than men in a top legue is a direct result of them being biologically dumber than men and the cause of it is genetics and their "biological differences and limitations". 1. Do such people know a thing about genetics? Do they have a degree in genetics? My opinion is quite simply is — most of them don't. 2. Do such people know anything about statistical analysis and common mistakes averege person makes that no actual statistician would ever make? 3. Do such people know anything about brain structure and differences between male and female brain? 4. Do they even know what hormones are and how they actually work as well as the biological processes happening in male and female body not to mention comparing them correctly...? Is their opinion qualified and does it have any basis whatsoever besides their pre-existing bias they seek to confirm? Doesn't all of the above make you at least DOUBT your world view that is being: "women are generally dumber than men"? >fact of matter is top women have lower elos, less performance Ofc it matters, my dude, only you stepped backwards. What are the reasons of that being? Biology? Who knows.

>>64319 >Why should we accept the first statement? Man, what have you done? You could have just said that this is expressing a personal opinion with meme terms. Now this is going to produce essays with 0 substance on the matter... Explaining obvious concrete logic verbally unnecessarily complicates things. Easier just to not talk about it, trust me, I know ehat I am saying

>>64263 Studies in favor of "stereotype threat", such as this one, typically do not replicate. On the other hand, studies suggesting biological influences on gendered behavior typically do. It's interesting how journalists and wokies typically cite the former instead of the latter; it's almost as if they're cherry-picking whatever supports their predetermined views.

>>64730 >studies that show biological determinism typically replicate unlike those that show environmental effects Interresting. Can you show me those? So we can see how unbiased they really are and search for flaws in their methodology.

>>64733 I don't have a full catalogue or anything like that, but here are two examples of findings that I know replicate. Gendered toy preferences in human babies and monkeys https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01624-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ http://biososial.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Alexander-Hines-2002.pdf Prenatal exposure to androgens due to CAH shifts women towards male interests and personalities https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296092/ https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/94/9/3432/2597100 https://sites.pitt.edu/~bertsch/CAH%20and%20jobs.pdf

I think that one has to be delusional, if one thinks that women aren't treated well in Western countries. Equality is one of the most mainstream ideas in the West. Also, there are even some faux initiatives like "affirmative action" which, in reality, means that some groups are believed to need special treatment and that it's a-okay to discriminate other people because of that.

>>64741 People with disabilities need special treatment. Do you think its fair to take it away just because it kinda discriminates other "normal" people?

>>64769 Not him but yeah. I think most people would define fair as "everyone receiving the same" and not wasting resources on dysfunctional gimps.

>>64778 Ok, soulless prick. Don't you also think we need to throw sick babies off the cliff?

>>64778 >>64263 >Doesn't it make you at least think about the implications of (if "discrimination/segregation is too harsh word for you) different treatment of women in society Its not my fault they have no confidence, you are the only person in control of the way you think. If someone has control over your mind, it is because you allowed them. They only tested 42 females, they put people who "have the same ELO", but I wouldn't consider 25% win rate vs 50% win rate meaningful because it was only TWO chess games per female, and it was in a game where one mistake can lead to a loss.

>>64362 Youre just coping hard. Men are less genetically stable which creates greater iq variance among men. So when you filter for top you always get more men than women because men by biological design have more outliers on both ends. And this inst high end science, its 8th grade material. Though if you still in hs you probably wont hear it anymore since its "problematic".

>>64782 Such far fetched conclusions made out of nowhere. Might as well say that earth is flat because I don't see how its round from here and call your measurements "coping hard". You aren't fooling anyone with you simplistic argument

Projecting hard. What reason do I have to be happy about women being of equal intellectual ability with men. You on the other hand have pretty food reason to consider yourself "superior" if you aren't doing too good in life just by the fact that you happened to have a penis between your legs ;). Isn't that too convenient. Its funny how you automatically: 1) take IQ for an absolute measurement of intelligence 2) automatically link simple variance with genetics. All with incredible confidence. I am sure you are PHD in genetics and already did you nobel prize winning research on precisely which gene in genome is resnonsible for men being "less stable" on the curve (ghahahahahhaha). Also reminder that once a women defeated a man in top league they retreated from "no woman can defeat man in top league" to "well, there is still more men in top legue than men". Which kinda suggests the obvious.