Bob Musicant wrote:
"John Macnab" wrote in message
news:rhChb.62429$pl3.1269@pd7tw3no...

Bob Musicant wrote:

"Doug Wedel" wrote in message
...


"David Ames"

Doubtless there are fewer women chess players than men chess players;
consequently there are fewer "efficient" women chess players than men
chess players. That may be the answer to a question you should have
asked.

Ah, but look at bridge. There may very well be *more* women bridge

players


than men bridge players, yet there are very very few women among the

world

class bridge players. Wonder why.



I already explained. Different brain structure/function.



With all due respect, this hardly seems defensible at this level of
abstraction. We have a social phenomenon: men dominate chess at all
levels. We have a plausible scientific claim: men's and women's brains
are "structured" differently (although I'm not quite sure what this
means). You now have a reasonable hypothesis, that's all.

FWIW, I'm verys skeptical that there is a simple (single-factor)
explanation here, any more than there could be a simple explanation for
the observation that about half of the world champions had Jewish
ancestry. Or that only one has had Spanish for a first language, etc.

John


John,

The principle of parsimony, aka Occam's razor, suggests that in the case of
male superiority at chess, we not go hunting for alternative explanations
when an already adequate one exists, that being men's better natural ability
at spatial visualization. This is a thoroughly documented phenomenon,
research on which goes back many years. Are there contributions from other
sources? Most likely, but take away the difference that I am referring to
and the remaining difference is in all likelihood trivial, at least in
comparison with the primary source of the difference.

I don't know the explanation for the Jewish dominance in chess, or for the
dearth of Spanish-speaking champions.

Bob



Surely you recognize that I am not doubting the principle of parsimony;
I am suggesting that "superior spatial visualization" as it has been
defined by experimenters is likely NOT an adequate explanation. Do
these studies manage to control for culture, language and education? Of
course, given the sparseness of the explanation given here, I admit that
I could be wrong...

This thread reminds me of the fruitless links between race and
intelligence, or links between race and athletic ability arguments that
crop up with depressing regularity.

John