Just found out that professional chess of all things is gender segregated.
Shogi too.
>>98249715Men are just that much better at competing that if you want to entertain any sense of fairness you have to keep them separate from women. Hell, apparently men are better at winning Miss Whatever beauty contests or even "woman of the year".
>>98249715Top women can still achieve GM status, alongside men. There's just not very many who do so. But Judit Polgar is legit. And I like watching Pia Cramling.
>>98249715Women want to socialize with other women. In other news, water is wet.
>>98249715Just like in any other sport.
There've only been a handful of women at the level to really compete against the best throughout modern history, and last I checked one of them dropped chess entirely out of boredom. Women would barely ever show up at top events without a separate sheltered bracket
>>98249942>one of them dropped chess entirely out of boredomBased GM. Chess is in fact boring.
>>98249715The idea of gender equality is increasingly looking like one of those "what is this? Wrong answers only" jokes. Observe:>why is chess gender segregated? Wrong answers only
>>98250322Gender equality was always a polite lie, likely one born out of political pragmatism after women got the right to vote. You can't just tell a demographic that makes up half of the electorate that the reason they're underrepresented in high-IQ spaces is because they're dumber.
>>98249715>Just found outNo you didn't, you just wanted to start an argument on the internet. >>98250273I'm pretty sure Magnus is only still playing because he has nothing better to do. >>98250445[Citation needed]Last I checked, men and women both score the same average on IQ tests.
>>98249715High level chess players are too autistic to be expected to look at a girl
>>98250521Men have a larger presence at the extremes of IQ, so while you'll find more male retards, you'll also find intellectual spaces dominated by males. Chess needs to be segregated because while outliers like >>98249821 mentions exist, they're just that. If you blended the two genders into one league you'd see a few men get shuffled down by a handful of the top women, and the vast majority of women simply remain perpetually at the bottom.
>>98249821>>98250549Judit Polgar was basically taught chess from birth as an educational experiment by her father, right? It'd be interesting to try that with a mixed cohort of male and female. Obviously will never be done as an experiment because its highly immoral.
>>98249715it actually isn't. Anyone, male or female can compete for a GM title. It's just that they also created a babby league for women only because they suck (in a bad way). I'm assuming it too will be dominated by men smurfing as women within 20 years.
>>98250572The polgars raised their daughters to play chess, yes, and it didn't go as they expected. I recommend a book called Range which dives into the topic and uses the Polgars as the subjects of a chapter. It turns out to produce virtuosos, the best method is introducing children to a variety of disciplines, giving them a chance to gravitate toward their true calling. Trying to decide a path for a kid without any variety doesn't work. The polgars turned out quite good at chess, but the best were the people who found chess on their own.
>>98250521>Last I checked, men and women both score the same average on IQ tests.The Greater Male Variability HypothesisThe Theory: Psychometric studies consistently show that men and women have similar average IQs. However, boys tend to have a wider, flatter bell curve of intelligence. This overrepresentation at the extreme tails results in more men scoring exceptionally high.
>>98250700>This overrepresentation at the extreme tails results in more men scoring exceptionally high.Because dumb people don't want to take tests proving they're dumb, while exceptionally smart people love being told what percentile of intelligence they're in?
>>98250894IQ testing is standard for grade 8 students in school in my country (Canada) or atleast it was when I was in school. It decides why you go to a normal high school, a trades high school or a advanced high school.
>>98250894extreme tailS, anon, both extremes. Read the posts you're replying to.
>>98249802Based entirely on anecdote, I can believe in gender segregated events because men become extremely unpleasant in intense competitions more often. One of the reasons I never wanted to get deep into 40k was the way spergs acted around events, and I bet women would comport themselves better.
>>98251388>and I bet women would comport themselves betterThey'd also lose.
>>98251388Women get shat on in every variety of game because they're bad at them.
>>98250521Another reason why IQ is a bogus measurement.
>>98251437g-loaded IQ tests are perfectly valid, there's just hate for them in popular culture because they accurately display that some ethnic groups are less intelligent than others on average.
>>98251444>there's just hate for them in popular culture because they accurately display that some ethnic groups are less intelligent than others on averageMore like that's the only reason you like them.
>>98250894You're retarded.
>>98251437It's one of the most highly correlated quantifiable scientific metrics with success, anon. The only people who claim IQ is bogus are coping femoids and effeminate leftoid men who believe "emotional intelligence" exists.
>>98251479This. I don't know my IQ because the test I took for school placement gave a percentile score not an IQ. I'm 98th percentile and qualified for the gifted school.
>>98251479Not at all. The most "successful" people in the world are almost all drooling retards. In reality the test is about as useful as astrology.You feel the need to dumb down something as complex as intelligence down to a single number because you yourself are stupid as fuck. Real life is not Dragon Ball and power levels don't actually exist.
>The most "successful" people in the world are almost all drooling retards
>>98251508>Not at all. The most "successful" people in the world are almost all drooling retards. In reality the test is about as useful as astrology.You're just making shit up that is directly contradicted by the scientific literature. Cope harder.>You feel the need to dumb down something as complex as intelligence down to a single numberIt is a measurable quantification of working memory, abstract visualization skill, pattern matching ability, etc. You're coping really hard because you have a low score.
Well, technically chess isn't segregated. Women can enter all tournaments; women just also have their own leagues where only women compete.
Men are better at detecting remote control butt plug signals while women have to train just to reach the male baseline.
>>98251687>no prostate to feel the vibrationsLiterally just built different.
>>98250521>>Just found out>No you didn't, you just wanted to start an argument on the internet.Just found out and just want to start an argument aren't contradictory statements.
>>98251388>I bet women would comport themselves better.You 've never seen women compete with each other. Not even once. Not even in anime.
>>98251531Depends really if you count the POTUS as successful.
>>98249715it's not, but there are not many women that can compete in the open tournaments (i.e., open for all).So there are female only tounaments and championships.
>>98250322Women would get raped by all the indian, slavic and nordic alcoholic chess players.
>>98251531They hafta be!!Otherwise how do I cope with the fact I has 120 IQ as a little kiddo but now I'm a drooling retard watching blacked futa porn and working a minimum wage shoe polisher job!!!
>>98249715Why wouldn't it be? Even video games are segregated. Men and women are different, physically and mentally, so we treat them differently. Everybody wins that way.
>>98253992>Even video games are segregatedMost pro videogame scenes aren't segregated afaik.Also, neither is chess. There are women only tournaments, but they can still compete on the regular ones. Really the reason women only tournaments exist is to attract teen and adult girls to the activity and make it so the ones that started from childhood don't drop it. Unlike men who generally give no shit about the social prestige or acceptedness of an activity if they are interested on it, post-puberty women need to be shown with as much certainty as possible that their social stock won't suffer from being interested on that activity. Women prioritize above all maintaining social status and cohesion in the eyes of other women, probably because it was of huge help for survival to be able to establish bonds with the females of their tribe/group while they were pregnant or right after having kids since the man needed to be gone for extended periods to gather food n shit and couldn't protect them 24/7. Being close knit with the other women probably also increased the chances that they would take care of the kids if something happened to the parents and made life easier in general.That's why the only times they care about entering a male dominated space is if that space is seen as prestigious among women. The one exception is single younger women who might try to enter certain male dominated spaces to increase their dating market value but only if that space is populated by enough men she finds attractive.Chess has neither the prestige in the eyes of women nor the pool of hot dudes, so the only way you'll ever get a woman to stay interested on it is if you make special bubbles where they can be surrounded by other women with the same interest.
>>98254432>Most pro videogame scenes aren't segregated afaik.Most pro video game scenes don't have enough women trying to play competitively that there's a discussion of segregation. Every time there ARE women's teams or women players, they get bodied by men until they form their own women's league, or exit the scene
>>98254432 (me)I really don't think women's brains limit them on any way when it comes to doing a specific activity. Imo the reason there are so few exceptional women at these sorts of activities is that it requires too much sacrifice for their biologically hard wired value system to let them be able to put as much effort as men who innately value pushing boundaries and differenciating themselves through things like being good at something because it was a crucial part of impressing potential mates.Also, women groups kinda follow the Japanese "The tallest nail gets struck first" type of crab bucket behavior where everyone starts hating the fuck out of the ones that stand out the most as soon as an oportunity presents itself.
>>98254445Yeah, games like overwatch and valorant have an absolute shit ton of women playing them and there's still barely any female pros. It all comes down to the same reason. Going pro at a game is not something that their biological value system considers worth the effort.
>>98254514Some try, they just fail spectacularly. I'm not trying to use bombastic language, it's just that if women COULD on average perform at the average level of men, you'd expect the women that DO try to do just that, but they don't. I think >>98254495 is wrong when he says their brains don't limit them from doing things, because it'd be a bit of a waste of resources for their brains to evolve the same capacity without any drive to utilize it. The performance of women in e-sports and intellectual competitions like chess suggests they're at a similar deficit with men, though not to the same extent, as they are at physical sports like soccer. Men are driven to succeed in competition because they need to compete for the ability to mate. Women don't have that biological pressure. It's the same reason why bird species with males who have color plumage for mating reasons don't devote the resources to also giving that plumage to females. Why would biology give women the biological stuff to compete that it gives men?This doesn't come from some place of woman hatred, it simply is what it is. Women generally don't compete because they can't, and they generally can't because their biological role doesn't ask them to. Outliers always exist but they don't invalidate things being generally true.
>>98251504Percentile in the general population and IQ are linked. So you can just look up your IQ unless they gave you some other percentile (e.g. your percentile within your year at the school or something). For the general population the 98th percentile equates to an IQ over 130. (If the test was many years ago you would also have to account for the drift.)https://www.cogn-iq.org/reference-tables/iq-percentile-table/
>>98251504>>98251479You're both retards, I'm in the 99.9th (triple nine baybee) centile, and I think IQ is a bullshit metric. IQ is only loosely correlated with success in life, and is much less of a factor than the circumstances of your birth. What's the point of a metric that doesn't mean anything?
>>98254650>IQ is only loosely correlated with success in lifeI don't think I'd even go that far.
We deserve better bait than that, man.
>>98251532>scientific literatureNTA but source? I'm genuinely interested.
>>98251532>quantificationYou didn't use that word correctly, by the way. You were probably looking for "quantifiable metric". You're trying to use big words to sound smart, and ironically, sounding more stupid.
there's never been anyone angry about IQ that didn't turn out to just be angry about black people being, technically, retarded
>>98255034By our modern standards of IQ, all people from the 1920s would be clinically retarded. Due to the Flynn effect, cognitive scores steadily rise year-by-year, so if you got someone random from 1920 to do an IQ test from 2020, they'd only score 70-75 on average. IQ is heavily influenced by education, diet, sleep, and other outside factors.
>>98255115IQ tests are typically about 50% a test of how well-integrated a person is into the society of the test-maker. This has been a long-standing historical problem with them because less-educated people do worse on them, which should be a non-factor if they're actually gauging intelligence. In particular, the knowledge-based questions are often operating on a series of assumptions that are not universally applicable. That said, IQ tests are still useful, but they are in no way authoritative.
>>98255115>>98255151The greatest correlation with IQ is parental IQ, g-loaded IQ tests are reliable measurements of general intelligence. You've massively overstated the increase of average IQ from the flynn effect.
>>98255115>IQ is heavily influenced by educationA person's IQ remains reliably consistent after age 6, despire most people having at least a decade of education following that.
>>98255151IQ tests were always supposed to test education, not intelligence. Why else would there be a general knowledge section on many tests? When you're sitting in front of a licensed psychologist, and they ask you who wrote "Alice in Wonderland", are you an idiot if you don't know? I use that example because that was an actual question I got on my IQ test, which also included a section on vocabulary containing words like "palliate", sections on numeracy containing concepts like the Fibonacci sequence, and many other parts of the test that required the testee to have prior knowledge and education to easily understand. Could an intelligent person figure some of these out if they were never taught them? Sure. But educated people will get these instantly, no matter how intelligent they are compared to the general population, and that skews test results away from pure intelligence, and towards education.
>>98255189you're wronghttps://medium.com/psyc-406-2015/how-fast-does-iq-decline-can-you-do-anything-about-it-f5ca370d8b62
>>98251532So it isn't a measure of intelligence then but a measure of working memory, abstract visualisation skill, pattern recognition and so on. IQ is useful but to believe it's a way to measure intelligence is dumb. It shows that your good at certain things but leaves out so many others. But if you define intelligence as solely those things I guess, for you, it would be a measure of intelligence which tells us everything we need to know about your capacity for advanced thought.
>>98255212You've taken some shit tests. There are different tests of different qualities, ones designed to test general intelligence are referred to as "g-loaded" and measure capacity for reasoning. I'm not defending all IQ tests, I'm saying that when administered correctly IQ tests reliably measure general intelligence.>IQ tests were always supposed to test education, not intelligence.Read a book. I've never spoken with anyone that actually read this, with their own eyes, and questioned the reliability of properly administered IQ tests.>>98255251oh wow, a medium post
>>98255251>So it isn't a measure of intelligence then but a measure of working memory, abstract visualisation skill, pattern recognition and so on.I like when people use "so on" and "etc" to indicate that they ran out of things. Your very good at arguing anon!
The best woman chess player of all time, Judit Polgar, at her peak rating of 2735, would be ranked 16th in the world today, according to FIDE website. And she was far and away better than any other woman who has ever played chess.And that's not even mentioning that chess is only segregated one way. Women can play women only tournaments, every other tournament is free for all.
>>98253696>gifted kid syndromeaka you were told how smart and great you were at a young age, and from that you never needed to apply yourself. At least until late HS or into collage at which point you didnt know HOW to apply yourself
>>98254495>Also, women groups kinda follow the Japanese "The tallest nail gets struck first"Your shallow take on pop psychology is bad and wrong. Tall poppy syndrome is not a specifically Japanese trait. Outside of a few fields, notably sports like football (whichever game you want to call by that name), it is endemic to multiple cultures and widely affects men. Its effect is so widespread and severe that it has been shown to negatively impact national economies.
>>98249715>>98249725>>98251388Every kind of contest in the world has to be gender-separated if you want to give women a chance to win. The truth is that women are just absolutely worse at everything than men, not only physical tasks but mental ones too, and when you make them fight it out fair and square the women will always lose. It is the truth. We are not supposed to say it but that's how the world works.
>>98254690Then read.>>98255115>By our modern standards of IQ, all people from the 1920s would be clinically retarded.This is so profoundly stupid it just shows you're in the double digit club.
>>98257463>he doesn't know about the Flynn effectself report
>>98253161Is there something you want to share?
>>98249802True>>98251388snowflake
>>98253175Rent free
>>98253175Pootis is way smarter than you, fuckhead. He knows when to eat sandvich and that you can't outsmart bullet.
>>98257747Thanks for the smile, Anon
>>98254537This. Women don't have to do anything to have value, they are born with inherent value. Its like an isekai protagonist, theyre special and relevant merely because of who they are, not for any earned reason. That's why so many dudes want to be women, it's wish fulfillment for having someone care about you without having to dance like a monkey for it. Why would evolution require anything more of them?
