I am not even sure some things can be meaningfully attributed to nature or nurture. Consider the following hypothesis:
Men and women are equally good at chess if they spend the same time and effort learning it.
By nature, some men are strongly attracted to chess, but practically no women.
What we would observe in this world is men being better chess players. But saying that it is “by nature” is slightly misleading. There is a causal chain, and only a small part of it is different by nature. Fixing that small part—e.g. by making chess your family hobby with local high status and lots of fun—can dramatically change the outcome. While it remains true that such things practically never happen in normal life. Also that men can naturally be highly motivated without so highly supportive families.
Shortly, if you ask “are men biologically better at chess?” it feels like both saying “yes” and “no” is highly misleading. “No” in theory and in some very rare experiments; but also “yes” in practice, if you let the nature have its way… even in an environment that would be 100% free of sexism, it’s just that no one would optimize their household to make their children play lots of chess.
It’s not just nitpicking for the sake of online debate—the more detailed model allows making better predictions. Society can change, if for some reason (not necessarily wokeness, it could also be e.g. fashion) you made lots of chess clubs for little girls, with lots of fun an emotional support, the results could change. I could even imagine this becoming a social attractor, for example at one day for random reasons rich people would start sending their daughters to chess clubs, and suddenly “send your daughter to chess club” would become a symbol of prestige and many parents would want to do that. And then you would get generations of great female chess players. Maybe.
(Personally, I don’t think that chess is worth doing this, but maybe math or computer science is.)
I am not even sure some things can be meaningfully attributed to nature or nurture. Consider the following hypothesis:
Men and women are equally good at chess if they spend the same time and effort learning it.
By nature, some men are strongly attracted to chess, but practically no women.
What we would observe in this world is men being better chess players. But saying that it is “by nature” is slightly misleading. There is a causal chain, and only a small part of it is different by nature. Fixing that small part—e.g. by making chess your family hobby with local high status and lots of fun—can dramatically change the outcome. While it remains true that such things practically never happen in normal life. Also that men can naturally be highly motivated without so highly supportive families.
Shortly, if you ask “are men biologically better at chess?” it feels like both saying “yes” and “no” is highly misleading. “No” in theory and in some very rare experiments; but also “yes” in practice, if you let the nature have its way… even in an environment that would be 100% free of sexism, it’s just that no one would optimize their household to make their children play lots of chess.
It’s not just nitpicking for the sake of online debate—the more detailed model allows making better predictions. Society can change, if for some reason (not necessarily wokeness, it could also be e.g. fashion) you made lots of chess clubs for little girls, with lots of fun an emotional support, the results could change. I could even imagine this becoming a social attractor, for example at one day for random reasons rich people would start sending their daughters to chess clubs, and suddenly “send your daughter to chess club” would become a symbol of prestige and many parents would want to do that. And then you would get generations of great female chess players. Maybe.
(Personally, I don’t think that chess is worth doing this, but maybe math or computer science is.)