What other embarrassingly unequal parts of reality are being politely ignored, except by science-illiterate jerks?
First, I kind of object to the “science-illiterate” part (I know it is a quote from the article). The soft sciences have done many wrongs, but with regard to the average physical ability of men and women, I don’t think that the depiction of women as just as capable is based on published studies.
Second, this is kind of culture war bait, and as such might be better asked at the motte.
Despite that, here are some possible answers.
With regard to gender differences, one might look at Women in chess. WP is quick to tell us that
The low number of women to reach the top level of chess has created a lot of interest as to why women historically have not had more success. There is no evidence that women are innately disadvantaged at chess. It has been demonstrated statistically that the low numbers across all levels can largely account for the lack of women at or near the top. The general paucity of women in chess has contributed to women commonly being the subject of sexism, harassment, and sexual harassment, factors also thought to contribute to women achieving less or leaving chess early.
But also:
Judit Polgár, generally considered the strongest female player of all time,[4] was at one time the eighth highest rated player in the world, and remains the only woman to have ever been rated in the world’s top ten.
Personally, I think that part of the reason is that women are generally less likely to go uber-nerd on a very small topic such as chess or warhammer and dedicate their life to that topic—which is what is likely required to be a top ten chess player. But I am also 50⁄50 on there being an inherent male advantage to chess. I think I can entertain that notion without having to adjust the worth of women in general. Emmy Noether shows that we dismiss the intelligence of women at our own peril.
The other thing which comes to mind is HBD, which is it’s own can of worms. See Scott Alexander on the Ashkenazi intelligence hypothesis, for example.
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.)
First, I kind of object to the “science-illiterate” part (I know it is a quote from the article). The soft sciences have done many wrongs, but with regard to the average physical ability of men and women, I don’t think that the depiction of women as just as capable is based on published studies.
Second, this is kind of culture war bait, and as such might be better asked at the motte.
Despite that, here are some possible answers.
With regard to gender differences, one might look at Women in chess. WP is quick to tell us that
But also:
Personally, I think that part of the reason is that women are generally less likely to go uber-nerd on a very small topic such as chess or warhammer and dedicate their life to that topic—which is what is likely required to be a top ten chess player. But I am also 50⁄50 on there being an inherent male advantage to chess. I think I can entertain that notion without having to adjust the worth of women in general. Emmy Noether shows that we dismiss the intelligence of women at our own peril.
The other thing which comes to mind is HBD, which is it’s own can of worms. See Scott Alexander on the Ashkenazi intelligence hypothesis, for example.
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.)