|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
here's an article I wrote on my blog. it is based on a psychology experiment that was published in a scientific paper:
http://chessvillage.blogspot.com/2008/05/psychology-are-men-better-at-chess-than.html
(I'm a psychology undergraduate student, and have made the article more accessible to those who don't have basics in psychology)
all in all, it shows that the underperformance of women among men might be due to the simple fact that we all know that men are considered to be better than women. in this experiment, when women KNEW they were playing against a man, their performance dropped significantly, whereas whether they were playing against a man or a woman the results were equivalent *as long as* they couldn't guess the opponent's sex, or as long as they thought they were playing against a woman, whether that was true or not (the games were played on internet lol, not in real life..)
that's an argument in favor of separate competition groups, women vs women and men vs men.. astonishing that Polgar can perform at such a high level given this phenomenon
|
|
|
"we all know that men are considered to be better than women" 
Sorry, I do not understand....maybe because "you know you are considered to be better than me" ???? 
|
|
|
we are all aware of the stereotype... being aware of a stereotype doesn't imply in any way that you agree with it. the simple knowledge of a stereotype can influence behavior: it's called stereotype activation (and implicit stereotype activation when the activation of the stereotype is made below the conscience, for instance displaying the word "Black" for 300 milliseconds on a screen can activate any common stereotype people hear about Black people)
P.S.: en français ça s'appelle l'activation automatique des stéréotypes... c'est bien connu en psychologie sociale et en psychologie cognitive
P.P.S.: I am one of those who don't think that the aforementioned stereotype ("men are better than women at chess") is true
|
|
|
C'est à se croire au Moyen Age. Je ne reprendrai pas le fil à ce niveau-là. C'est juste pour en rajouter "un chouia" ma chouia. Cette espèce est en voie de disparition, à quoi ça sert donc d'y répondre? Un petit coup de pieds au derrière, en voilà tout.
Just my 2 cents
paladin
|
|
|
Merci, paladin, pour ton intervention qui me rassure un peu sur l'état mental de la partie masculine (largement majoritaire, mais est-ce si étonnant quand on lit ce fil ?) de la communauté échiquéenne ! 
For those who do not speak french : paladin says that, reading all that topic, one can believe he is back to the middle ages, and that this kind of men (those arguing anything in order to "prove" that women are "naturally" not good at chess) is about to disapear, no use to answer, they deserve just a little kick in the back, and that is all.
My answer : I thank him for saying that, because it reassures me about the mental health of the chess community (mainly masculine, but is it that surprising, considering what has been said here ?).
As a conclusion, I would say : I would laugh, if it was not so sad ! For that is because of the same stupids arguments developped here that such a lot of women have been oppressed for so many years, considered as inferior, not intelligent, all guided by their feelings when taking decisions, and so on...
That is why so many women are still oppressed in some parts of the world (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt....), and I still just cannot believe that so called "educated persons" as chessplayers can really believe that, just because MY genes are XX, I am not supposed so play chess at a good level !....
This is frustrating, and a source of conflicts when playing tournaments, because my masculine opponents are usually so sure that I can't beat them (because of the XX....), they usually get aggressive towards me when they loose !
Please stop that, chessplayers : consider us as equal, and let's play chess !
|
| Previous 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 34 Next |
|
|
|
