(12-19-2024, 11:41 AM)Jag149 Wrote:

(12-19-2024, 10:57 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: In terms of chess, there have been very few elite women chess players.  Judit Polgar was once the 8th rated chess player in the world, but that's about it.  The politically correct thing to say is that it's because not very many women play chess.  The politically incorrect thing to say is that it's because of inherent differences, such as men inherently being more aggressive, which makes them more competitive.  If that is true, then the implications are profound, especially in a society that is supposed to be a meritocracy.  It would mean that there will always be many more men who are qualified to be CEO of a company, or General of an army, for example.  It would mean that any effort to equalize things is pointless.  Competitiveness is a key quality for a person to have in a meritocracy.

Inherent differences are an uncomfortable question for some people.  Why is it that a disproportionate number of elite professional athletes are African American?  Several times I've seen African Americans say it's because of they are inherently better athletes, but then what happens is another African American will immediately say "You can't say that." And the reason is, if you say Black people are better at athletics, then you are saying there are inherent differences between the races, and then a white guy can say, "You are better at athletics, and we are better at math and science."  And then you've stepped right into racism.

I can see this. The trick in my opinion is to just see people. Anytime you try to artificially make things "equal" by passing laws, demonizing others or protesting you actually set things back.  Instead if you concentrate on providing equal chances for all people then competition will sort this out over time, the cream will rise to the top. Those people that choose to do the work and take advantage of this will improve their lot in life those that don't will not. Racism is a two edged sword.

That's idealistic, but what happens when the cream rises to the top and it's mostly from one group?  People start looking for reasons that fit their own point of view.  Then the blame game starts, and the assumption from some people is that the "winning" group got there because of an unfair system.  And if you don't agree with that, you get burned at the stake.

Right now in chess, they've tried to rectify the inequality by setting up special tournaments just for women, and a special category of grandmaster, called "women's grandmaster" where women can qualify for that title without being a real grandmaster.  Supposedly this is to encourage more women to participate in chess.  I think that whole approach is very demeaning to women, and some women who hold the real grandmaster title have refused to participate in such activities.

---