Nigel Short and the folly of the materialst

Originally posted by googlefudge

... The claim was that the materialist in this case had made a an unfounded comment based on some kind of biological basis, ...

"The Materialist"... Who is this person?

Oh... You mean all people who believe that the world is purely made up of matter and energy following the laws of physics,
with no magic/supernatural/spiritual/dual ...[text shortened]... rons, made of chemicals, are what is creating that conciousness that is having the
experience.

again this is a pile of straw - no one has claimed that you cannot learn a great deal - what was actually claimed before your proclivity for building straw houses kicked in was was that you cannot tell why it was formed. For that one needs to go beyond physics and engage in metaphysics. This is is exactly why the tendency to reduce everything to a material level and to draw conclusion from having done so is dubious especially with regard to the human experience. Physics is simply not enough.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Um, lets not go overboard here.
There [b]are biological differences between men and women, and they are not all to do with reproduction.

It is certainly true that many, if not most, claims of biological differences 'explaining' differing performance
or preference between men and women are likely bunk, but not all of them are.

We can refute and condemn this kind of nonsense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.[/b]

Don't be ridiculous. Possession or lack of a willy is not indicative of anything very much, though as a child I often engaged in arguments about the merits of being able to pee standing up and indeed, over walls, which at the time seemed pretty cool to me and my mates. If you or Nigel Short would care to demonstrate a biological basis for sex differences in respect of the game of chess, and to demonstrate how these outweigh social factors which are too numerous to bother even starting to list, then go ahead. Until you can do that, then merely to assert that men and women have different brains that allow different chess playing capabilities is as valid as the best selling series "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus." Crap like that makes good money but it is not scientific - it is hardly even materialistic. It is pure ideology. There are fortunes to be made telling people what they want to hear.

Do you ever go to a real chess club? What happens when a young woman turns up to play? Why do you imagine they stop turning up after a while? Is it because they have found a husband (from among that unhealthy bunch of introverted, inadequately groomed social misfits) and no longer need to go in search of a mate?

Originally posted by finnegan
Don't be ridiculous. Possession or lack of a willy is not indicative of anything very much, though as a child I often engaged in arguments about the merits of being able to pee standing up and indeed, over walls, which at the time seemed pretty cool to me and my mates. If you or Nigel Short would care to demonstrate a biological basis for sex differences ...[text shortened]... introverted, inadequately groomed social misfits) and no longer need to go in search of a mate?

I believe Nigel Short is just lashing out at women because he was beaten by a woman and is angry about it.

Originally posted by finnegan
Don't be ridiculous. Possession or lack of a willy is not indicative of anything very much, though as a child I often engaged in arguments about the merits of being able to pee standing up and indeed, over walls, which at the time seemed pretty cool to me and my mates. If you or Nigel Short would care to demonstrate a biological basis for sex differences ...[text shortened]... introverted, inadequately groomed social misfits) and no longer need to go in search of a mate?

Ahem. You are going to go re-read this thread and then walk that back.

I am not, and have not, for one moment claimed that women are biologically inferior chess players.
Or that women are in fact inferior chess players at all.

I suspect that the argument Nigel Short was making is entirely specious. [sexist, ignorant, ect]

What I was, and am, saying is that there are differences in both hormone levels and types, as well
as in physical brain structure [relative size of different areas of the brain] between men and women.
And both hormones and brain structure effect how and what we think.
And in all kinds of tests we do see differences in typical behaviour/strategy/ect between men and
women.

Now it's hard to tell which differences are caused by social conditioning [nurture] and those that are
encoded for in our DNA and developmental process [nature]. Most are probably [and often demonstrably]
nurture and not nature.

But SOME of the differences are nature and not nurture.

All I was saying is that it is not correct to state that there are NO differences between men and women
[again on average] beyond the obvious physiological differences.

So check your righteous diatribe and aim it at someone else.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ahem. You are going to go re-read this thread and then walk that back.

I am not, and have not, for one moment claimed that women are biologically inferior chess players.
Or that women are in fact inferior chess players at all.

I suspect that the argument Nigel Short was making is entirely specious. [sexist, ignorant, ect]

What I was, and am, sa ...[text shortened]... vious physiological differences.

So check your righteous diatribe and aim it at someone else.

Okay. Going back to your initial offending post, I select out this sentence of your's: "It is certainly true that many, if not most, claims of biological differences 'explaining' differing performance or preference between men and women are likely bunk, but not all of them are." Now quite simply, that final comment says that some biological differences are relevant to different outcomes between men and women playing chess. That is just a wild and unsupported assertion with which I strongly disagree.

The problem has to do with the idea of "levels of explanation." for example:

Any human behaviour can be discussed at 4 levels of explanation:

1. Biological level (Physical, chemical and biological processes)
2. Basic processes level explanations (psychological processes that are widespread across humans)
3. Person level explanations (individual differences in behaviour)
4. Socio-cultural level explanations (influence other people exert on behaviour; behaviour in social and cultural contexts).

https://sites.google.com/site/sacepsychology/stage-1-resources/introduction-to-psychology/four-levels-of-explanation

While there is no doubting that all levels operate, it is relevant to seek explanations at the level that is most relevant and best justified. Attempting to reduce social phenomena to biology is not in fact realistic most of the time. In other words, it is nearly always dubious to use biology to explain social events. People (like sociobiologists) do attempt this all the time but they are open to challenge.

There is no doubt that, for example, our brains as physical organs respond to factors such as a poor oxygen supply when playing chess seriously. The mechanism is well understood. It is a good idea to exercise physically as well as training intellectually in order to perform better. There is no reason to suspect a sex difference here.

For social phenomena such as the sex differences in playing chess, the correct type of evidence is social and not biological, unless and until you can demonstrate otherwise. Since there are so many strong lines of evidence demonstrating social factors relevant to these sex differences, and such weak and speculative grounds for attributing differences over the chess board to any relevant, defined and properly explained biological differences, I am entitled to challenge any reference to "nature" as a spurious distraction from the real evidence.

Originally posted by finnegan
Okay. Going back to your initial offending post, I select out this sentence of your's: "It is certainly true that many, if not most, claims of biological differences 'explaining' differing performance or preference between men and women are likely bunk, but [b]not all of them are." Now quite simply, that final comment says that some biological differences are relevant to different outcomes between men and women playing chess. [/b]

Now quite simply, that final comment says that some biological differences
are relevant to different outcomes between men and women playing chess.

Actually it says nothing of the sort.

However, even if I was possibly vague on that topic I have since clarified myself.

So why are you still stupidly and incorrectly accusing me of suggesting that
there are biological differences in ability between men and women playing chess?

Originally posted by finnegan
Okay. Going back to your initial offending post, I select out this sentence of your's: "It is certainly true that many, if not most, claims of biological differences 'explaining' differing performance or preference between men and women are likely bunk, but [b]not all of them are." Now quite simply, that final comment says that some biological differen ...[text shortened]... ntitled to challenge any reference to "nature" as a spurious distraction from the real evidence.[/b]

An amazing post! Content, reason, explanation, everything that the spirituality forum is lacking.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Now it's hard to tell which differences are caused by social conditioning [nurture] and those that are
encoded for in our DNA and developmental process [nature]. Most are probably [and often demonstrably] nurture and not nature.

The usual way to find differences less impacted by social conditioning is to study young children. There have been plenty of scientific studies that have shown differences between male and female behaviour even in early childhood. Of course these differences cover a range of behaviour with some overlap so there are girls that act more like boys than the average girl and boys that act more like girls than the average boy.
Also keep in mind that the 'nurture' part may include the environment in the womb.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Now quite simply, that final comment says that some biological differences
are relevant to different outcomes between men and women playing chess.

Actually it says nothing of the sort.

However, even if I was possibly vague on that topic I have since clarified myself.

So why are you still stupidly and incorrectly accusing me of s ...[text shortened]... ggesting that
there are biological differences in ability between men and women playing chess?

For the reasons stated. But let's not flog it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The usual way to find differences less impacted by social conditioning is to study young children. There have been plenty of scientific studies that have shown differences between male and female behaviour even in early childhood. Of course these differences cover a range of behaviour with some overlap so there are girls that act more like boys than the a ...[text shortened]... average boy.
Also keep in mind that the 'nurture' part may include the environment in the womb.

Yes, I know.

That's why I made the point that it's not true that there are no biological differences between the sexes.

The detail is very complicated, far more so than the guy quoted in the OP has any conception of.

But as all I am saying is that there ARE some biological differences, the detail is superfluous to
my point.

Originally posted by finnegan
For the reasons stated. But let's not flog it.

You are accusing me of quite a serious crime that I did not commit.

You're going to retract that or regret it.

I have given you ample opportunity to realise your mistake, now it looks intentional.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes, I know.

That's why I made the point that it's not true that there are no biological differences between the sexes.

The detail is very complicated, far more so than the guy quoted in the OP has any conception of.

But as all I am saying is that there ARE some biological differences, the detail is superfluous to
my point.

"That's why I made the point that it's not true that there are no biological differences between the sexes."
Sadly, the trivial observation that there are biological differences between the sexes - presumably including the fact they are different sexes - has no bearing on the issue of performance in chess, so your persistence in referring to these differences requires correction in this context.

Earlier, you wrote:
"It is certainly true that many, if not most, claims of biological differences 'explaining' differing performance or preference between men and women are likely bunk,..." appears to concede that the biological differences are not relevant, but then you qualify that by saying
"but not all of them are." Not all such claims are bunk. You say. Well I say that in the absence of a more coherent argument, all of them are bunk and I flatly dispute your comment. I went on above to justify my position with reference to the concept of "levels of explanation." I am not being arbitrary or off hand with you - I have taken the trouble to set out my case.

I am not misrepresenting what you wrote. You need to take responsibility for your own words. Neither am I making a big deal out of this - I suggested above that we let the matter rest. I still think that would be best. It is tedious to have to reiterate what I said before, since all you have to do is refer to the earlier posts and read for yourself what I wrote then, just as I have referred again and again to what you wrote, which I have not misquoted, and which you can read for yourself. What is the point?

As for the crime of which you say you stand accused - there are no thought crimes on RHP to my knowledge so you are dealing in hyperbole.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my argument is that the materialist has reduced the human experience to electrochemical impulses and biological mechanisms.

That is totally true, we ARE our molecules, nothing more. We have some magnetic fields sticking out of our bodies and likewise with some electrical fields but that is not some magical spirit world, we essentially stop at the skin.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
An amazing post! Content, reason, explanation, everything that the spirituality forum is lacking.

But you've been here the whole time. How can it be that we lack these things? 😕

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
But you've been here the whole time. How can it be that we lack these things? 😕

Yes its a great enigma, I spend all of my time defending myself from misrepresentation and outright falsehood. 😵