lippin@lipton.berkeley.edu (The Apathist) (03/28/91)
Recently rao@cl.bull.fr (Srinivasam Rao) wrote: > Why don't the members of the "weaker" sex prove themselves by > competing with men in the World Chess Championship and becoming the > world champion. Atleast here, they cannot claim any disadvantage of > physical or mental "weakness" can they. This relates to a question I've pondered: there are certain male-dominated fields, such as programming and chess, in which a form of mastery is attained by starting young and practicing obsessively through adolescence. (I'm thinking of hackers in particular here.) Few people, if any, develop the same kind of skill later in life, although they may master the field through a different approach (say, through learning computer science.) Are there fields in which women achieve mastery in this way? Presumably I would have ignored them back when I knew more adolescent girls -- I was too busy being obsessed with male-dominated things. Or are girls spared these obsessions, perhaps through earlier adolescence or greater social skills? In either case, this may explain why the spread of feminism hasn't caused a great increase in the number of female chess masters -- few women have given feminism a great deal of thought at age twelve. --Tom Lippincott lippin@math.berkeley.edu "In heaven people are more understanding about this than down here." --Lynda Barry
arw@world.std.com (Anthony R Wuersch) (03/29/91)
lippin@lipton.berkeley.edu (The Apathist) writes: >male-dominated fields, such as programming and chess, in which a form >of mastery is attained by starting young and practicing obsessively >through adolescence. >Are there fields in which women achieve mastery in this way? Fashion design. Order pattern guides from Vogue or Butterick and subscribe to Womens Wear Daily. Mother and daughter (or son) can attend sewing classes together. Writing. Dancing. Acting. Music. >In either case, this may explain why the spread of feminism hasn't >caused a great increase in the number of female chess masters -- few >women have given feminism a great deal of thought at age twelve. Well .... perhaps twelve year olds can be *innocent* feminists! I read in NY Times Magazine of interviews conducted by Carol Gilligan's students, of twelve and sixteen year old girls. The roles imagined by the twelve year olds are substantially trimmed down and reduced by age sixteen. A book edited by Gilligan about this interview work is in the stores. The population sampled by these interviews is not well specified, but I think it's the children of those people most likely to buy the book. Shrewd choice :-). Toni PS: if "(The Apathist)" is a mathematician, do we interpret his moniker topologically or psychologically? -- Toni Wuersch arw@world.std.com {uunet,bu.edu,bloom-beacon}!world!arw
sethg@athena.mit.EDU ("Seth A. Gordon") (04/03/91)
A friend of mine, who is a fairly good chess player, says that in order to play chess at the international-master level, you need to be aggressive; you have to treat the other player as an enemy to be demolished, not just someone you're playing a game with. He has made a conscious choice to be a nice guy instead of a master chess player. If he's right about chess and attitude, then when boys are socialized to be more aggressive than girls, it helps male chess players win more games than female players. Furthermore, if chess-playing ability is distributed in a normal curve (or something similar), a small difference in the ability of average players implies a massive difference in the ability of grandmaster-level players. -- -- "Some people get results, I get consequences." --Jimmy Durante : bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!sethg / standard disclaimer : Seth Gordon / MIT Brnch., PO Box 53, Cambridge, MA 02139
ghenrick%unix2.tcd.ie@EVANS.UCAR.EDU (04/05/91)
In <1991Apr1.030506.16835@athena.mit.edu> sethg@athena.mit.EDU ("Seth A. Gordon") writes: >A friend of mine, who is a fairly good chess player, says that in >order to play chess at the international-master level, you need to be >aggressive; you have to treat the other player as an enemy to be >demolished, not just someone you're playing a game with. He has made >a conscious choice to be a nice guy instead of a master chess player. >If he's right about chess and attitude, then when boys are socialized So lets get more girls playing chess.Big deal. >to be more aggressive than girls, it helps male chess players win more >games than female players. Teach girls to plan,think and go for what they want and to get it. Apathy sucks! >Furthermore, if chess-playing ability is distributed in a normal curve >(or something similar), a small difference in the ability of average >players implies a massive difference in the ability of >grandmaster-level players. But what are the variables to be taken into account when deciding how to produce such a graph. Does IQ come into it? Does how social(friendly etc) a player is come into it? Does age come into it? In what proportions? You generalise too much(So do I, but what the heck.). >-- -- The Lord said unto Gavin. "Many Talents have you not, So make the most of those I gave you."
rivero@dev8.mdcbbs.com (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr1.030506.16835@athena.mit.edu>, sethg@athena.mit.EDU ("Seth A. Gordon") writes: > A friend of mine, who is a fairly good chess player, says that in > order to play chess at the international-master level, you need to be > aggressive; you have to treat the other player as an enemy to be > demolished, not just someone you're playing a game with. He has made > a conscious choice to be a nice guy instead of a master chess player. > > If he's right about chess and attitude, then when boys are socialized > to be more aggressive than girls, it helps male chess players win more > games than female players. > > Furthermore, if chess-playing ability is distributed in a normal curve > (or something similar), a small difference in the ability of average > players implies a massive difference in the ability of > grandmaster-level players. > It's not just chess. Men are sociallized to operate in packs ( football, basketball, baseball, platoons), while women are basically conditioned to operate as a single unit.
alex@uunet.uu.net (Alex Matulich) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr4.123252.1@dev8.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8.mdcbbs.com writes: >It's not just chess. Men are socialized to operate in packs ( football, >basketball, baseball, platoons), while women are basically conditioned >to operate as a single unit. Are they? It seems to me that there is a large segment of the male population who are not socialized in this way. They are the ones that don't enjoy team sports, and would rather engage in mountain climbing, surfing, skiing, hang-gliding, and so on. And don't forget computer programming! This is definitely a male-dominated activity (often done as a hobby, too), and it's about the most lonely and un-packlike activity I can imagine. If there are a lot of males who aren't socialized to operate in packs, why can't there be a lot of females who are? I am not sure of the validity of your argument. -- _ |__ Alex Matulich (alex@bilver.UUCP) /(+__> Unicorn Research Corp, 4621 N Landmark Dr, Orlando, FL 32817 //| \ UUCP: ...uunet!tarpit!bilver!alex ///__) bitnet: IN%"bilver!alex@uunet.uu.net"
erich@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Erich Stefan Boleyn) (04/09/91)
bilver!alex@uunet.uu.net (Alex Matulich) writes: >In article <1991Apr4.123252.1@dev8.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8.mdcbbs.com writes: >>It's not just chess. Men are socialized to operate in packs ( football, >>basketball, baseball, platoons), while women are basically conditioned >>to operate as a single unit. >Are they? It seems to me that there is a large segment of the male >population who are not socialized in this way. ...[examples deleted]... >If there are a lot of males who aren't socialized to operate in packs, >why can't there be a lot of females who are? I am not sure of the >validity of your argument. Well, there is also the question of what do you mean by "socialized". It is true that male children are generally expected to play "boys games", and amoung each other to participate in certain social roles, but that is not quite the same as packs. It is more like primate social behavior, which is similar, albeit not the same. This is certainly not provalent in all things that men do, but there are shades of it in the competitive nature. Notice that this does not imply that they relate communally on all of the different levels. It is pretty well known that the "traditional" male subculture tends to encourage men to not discuss their emotions much, and to be aggressive and independent in other fields. (I presonally tend to think that the independence and emotional isolation pieces are closely related) As mentioned in another thread, there is also a push for success... which in keeping men interested in "male" things, makes women's things seem less important, or of much lower status. It would be hard to say what women "are conditioned to do", having had no direct experience as a woman, but I would tend to think that women are socialized to act together in a supportive fashion (perhaps the last part are shades of feminism in the culture that I cannot distinguish), and to be more socially conformist and dependent (if not dependent, to rely on others more). For example, I remember many more males in my high school class who were intellectually curious and cared little about grades than females (the ratio was astonishngly high, we had many discussions about this). An interesting experiment (with somewhat related data from parental treatment) that I remember seeing done (on a program like NOVA, but I forget) was where male children and female children at very young ages (about 2 years or so) were given a task to do. They had to get out of an enclosure where it was more-or-less impossible to do so, but looked like it may be possible. The really interesting results were that the girls tended to give up much quicker than the boys, and responded differently (cried for a parent earlier), as compared to fuming around first, then doing so. Related data of parental treatment presented in the program showed a observational study done on several couples (supposedly "liberated" and equal in attitudes of females and males) who gove *very* differential treatment of their children. First, girls were held much more by their mothers than boys were, even in two-children families where age differences were taken into account. Second, boys were expected by fathers to work harder to achieve a solution to some problem, while the girls were supported whether they succeeded or not (sort of a "hey, it only matters that you had fun or tried" type reaction). I don't mean to say that there is some inevitable result like this, or that it is bad to hold a child a lot or even that you shouldn't let them get away with not finding the solution... just that these *very basic* tendencies of aggressive problem solving, independence, dependacy, whatever, are given initial programming (and quite strong, I may add) at a very young age, and as one person in an earlier article pointed out, one of the best places to start is by questioning the institutions that give rise to the behaviors... I say we should also question how we treat children, also at older ages, and very carefully. An interesting side-note is that I remember being told a story of when I was very young and being told to come inside because it was going to rain. I then marched out onto the porch and proceeded to yell at the clouds, shaking my fist, and saying, "You mean clouds, go away, I want to play outside!" or some such. Erich "I haven't lost my mind; I know exactly where it is." / -- Erich Stefan Boleyn -- \ --=> *Mad Genius wanna-be* <=-- { Honorary Grad. Student (Math) }--> Internet E-mail: <erich@cs.pdx.edu> \ Portland State University / Phone #: (503) 289-4635
hrose@cs.bu.edu (Helen Trillian Rose) (04/10/91)
Alex> == Alex Matulich <bilver!alex@uunet.uu.net>
Alex> And don't forget computer programming! This is definitely a
Alex> male-dominated activity (often done as a hobby, too), and it's about
Alex> the most lonely and un-packlike activity I can imagine.
I don't agree. I'm female. I like to program/hack on computers. I even
like to do this with friends (not all male, mind you) in a group,
perhaps in a terminal room at school, perhaps elsewhere. It's actually
more productive this way.... we don't end up spending all of our lives
sending each other email asking questions on projects we are working on
together. :) Hacking all-night is even more fun!
Alex> If there are a lot of males who aren't socialized to operate in packs,
Alex> why can't there be a lot of females who are? I am not sure of the
Alex> validity of your argument.
I'll note that the guys *and* girls I hack with *don't* usually operate
in "packs", but they operate well under the situation I described
above... would you consider that a pack? If not, why?
--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose
<hrose@cs.bu.edu, hrose@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu>
"Oh, go get raped by a TARC bus, Jef (Poskanzer)" -- Marci Yesowitch
(yesowitc@ucunix.san.uc.edu)vince@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Vince Mous) (04/11/91)
In article <1991Apr4.123252.1@dev8.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8.mdcbbs.com writes: >In article <1991Apr1.030506.16835@athena.mit.edu>, sethg@athena.mit.EDU ("Seth A. Gordon") writes: |> A friend of mine, who is a fairly good chess player, says that in |> order to play chess at the international-master level, you need to be |> aggressive; you have to treat the other player as an enemy to be |> demolished, not just someone you're playing a game with. He has made |> a conscious choice to be a nice guy instead of a master chess player. |> If he's right about chess and attitude, then when boys are socialized |> to be more aggressive than girls, it helps male chess players win more |> games than female players. |> Furthermore, if chess-playing ability is distributed in a normal curve |> (or something similar), a small difference in the ability of average |> players implies a massive difference in the ability of |> grandmaster-level players. >It's not just chess. Men are socialized to operate in packs ( football, >basketball, baseball, platoons), while women are basically conditioned >to operate as a single unit. Actually, men are socialized/expected to operate as a single unit (chess, lone wolf/ranger, 'Rambo' style macho hero) and take care of their problems on their own (boys don't cry) while women are socialized to operate in packs (high school dance choreography, band, volleyball, ringette, activists) and have their support group of friends/confidantes to whom they can talk for emotional support. i guess this means we're both wrong, huh? i don't think dealing in stereotypes helps us get anywhere. i don't play or like football/basketball/baseball and am not in the army. i also have friends whom i can count on for support. i am pretty sure that this all depends on the individual much more than the sex of the person. Other than that, i don't think being socialized to operate in packs is really equivalent to being socialized to be aggressive, though i'm not sure i agree with that statement either. -- ___ __ ___ _ _ ____ ___ | \/ \ / _ \(o) (o)( __]/ _ \ (vince@mitel.com) | |\/| |( <_> )\@^@/ _\ \ ( </ / 'SOURIS puisque c'est grave 8^)' |_| |_| \___/ ={.}=[____) \____] Are you a man or a mouse? BOTH
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (04/13/91)
In article <HROSE.91Apr9150044@bucsd.bu.edu> hrose@cs.bu.edu (Helen Trillian Rose) writes:
Alex> == Alex Matulich <bilver!alex@uunet.uu.net>
Alex> And don't forget computer programming! This is definitely a
Alex> male-dominated activity (often done as a hobby, too), and it's about
Alex> the most lonely and un-packlike activity I can imagine.
I don't agree. I'm female. I like to program/hack on computers. I even
like to do this with friends (not all male, mind you) in a group,
perhaps in a terminal room at school, perhaps elsewhere. It's actually
more productive this way.... we don't end up spending all of our lives
sending each other email asking questions on projects we are working on
together. :) Hacking all-night is even more fun!
I agree with the second poster; my first major socializing was done
with a bunch of computer people, which is one of the reasons why I
ended up in computer science. I had taken a few courses and enjoyed
them, but hanging out (and going out) with computer people in the
computer lab at my university was how I got into some of the more
interesting things that could be done with computers.
Certainly, you can find out about these on your own, but it certainly
helps to have other people show you where to find the talk programs,
the bulletin boards, and the games. They also showed me how to
include assembly-language routines so I could make the games I wrote
use cursor control, pointed out good classes, etc. We also spent a
lot of time doing more "social" things, such as deadly lawn frisbee,
movies, dinner, endless repeating of comedy routines, picnics in the
park (more food and frisbees), philosophizing, etc. I found
programming much less lonely than life in high school. The group I
hung out with, by the way, was about 5-1 male to female, and the men
seemed quite social to me.
Muffy