Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by Magna »

lieph82 wrote:I wonder how many women have a chess ranking (which would just indicate how many women have played in a qualified chess tournament), period. If 5000 men and 100 women play in a poker tournament, and there are only 2 women in the top 100, then proportionally, women are doing just as well as men.
Self-selection could (theoretically) also reflect ability. If as a whole a group doesn't do as well in casual play, they might be somewhat less likely to enter higher-level mixed competitions - although they might be more likely to enter competitions specific to their group.

User avatar
lieph82
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by lieph82 »

Magna wrote:
lieph82 wrote:I wonder how many women have a chess ranking (which would just indicate how many women have played in a qualified chess tournament), period. If 5000 men and 100 women play in a poker tournament, and there are only 2 women in the top 100, then proportionally, women are doing just as well as men.
Self-selection could also reflect ability. If as a whole a group doesn't do as well in casual play, they might be somewhat less likely to enter higher-level mixed competitions - although they might be more likely to enter competitions specific to their group.
Yes, but "as a whole a group doesn't do as well in casual play" might be a misconceived stereotype. Just because there are more men at the top doesn't mean women as a whole are doing worse than men as a whole.

Edit: You added the "theoretically" after I quoted you, and yes, I agree, that's a valid theory.

User avatar
econgator
Let's Go Mets!
Posts: 9098
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by econgator »

lieph82 wrote:I wonder how many women have a chess ranking (which would just indicate how many women have played in a qualified chess tournament), period.
I don't know about just a ranking, but as of 1/2014 the FIDE lists 1444 GM's -- 31 are female.

User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by Magna »

lieph82 wrote:Edit: You added the "theoretically" after I quoted you, and yes, I agree, that's a valid theory.
Fwiw, just thought I ought to qualify that. I have no idea if that's true or not - but it could be. If people are trying to pin it down, they'd need to deal with that possibility.

User avatar
lieph82
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by lieph82 »

econgator wrote:
lieph82 wrote:I wonder how many women have a chess ranking (which would just indicate how many women have played in a qualified chess tournament), period.
I don't know about just a ranking, but as of 1/2014 the FIDE lists 1444 GM's -- 31 are female.
Right, but I'm sure there are many more lowly ranked chess players that are men than lowly ranked chess players that are women. 31/1444 sounds like a very small number, but I wouldn't be surprised if 10x as many males played in chess tournaments at any level than females, and then proportionally 31/1444 looks a lot better.

User avatar
silverscreentest
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 951
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:30 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by silverscreentest »

Silver Screen Test, my movie trivia game show. Watch some of the episodes On-Demand.

User avatar
rouquinne
Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:32 pm
Location: London, Canada

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by rouquinne »

Arthur - I posted this to Twitter this morning...

Your article on The Daily Beast is one more reason I love you.

From the bottom of my heart - thank you!

User avatar
Woof
Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 4325
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by Woof »

rouquinne wrote:Arthur - I posted this to Twitter this morning...

Your article on The Daily Beast is one more reason I love you.

From the bottom of my heart - thank you!
Since this topic has reached this board, I'll add the following anecdote. I attended, in the late '70s, a prestigious science and engineering college that was predominantly male (about 8:1 at the time of my attendance). With such a disparity, one would think that the men would be on their best behavior to attract the relatively scarce females, but sadly just the opposite was true. I was shocked by the amount of hostility directed toward the women that I saw, although it was often couched as pseudo-humor. In particular, one very attractive woman (who had a boyfriend at another college) was tormented and left for Berkeley after a year. At the root of this hostility, I suspect, is just the sort of twisted narrative that Arthur mentions in his article. It's sad and pointless, but, now, we also know that it's tied to misogynistic violence of the worst sort.

User avatar
Dr. J
Decade Battler and Mustache Maker
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:35 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by Dr. J »

rouquinne wrote:Arthur - I posted this to Twitter this morning...

Your article on The Daily Beast is one more reason I love you.

From the bottom of my heart - thank you!
Arthur, I've thanked you on every social media platform I use, and I'll do it again here because allies are SO important, and when men speak out about misogyny and sexism, they get heard (part of the reality of a sexist culture!). I've taught Women's Studies for 20 years (crap...how did THAT happen? I'm old.) so none of this is new to me, but after a while you just get inured to it and forget that sexism doesn't have to be normalized and shouldn't be normalized in any culture.

User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8782
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by dhkendall »

Dr. J wrote:
rouquinne wrote:Arthur - I posted this to Twitter this morning...

Your article on The Daily Beast is one more reason I love you.

From the bottom of my heart - thank you!
Arthur, I've thanked you on every social media platform I use, and I'll do it again here because allies are SO important, and when men speak out about misogyny and sexism, they get heard (part of the reality of a sexist culture!). I've taught Women's Studies for 20 years (crap...how did THAT happen? I'm old.) so none of this is new to me, but after a while you just get inured to it and forget that sexism doesn't have to be normalized and shouldn't be normalized in any culture.
I remember 20 years ago (crap...how did THAT happen? I'm old) when I was a student in university (my alma mater has a reputation of being a rather liberal place, somewhat like the Berkely of the prairies) I had a woman in one of my classes ask me if I was a feminist. I told her I wasn't sure, but "aren't only women feminists by definition?" (I was young and naive at the time. Now I am definitely no longer young.) She asked me if I believe in equality for women, that they be treated the same as everyone else in all respects. I replied "of course" (aware of a few who don't, but also thinking that that's basic human decency, who wouldn't?) She replied, "there you go, you're a feminist." That has stuck with me (much more than a lot of the things I was paid to learn at that university (I don't even remember which class this took place in)).
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

Follow my progress game by game since 2012

User avatar
Dr. J
Decade Battler and Mustache Maker
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:35 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by Dr. J »

dhkendall wrote:I remember 20 years ago (crap...how did THAT happen? I'm old) when I was a student in university (my alma mater has a reputation of being a rather liberal place, somewhat like the Berkely of the prairies) I had a woman in one of my classes ask me if I was a feminist. I told her I wasn't sure, but "aren't only women feminists by definition?" (I was young and naive at the time. Now I am definitely no longer young.) She asked me if I believe in equality for women, that they be treated the same as everyone else in all respects. I replied "of course" (aware of a few who don't, but also thinking that that's basic human decency, who wouldn't?) She replied, "there you go, you're a feminist." That has stuck with me (much more than a lot of the things I was paid to learn at that university (I don't even remember which class this took place in)).
One of the first things I have my students do in Intro to WMS is discuss what they "think" feminism is (or feminists are) and we play around with that. I ask them how many would define themselves as such? (A few, but not very many, and NO men) Then they look up the definition and are amazed that they all fit. By the end of the semester, they can't believe they didn't self-identify sooner. When we started our gender studies minor at my current college, we had a now quite well-known feminist blogger and author deliver a keynote. The pres of the college -- a dude, natch -- introduced her and spent a good 5-10 minutes talking about how he thought gender studies was well and good and all, but he sure hoped this new program wouldn't get all "political." We just sat there, gobsmacked. Heaven forbid the ladyfolks complain about systems of inequality where they just don't exist, right? (There's a reason we made our first chair of the program a dude.)

How 'bout that Jeopardy, huh? Fun game for girls AND boys! :)

User avatar
sarah0114
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:15 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by sarah0114 »

Careful now... it seems like we might be rifting into an outchange.

User avatar
lieph82
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by lieph82 »

sarah0114 wrote:Careful now... it seems like we might be rifting into an outchange.
It's all funny now, but wait until you're at the TOC and an audience member runs up on stage, foaming at the mouth, screaming about how the male race is being decimated by you scheming, outchanging, rifttrending little girls.

User avatar
Dr. J
Decade Battler and Mustache Maker
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:35 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by Dr. J »

lieph82 wrote:
sarah0114 wrote:Careful now... it seems like we might be rifting into an outchange.
It's all funny now, but wait until you're at the TOC and an audience member runs up on stage, foaming at the mouth, screaming about how the male race is being decimated by you scheming, outchanging, rifttrending little girls.
Does MTG"collegestudent" have tickets already?

Maggie has been carefully staging this rift for years...I'm convinced of it -- there really IS a conspiracy!!

User avatar
zakharov
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 7:27 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by zakharov »

Dr. J wrote:
lieph82 wrote:
sarah0114 wrote:Careful now... it seems like we might be rifting into an outchange.
It's all funny now, but wait until you're at the TOC and an audience member runs up on stage, foaming at the mouth, screaming about how the male race is being decimated by you scheming, outchanging, rifttrending little girls.
Does MTG"collegestudent" have tickets already?

Maggie has been carefully staging this rift for years...I'm convinced of it -- there really IS a conspiracy!!
Finally, an explanation for why I didn't get the call after my last two auditions.
4-time pool swimmer - last audition June 2019
Follow me on Twitter @JakeMHS

User avatar
El Jefe
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:26 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by El Jefe »

rouquinne wrote:Arthur...From the bottom of my heart - thank you!
Ditto, Arthur. You continue to prove that you brook no b.s., well written. My favorite parts were when you anticipated the predictable logical fallacies (/intentional misunderstandings) and dismissed them in fine form.

You deserve a column- Ask Arthur

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by gnash »

Well, I've voiced my opinion elsewhere and I'll voice it here. I think Arthur's article makes mistaken and dangerous connections between nerdism, or socially inept behavior, and violence. It contributes to an unfortunate trend of bullying and shaming people for what is essentially a disability (a mild one, but nevertheless).

User avatar
MDaunt
Weighed in the balance and found wanting
Posts: 737
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by MDaunt »

Dr. J wrote:
rouquinne wrote:Arthur - I posted this to Twitter this morning...

Your article on The Daily Beast is one more reason I love you.

From the bottom of my heart - thank you!
Arthur, I've thanked you on every social media platform I use, and I'll do it again here because allies are SO important, and when men speak out about misogyny and sexism, they get heard (part of the reality of a sexist culture!). I've taught Women's Studies for 20 years (crap...how did THAT happen? I'm old.) so none of this is new to me, but after a while you just get inured to it and forget that sexism doesn't have to be normalized and shouldn't be normalized in any culture.
I was rather surprised at the pushback I saw when I posted that to my Facebook wall. Pushback from an intelligent person I respect.

Luckily, Dr. J was handy with the smackdown.

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by gnash »

lieph82 wrote:
Magna wrote:
lieph82 wrote:I wonder how many women have a chess ranking (which would just indicate how many women have played in a qualified chess tournament), period. If 5000 men and 100 women play in a poker tournament, and there are only 2 women in the top 100, then proportionally, women are doing just as well as men.
Self-selection could also reflect ability. If as a whole a group doesn't do as well in casual play, they might be somewhat less likely to enter higher-level mixed competitions - although they might be more likely to enter competitions specific to their group.
Yes, but "as a whole a group doesn't do as well in casual play" might be a misconceived stereotype. Just because there are more men at the top doesn't mean women as a whole are doing worse than men as a whole.

Edit: You added the "theoretically" after I quoted you, and yes, I agree, that's a valid theory.
Empirically, it is beyond any doubt: women do much, much worse than men in chess. It is not clear that there is any disparity before puberty, but once puberty hits, it's no different from most sports, even though muscular strength plays no role in chess.

Nobody knows why this is, but it clearly isn't explainable by cultural factors (chess stands out among similar games, disparities are similar across countries with very different social norms about gender roles, etc.) My guess is that chess is a pretend fight to death, which makes it more attractive to males at two levels (both because it's a fight to death and because it's an elaborate pretense). But that's just a guess.

OTOH, women are roughly equal with men in bridge. Is Jeopardy! more similar to chess or bridge? It isn't really similar to either...

User avatar
lieph82
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am

Re: Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but...

Post by lieph82 »

gnash wrote:
lieph82 wrote:
Magna wrote:
lieph82 wrote:I wonder how many women have a chess ranking (which would just indicate how many women have played in a qualified chess tournament), period. If 5000 men and 100 women play in a poker tournament, and there are only 2 women in the top 100, then proportionally, women are doing just as well as men.
Self-selection could also reflect ability. If as a whole a group doesn't do as well in casual play, they might be somewhat less likely to enter higher-level mixed competitions - although they might be more likely to enter competitions specific to their group.
Yes, but "as a whole a group doesn't do as well in casual play" might be a misconceived stereotype. Just because there are more men at the top doesn't mean women as a whole are doing worse than men as a whole.

Edit: You added the "theoretically" after I quoted you, and yes, I agree, that's a valid theory.
Empirically, it is beyond any doubt: women do much, much worse than men in chess. It is not clear that there is any disparity before puberty, but once puberty hits, it's no different from most sports, even though muscular strength plays no role in chess.

Nobody knows why this is, but it clearly isn't explainable by cultural factors (chess stands out among similar games, disparities are similar across countries with very different social norms about gender roles, etc.) My guess is that chess is a pretend fight to death, which makes it more attractive to males at two levels (both because it's a fight to death and because it's an elaborate pretense). But that's just a guess.

OTOH, women are roughly equal with men in bridge. Is Jeopardy! more similar to chess or bridge? It isn't really similar to either...
That may be true, but I don't understand how it's "beyond any doubt" unless you respond to my points. Do we really know "women do much, much worse than men in chess?" Isn't it possible that a lot of the reason why there are so many more great male players than female players is that many more males play chess in the first place? Do you have research you can point to that answers this?

Post Reply