Invisible pieces

[Nigel Short]

Nigel did you not once describe a fellow GM as ‘morose, jealous and inebriated Danny Gormally’ in a print article? Please do go on Sky News again and tell the world you were right.

How pathetic you are. When your biliousness and spite is exposed for what it is, and you have no rational arguments left, what else is there to do but change subject?

If you wish to start a new topic on the Board Index entitled "Danny Gormally" then please do so. I hope people find it of great interest. Incidentally, if I described him as "morose, jealous and inebriated" when he punched Armenia's national hero, in a nightclub, it was because he was. I was there. You weren't.

On your last inane point, of many: I only go on Sky News when I am invited to do so. But then again, I think you knew that already, didn't you?

[Matt Bridgeman]

I’m not engaging with you anymore Nigel. You are just showing yourself up now. As Justin said this should just be about the original piece.

[Gerard Killoran]

Why hasn't Nigel Short replied to my post which exposed how he misquoted (and distorted) one of his sources?

[Nigel Short]

Why hasn't Nigel Short replied to my post which exposed how he misquoted (and distorted) one of his sources?

In five years on this subject, you may have been the first person to show that I may have been in error on a point of fact, rather than opinion. If I have been wrong on the question of grey and white matter (as I strongly suspect is the case) then I have no problems in acknowledging that.

It does not, however, alter the general point that male and female brains are fundamentally different.

[Gerard Killoran]

In five years on this subject, you may have been the first person to show that I may have been in error on a point of fact, rather than opinion. If I have been wrong on the question grey and white matter (as I strongly suspect is the case) then I have no problems in acknowledging that.

It does not, however, alter the general point that male and female brains are fundamentally different.

I'm afraid this is not an adequate reply. There is no 'if' or 'may'. It is obvious you have not gone back and checked your sources, otherwise you would know you were wrong and I would expect a complete retraction and apology.

[JustinHorton]

It does not, however, alter the general point that male and female brains are fundamentally different.

Well Gina Rippon says different, so who should we trust here

[John Moore]

Here we go again. The problem is that the views of Gina Rippon and her supporters do not have universal support, by any means, in the scientific community.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Here we go again. The problem is that the views of Gina Rippon and her supporters do not have universal support, by any means, in the scientific community.

Help us out John. Is the scientific community generally supporting a different argument currently or has there been a shift towards it being unclear at present?

[Nigel Short]

Here we go again. The problem is that the views of Gina Rippon and her supporters do not have universal support, by any means, in the scientific community.

Help us out John. Is the scientific community generally supporting a different argument currently or has there been a shift towards it being unclear at present?

...or against her.

That is another possibility by the way.

[JustinHorton]

Here we go again. The problem is that the views of Gina Rippon and her supporters do not have universal support, by any means, in the scientific community.

They don't, but that's not the argument: the argument is that the statement that "the general point [is] that male and female brains are fundamentally different" is patently not one we can make as if it were established fact.

[Nigel Short]

In five years on this subject, you may have been the first person to show that I may have been in error on a point of fact, rather than opinion. If I have been wrong on the question grey and white matter (as I strongly suspect is the case) then I have no problems in acknowledging that.

It does not, however, alter the general point that male and female brains are fundamentally different.

I'm afraid this is not an adequate reply. There is no 'if' or 'may'. It is obvious you have not gone back and checked your sources, otherwise you would know you were wrong and I would expect a complete retraction and apology.

Grow up.

[John Moore]

Matt, I am not sure that I can. I am no expert and I am not aware that we have any neuroscientists on the Forum!

Suffice it to say, there appear to be a range of different views and little likelihood of any consensus being reached anytime soon (probably rather like the Forum). Perhaps we should not be surprised in such a complex subject.

[Roger de Coverly]

The gender gap in top chess is not explained by the difference in population sizes, as professor Wei Ji Ma claims. When matching population sizes, the gap remains substantial.

I was trying to think of examples of the Norwegian effect (Norway has far too few players to generate a World Champion). This would be where you take a semi-independent pool of players, either by age or nationality, and find whether there's female player at the top. An obvious example is Judit Polgar, both by age when under 12 and later as top Hungarian. It's difficult to think of many more, Harriet Hunt may briefly have been top English junior by some definitions.

[JustinHorton]

I'm almost sure an Open team at the last Olympiad had a woman on top board, though I can't remember which team and I don't think it was somewhere with a large pool of players (nor does it follow that they were necessarily the highest-rated player).

[John Moore]

Here we go again. The problem is that the views of Gina Rippon and her supporters do not have universal support, by any means, in the scientific community.

They don't, but that's not the argument: the argument is that the statement that "the general point [is] that male and female brains are fundamentally different" is patently not one we can make as if it were established fact.

No, perhaps not, or at least not without a great deal of supporting argument as to the areas in which they are different. This is where Baron-Cohen's work on autism is relevant and where he would differ from Gina Rippon.

There is no reason why the Forum should not have this discussion, but I doubt that any reasonable conclusions are likely to be reached where those who spend their lives working in the field cannot find common ground in some areas.