edit: take not volleyball, but chess. Let's take top1000 players by ELO, is it Ok to note that most are male?
Exhibit A: top chess players.
Exhibit B: it is known that gender gap in tech is _higher_ in more advanced and liberal countries (i.e. it is higher in Sweden than in Thailand)
It's easy to say things are "not impossible." It's not impossible that were society restructured to systematically favor the current (vs. innate, whether ostensible or in fact) female gender roles that women would significantly outperform men on more mental tasks than they do today. No, it's not impossible. It is highly speculative based on many assumed truths.
In truth, I don't have an issue with the belief or implication that women and men think differently. I do take issue that one is superior to the other based on present-day conditions. Men used to be better doctors. Men used to be better dentists. Men used to be better lots of things, when you took a snapshot in time. But, as barriers to entry were removed, and the gender balance began to change, and more women were participating in developing the next generation, and shaping the roles they were now participating in, the innate capability gap seemed to disappear. That may not be a phenomenon that repeats itself in every occupation, but I don't think we can say that about technology yet.
What I'm not saying: men and women are innately equal at everything. What I am saying: relying on the analogy of physical tasks implies females are the disadvantaged group, where there is much more cultural noise that works to favor men on many sets of criteria.
> Exhibit A: top chess players.
There's no historical context to the game of chess that has traditionally favored men over women? This male-dominated mind game, taught by men, in ways that were honed around how men learn, in an environment that men were always welcome in, somehow has better results for men? Am I off-base here? I don't know the history of chess.
> Exhibit B: it is known that gender gap in tech is _higher_ in more advanced and liberal countries (i.e. it is higher in Sweden than in Thailand)
If you've got a reference for me I'd read it. I can't honestly react to this known fact without seeing the research behind it. I'm dubious that enough of the surround contextual variables were controlled for (e.g., size and maturity of the tech industry, workforce participation of the genders, etc.).
See, maybe there was. But you're claiming that this historic context is the sole explanation for all observable difference. This claim is non-falsifiable, so there's nothing to discuss - you will always claim more reasons which are impossible to (dis)prove. But real people have their lives ruined for even suggesting otherwise.
>> s females are the disadvantaged group,
Look. Females are disadvantaged in volleyball, right? Why can't they be disadvantaged in something else (and advantaged in something else still)? And do you realise that this does not say anything about specific individuals? Like, even if you know this 6'3" girl, women are still shorter on average. Before you say "how can you conflate physical and mental" - well, everything is physical, your engineering performance is the neurons doing their chemical jobs.
My claim is that it is _possible_ that biology explains the difference in observed chess performance between men and women. And people should not have their life ruined for trying to discuss this.
You might want to read http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger... for more at-depth discussion
I'm not claiming that, I don't know! And neither do any of us, at least presently. That is my point. We're effectively as far from falsifiability with my statement as yours. We don't know to what extent that systemic history exerts an effect, and to what extent it doesn't. Maybe given an equal history, women would be better! Or they'd still be worse.
> My claim is that it is _possible_ that biology explains the difference in observed chess performance between men and women.
Sure, it's possible. It's also possible that given an equal history where women were the advantaged gender, a women would be here arguing the same thing in the opposite direction.
We can argue a million things are possible, to what end? When it's all just speculation, the argument feels more like a philosophical exercise that challenges the fitness of one subgroup more-so than it an honest engagement of a meaty topic (fairly or unfairly). That's because it seems to normalize the idea of genetic mental weakness, even with acknowledging the lack of proof. And while it doesn't speak to any one individual, it can serve to create a perception that individuals from those groups are less capable as an a priori assumption. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, but it does make it challenging to do so, and people have their guard up for totally understandable and contextually-appropriate reasons.
> And people should not have their life ruined for trying to discuss this.
I agree with that.
What are we going to do to solve this problem? Perhaps we should encourage more women in chess and train them better from all early age.
Chess is sexist! Why do we even encourage things like chess in this enlightened age.
And only a sexist person would bring up chess in this discussion. Atone!
/s