I think Joe Joyce's post on "male predominance at chess" make more sense
than the study itself. The explanation of gender differences in Chess may
be simpler yet. **On average**, men are more likely than women to purse
activities that have no social utility apart from the pleasure of doing
that activity. Chess is in that category (as indeed are checkers, card
games, etc.) No insult intended--I am interested in Chess variants for my
own pleasure and no other reason and feel no need to apologize to anyone
for that fact, and neither judge nor wish to judge anyone else for doing
the same.
I have considered that Chess can teach critical thinking, strategic
planning, etc. Yes it can, but so can a myriad of non-game things useful in
themselves apart from teaching.
"Male predominance at chess" is a current fact of reality. I suspect
there are males who believe this has 1) always been true, 2) always will be
true, and 3) SHOULD be true. A significant number of such males will then
reason by analogy about "male predominance in science", etc.
I won't touch of the idea of a female human being who argues for "male
predominance ...", the very idea terrifies me.
