Well, depends on what you put effort into and how you’re born and all ig. In some cases people need to let themselves be exploited to survive in the first place. There’s also the luck factor and you can also work hard and be independent but… I give up these are too many factors to consider I am not doing this.

How is your life going for you so far?

There is no emotional difference between the sexes.

except that men in many cultures only express anger and violence because they are told that being sad or talking to someone about feeling overwhelmed means they are weak.

There is a ton of experimental research on emotional reactions from men and women.

Here is what we know.
Men suppress facial expression. But experience the same heightened emotions from viewing unpleasant images or videos.

People who suppress facial expression the most have larger body reactions.

For example. A few ways emotion is measured is increased heat rate. Pupil dilation. Sweating.

Men are more likely to supress facial changes but show increased body stress. Faster heart rate. More sweating. Pupil dilation.

And those changes last longer even after the stimulus is removed (unpleasant video).

Women who suppress show similar patterns.

What we know is this.

Men and women both respond emotionally equally. But men’s intentional suppression of face expressions actually makes them more reactive. And this reactiveness lasts longer.

This is not a biological difference but a social one.

Also fyi Every human cognitive decision is governed by "emotion’. Emotion is how we know to approach or avoid something. Including thoughts.

It feels right. Good. Pleasant. Or wrong. Incorrect. Bad.

No one is exempt from emotions as these are the root cause of motivated behaviors.

When you eat a sandwich. Emotion drove you to it. It felt good and reliving to eat when you were hungry.

It feels good to take a piss.

So it’s absolutely silly when someone says someone else is more emotional.

Nope. What you mean is women express empathy more.

Does it mean men are less empathetic? No. Women just express it more.

Men are told empathy is a sign of weakness. This is toxic masculinity. And it’s bad for men and women.

Also. Those body effects I mentioned. Those are stress responses.

Having longer and more extreme stress responses leads to cardiovascular damage.

Hm. Is that why men die earlier than women from heart disease?

There is evidence that’s a factor. Scientific research evidence.

Suppressing the facial or verbal expression of something is not suppressing it. It’s just changing the way it’s expressed.

Men have high rates of drug and alcohol addiction. Men have higher rates of violence. Highest rates of suicide.

These are all significantly higher than women’s rates.

It’s almost like our gender norms hurt men a lot.

Emotional. As opposed to men who are perfectly rational at all times and totally don’t sit far beyond women in statistics of violent crimes.

I don’t mind acknowledging that men and women are different, but the “women are emotional and men are rational” narrative is driving me up a wall.

I like to play chess with people which are way better than I am in it

In Kasparov’s eventual defense, he did say this after losing to Polgar:

“I was wrong about women playing chess. I gave an opinion a long time ago that I no longer believe.”

and later in his book wrote:

‘I won’t hide from the fact that I did make regrettably sexist remarks about women in chess around this time. In that 1989 Playboy interview I said men were better at chess because “women are weaker fighters” and that “probably the answer is in the genes”. The possibility of gender brain differences aside, I find it almost hard to believe I said this considering that my mother is the toughest fighter I know.’

The selection is already biased. High ELO ranked chessplayers are not all that stable to begin with.

What are the examples for the second sentence? Climbing?

Chess is not segregated by gender. There are women’s tournaments and there are open tournaments. There are no men’s tournaments. Men are way overrepresented at all the open tournaments, but women do compete in all of them.

Women’s representation is increasing at the top levels but it’s a gradual process. Judit Polgar and Hou Yifan (侯逸凡) are so far the only women to reach the top 100 players in the world and regularly compete with success at the top open tournaments.

The main world championship and title of GM is open to everyone, so it’s not truly split.

There are FIDE women only tournaments but that’s due to there being less participation of women. When you have something like this where the skill distribution is gaussian, if you have like 50 women compete and 1000 men, you will notice that it’s extremely unlikely for a woman to ever reach 1st place just due to statistics. Replace women and men with brown hair and blond hair and you’d see the same phenomenon.

The tail of the statistics where you see extreme deviations of improved skill would be dominated by the population with much larger participation.

To counter this, they have women only tournaments so that you always have a woman in 1st place in some tournament, basically to improve participation and convince more girls to play when they’re young.

There are of course probably other factors but these things improve participation and are meant to help get more women in chess, not separate them out.

True, and it actually makes up the majority of the skill as well, i just don’t like to look at people as gifted or lucky because it’s unfair, it’s kind of sad hahaha

I get easily conquered by defeatism if it’s done through pure logic and there’s no doubt about luck being a huge factor in skill! And in life in general, So i just kind of look away and continue grinding what i enjoy, because it’s the only thing you can do to enjoy competitive activities

When people say some people are wired different, they’re usually thinking of high functioning autistic people. I would argue “innate talent” is very often autistic brains (look up the local overconnectivity theory) developing a special interest young enough that it became as second nature as other things typically learned at such early an age like a native language.

But I think what they’re talking about is moreso relevant when we’re talking about two people with equal potential because no one is disputing that the intellectually disabled exist. Two gifted kids may develop very different special interests. One might be reading math books at 8 years old likely because their parents are engineers while the other hyperfocuses on Harry Potter just because. The first gifted kid might tie their identity to their intelligence and look down on the other as being stupid. The second kid might internalize the message and who knows what they could’ve been. Society will label the first person as smart and point at all their status achievements as proof and label the second person as stupid and point at all their unproductive hobbies and lack of achievements as proof. But those external validators have much more to do with their interests, dedication, and what they value than they do with innate intelligence. I would also add onto this socioeconomic class as the biggest factor, but that’s its own discussion.

Good news, I figured out the secret to time travel. I’m now travelling forward in time by a second, every second! Pay $999 to learn My secret!

Nah, that would be great news. Being dumber than anyone you’ve ever met makes you less responsible for things like climate change and political violence than the people around you (morally, at least; you’re probably literally more of a cause, because you’re more likely to be right wing, but if you’ve already jumped that hurdle, maybe you aren’t). Plus, if your own life is a wreck, it feels better to blame an inherent limitation than something you could change, if only you had the discipline. If your own life is great, you’ve overcome a serious obstacle and should be proud of yourself.

Not really, i’ve know many people like this who were bottom of their class and had edge over me in chess, fun games like it or random specific trivia, they don’t do it to feel intellectually superior they do it because it’s more enjoyable to them than studying

They’re not dumb they’re just not trying altogether, and when i talk with them about the topics they enjoy they actually show great understanding on them, it’s all just people with interests

If they were trying, say in a debate and they’re deliberately refusing to follow simple proofs they themselves use, yeah then they’re dumb, but i’ve never come across someone like that that still managed to be good at something, it’s a core part of learning as a process

Sure there are people with useful interests and ones with useless ones, but i refuse to call the useful ones smart and useless ones dumb, it’s demeaning to those people’s capabilities, i don’t hold anyone to this way of thinking it’s just mine

yeah i didn’t see it as man vs woman until someone decided to include a stupid twitter screenshot in it

but hey, engagement bait = successful

Oh, so we should respect cops? Boot licker.

and children have these emotions amplified 10x and dont know how to control it and the school system thinks that they forget stuff and dont get good grades because theyre EVIL