[E-mail to my father regarding an op-ed by David Brooks in today's N.Y. Times.]
I’m not sure if you’re referring to the essay where Brooks mentions all the studies he’s collected. I’ll assume you did because it mentions chess. “Male chess players pursue riskier strategies when they’re facing attractive female opponents.” I’d guess this is because the man assumes an attractive woman is not a strong chess player. So he plays forcing lines that put a lot of pressure on her even if there exist difficult-to-find responses that hold the position or offer counter-attacking chances. He plays attacking chess rather than positional chess on the assumption she’s incapable of defending. The man’s motives may be a little chauvinistic but not necessarily mean-spirited. He may simply desire to play a fun game. Sharp, attacking chess is more fun to play than positional chess.
Here’s a clip of Dick Cavett interviewing Bobby Fischer. At 3:23 Cavett asks him “What’s the greatest pleasure in chess?” and Fischer responds with a very dark answer: “When you break his ego.” Chilling! Freud would have a field day with that answer. I doubt today’s top players have as strong of a sadistic streak in them as Fischer. (Thank goodness because in the end it broke Fischer and turned him into a raving lunatic.) But Fischer’s answer illustrates why it’s difficult for women to compete with men at the highest levels. There appears to be among the most competitive of men- illustrated in Fischer to an ugly degree- an intense, sadistic desire to defeat one’s adversaries. I don’t believe women possess this trait to the same degree as men, probably due to evolutionary biology. You know, the maternal instinct prevents sadistic competitiveness from reaching such a fever pitch.
There are, however, a few women who can compete with the men at the upper levels. Notably the Polgar sisters, who play in mens’ tournaments and have done well. They can’t compete at the topmost echelons, but they can defeat 99% of male chess players.
Brooks’ mention of chess reminded me of a study I read on a chess website:
In this paper it is argued that gender stereotypes are mainly responsible for the underperformance of women in chess. Forty-two male-female pairs, matched for ability, played two chess games via the Internet. When players were unaware of the sex of opponent (control condition), females played approximately as well as males. When the gender stereotype was activated (experimental condition), women showed a drastic performance drop, but only when they were aware that they were playing against a male opponent. When they (falsely) believed to be playing against a woman, they performed as well as their male opponents.
Fascinating. Though it only confirms something we already know- intimidation is effective. Why else would tribal warriors smear their faces & bodies with paint? Intimidation.