Let's back up for a bit. This conversation veered off with deacongirl's statement:
I strongly reject the idea that boys are inherently better at chess than girls. I cannot even believe any credence is given to that position in 2014.
This reminds me of my conversation with a Harvard grad a few years ago when the conversation of Larry Summers came up. This alum said that Larry was getting crucified about his comments about men vs women because what he said was unpleasant, and even worse, it was also true.
By the way, this Harvard grad was a woman. Like many Harvard grads I know, she didn't think much of the Fine Arts faculty, stating that most wouldn't even qualify to be students there these days, but I digress.
The problem I have with deacongirl's statement is that, as educated people, these statements should not be off limits, but instead should be evaluated on the basis of evidence.
As a father to both a boy and a girl, I have no interest in this being true or not true. I simply gave reasons why it is plausible based upon a widely accepted difference in spatial ability between boys and girls. And the response I have gotten back is that you think the studies are invalid. Possible, but wouldn't there be numerous recent studies pointing the other way by now?
Aquinas, when I talk about the importance of spatial ability in chess, I speak as the father of a child who has achieved national level success in the game, who is coached by a former US champion, and who knows some players that compete successfully at the international level. Spatial ability is not the *sole* required talent, but it is an essential one.
