Nigel Short, UK chess grand master, recently said that the reason there are so few women in the world of competitive chess is that the male brain is “hardwired” to be better at it. Of course, Short has every right to make this claim, because chess is just like neuroscience. Both are things that a human has to practise a lot to be good at. Both involve many hours of staring at the same bit of space. What more do you want?
Speciousness aside, Short’s comments are deeply flawed for many reasons. While there are differences between male and female brains, there aren’t as many as most people believe, certainly not one that would be so stark and specific to mean differing aptitudes for a specific board game, no matter how classic it is.
It is also fair to say that men may have an advantage in that they are more influenced by testosterone, which (among other things) can produce competitive and aggressive behaviour, the sort of thing that is useful in a professional competition environment, which can end up being heavily male dominated. Joe Herbert has an excellent book about this very subject coming out soon. The trouble is, this doesn’t automatically mean the male brain is biologically superior at specific things, it just means the environment/community where this sort of behaviour is advantageous quickly becomes dominated by aggressive, competitive men who deter anyone who doesn’t fit that profile. Examples of this are everywhere: business management, politics, sports. Competitive chess is likely to be the same, only a lot slower.
So Short’s comments are ill-founded but, sadly, nothing out of the ordinary. But perhaps a more interesting aspect is the fact that he made an effort to limit any offence caused by highlighting how he has no problem with the fact that his wife has “a much higher degree of emotional intelligence”.
Even if we give Short the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant this completely sincerely and as a positive thing, it’s a very common viewpoint, and one that, when looked at closely, has some very negative foundations.
First, the concept of “emotional intelligence” is widespread, but what does it even mean? That someone has a better understanding of their own emotions? Or those of other people? That they can control them better? You will find people invoking the term but using it to mean wildly different things. In many cases, you’d be forgiven for concluding that “emotional intelligence” is just a long-winded way of saying “emotional”, with reduced risk of upsetting said emotional person.
But emotional intelligence as a concept is far from scientifically accepted. It often contradicts current understandings of intelligence (which is complex enough), it’s based on many unfounded assumptions, it can often be attributed more to personality than any facet of intelligence, and so on.
But even if there were a solid consensus on emotional intelligence being a genuine thing, this wouldn’t mean that it would be correctly applied by your average person. Personality studies are a big part of psychology, but personality tests aren’t exactly used wisely.
The more worrying occurrence is how often it’s said that women are more emotionally intelligent. Many may see this as a compliment, but if it is, it’s quite a backhanded one.
It’s widely believed that women are more emotional than men, with the macho man image one of calm composure and coolness. The extent to which women are meant to be beholden to their feelings is extreme, most recently demonstrated by the response to Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. This is a preconception that’s been around for a very long time (e.g. the term “hysteria” is derived from the Greek “hystera”, meaning uterus, as it was thought the unmanageable emotional excess was unique to women suffering uterine disruption), and one that seems to be very deeply ingrained in our culture.
The trouble is, there’s no real evidence that women are any more emotional than men. Women can be and often are more expressive of their emotions, but this is again largely due to cultural stereotypes. Men can be as emotional as women, if not more. Many women receive bombardments of violent threats online from men who are upset about her harmless opinions; this is not indicative of a gender that has greater control over their emotions.
Even this wouldn’t be so bad, but in our society at least, being “emotional” is often seen as a negative. It’s often claimed that showing emotion is a sign of weakness, as it suggests a lack of control. Whenever someone is seen to get emotional during an argument or debate, it’s usually taken to mean that person is losing. Emotions are “primitive”, even animals have them. Dogs and cats can show fear or sadness after all. But calm rationality and logic, that’s the behaviour of a superior creature there. And the stereotypes tell us that men are calm and rational, and women are emotional. And suddenly this negative stereotyping comes into focus.
So when I hear a powerful man praising women for their “emotional intelligence”, it can’t help but grate. It sounds like a compliment but it means little to nothing when you look at it, like praising someone for being really good at walking when you won’t let them drive the car. It comes across as the intellectual equivalent of giving someone a lollipop and a pat on the head in order to keep them quiet while you do the important stuff.
This is not helpful, it just propagates unfounded preconceptions that can be just as harmful to men as to women. It’s possible to be intelligent and emotional, or totally rational while being thick as a brick. But this goes for everyone and anyone, even chess champions.
Dean Burnett is happy to express his innermost feelings via the sterile environment of Twitter, @garwboy