I think chess would be a far better example of how males and females differ in intellectual matters. The only female player to have come in the top 50 of world chess is Judit Polgar(now she's not even in the top 100). She used to memorise entire chess books since the age of 5. As a result, she plays like a very powerful computer. This was enough to beat the lower half of chess players, but not enough to beat the ones(Kasparov, Karpov etc.) who were technically her equals, but strategically far superior to her. Her performance in blitz matches(5-15 minute matches) is also very poor, as you require more tactical thinking than technical prowess there.David Quinn wrote:Male tennis is far more powerful, but it also displays a far larger amount of tactical intelligence and finesse. Roger Federer, a master of strategy and finesse, and physically not all that powerful, has been the dominant player for some years now. The same with golf. Tiger Woods has flair and finesse by the bucketload, far more so than the plodding, robotic nature of the top female golfers.
It is like watching the difference between 3-dimensional sport and 1-dimensional sport.
Here's a good quote by Kasparov - "Women, by their nature, are not exceptional chess players: they are not great fighters."