I gave an example similar to this:

"Man, it must be nice to live in Dubai! People are so rich they abandon luxury cars all over the place!"

"You dunce, that's the apex fallacy. Lots of people in Dubai are poor immigrant laborers working in awful conditions."

It's a kind of fallacy of composition, and it's debatable if it happens often enough that we need a special name for it.

With the sports question, I am wondering about male/female differences generally. It seems obvious that men have natural advantages in power lifting, but it is much harder to tell if they have natural advantages at power lunches. Clearly women face social obstacles unrelated to their natural ability in the workplace. It's very hard to tease these factors apart.

It's possible that fewer women are recognized for chess skill, and are less encouraged to perform, and discouraged by tradition. I don't know if that is enough to explain male dominance in chess. It is cool that the strongest female player never competed for the Women's World Championship: "I always say that women should have the self-confidence that they are as good as male players, but only if they are willing to work and take it seriously as much as male players." Perhaps we will see greater participation by women.

I like the awkward dialog in Cryptonomicon, starting where the word "geek" appears. The highlight:

"If there is any generalization at all that you can draw about how men think versus how women think, I believe it is that men can narrow themselves down to this incredibly narrow laser-beam focus on one tiny little subject and think about nothing else."

"Whereas women can’t?"

"I suppose women can. They rarely seem to want to. What I’m characterizing here, as the female approach, is essentially saner and healthier."

And here is an abandoned Ferrari Enzo.