|
Mad Max Fury Road was a good movie And so was the new Ghostbusters movie
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:09 |
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Mad Max Fury Road was a good movie  Undertale was a good video game 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Given the relative success of the fewer women who get into shooting, it's possible that women tend to be innately better at shooting than men. I recall studies saying that women are also able to handle sensory deprivation time better than men, as well as perform tasks under distracting conditions. (There is a stereotype about women being better at multitasking, and there is some support for that being true.) So if you want some people to wait a long time under boring conditions, then shoot accurately under loud, distracting conditions, you would want women for that. Which makes you wonder why women aren't more popular in combat roles. When I looked into that, one of the real, physical concerns about women was their ability to run away. A lot of the world has ~9 foot high walls and fences, and tossing an 80 lb pack over such a wall is something that just about any man can do and just about any woman cannot. Women dominate at long distance swimming, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Given the relative success of the fewer women who get into shooting, it's possible that women tend to be innately better at shooting than men. I recall studies saying that women are also able to handle sensory deprivation time better than men, as well as perform tasks under distracting conditions. (There is a stereotype about women being better at multitasking, and there is some support for that being true.) You're  ing this poo poo up. The point is that the [overwhelmingly male] organisers of many sports do not want women and men to be comparable, and there is no loving reason for that except for insecurity.E: To be clear, this insecurity is the result of the toxic aspects of masculinity. Somfin fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Maybe practice is the overwhelmingly primary determiner of skill at just about everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Having to hold a shotgun and shoot a bunch of rounds is an endurance marathon, so yeah. Is archery also not athletic to you now? I posted this in the (now moved) feminism thread, but for people who didn't see it here's the low down on Zhang Shan from a poster (sorry, I forgot who!) on the old EN feminism thread: I forgot posted:Ok let's go into backstory. Also Lis Hartel won silver at the Olympics for dressage THE YEAR they opened it up to civilians (equestrian events used to be restricted to military). She was a polio survivor who could not mount or dismount her horse without help because she didn't have the strength in her legs. And she got silver when going up against military officers/chivalry.  When it's a competition of raw strength I understand, but when competition isn't dominated by strength it makes less sense. On a similar note it's actually kinda interesting how there aren't a ton female jockeys; for a sport that requires you to be as small and light as possible you'd think women would dominate. A quick google search tells me horse racing isn't the friendliest to women, which I could of guessed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Why arent there as many female sewer workers chopping up poo poo and lard plugs in sewers? Like, they're biologically as able.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Why arent there as many female sewer workers chopping up poo poo and lard plugs in sewers? Like, they're biologically as able. Because it's a job that isn't considered socially acceptable for women to take part in, so they don't seek out to take those jobs? That isn't even a difficult thing to figure out on your own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Well thats ridiculous. I for one would back a campaign to reinforce the message to women that they can come and spend all day rolling around in poo poo, 5 days a week, if they want to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Well thats ridiculous. I for one would back a campaign to reinforce the message to women that they can come and spend all day rolling around in poo poo, 5 days a week, if they want to. Hahaha yeah you know, those women, just so fragile that they can't handle these manly jobs. We gotta help them move past their dainty fear of real manly work, right? gently caress off dude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Hahaha yeah you know, those women, just so fragile that they can't handle these manly jobs. We gotta help them move past their dainty fear of real manly work, right? Thats not what I said at all. I didn't mention manly or 'tough' or anything. I said we need to break down the social expectations, which you attributed to why women dont roll around in poo poo and piss enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
"Manly" is nothing but a social expectation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Chess, shooting, curling etc. are not exactly athletic sports. Oh yes they loving have. And it took decades of effort to properly open up the sport and even have a glimmer of a chance to prove them wrong. And they had very close to the same quality of supporting evidence you have for disputing it in "athletic" sports.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
If you struggle with feminism I suggest you watch every episode of Parks and Recreation. In fact, you should probably do that anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
page 28 of this thread does a pretty good job of demonstrating the flaw in a lot of feminist reasoning, they seek to under emphasize biological factors in gendered athletic ability and instead choosing to vaguely emphasis culture as the cause. If feminists were actually so certain of this I would love to see some nazi style science where they isolate infants from society and raise them outside the patriarchy until we have female super athletes. Sadly I'm guessing you will have to wait a long time before we see evidence based feminism. But wouldn't it be great to see testing their theories against the self evident reality that testosterone levels improve athletic ability? These sort of mental gymnastics reminds me of why feminism has a PR problem. Sethex fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Sethex posted:page 28 of this thread does a pretty good job of demonstrating the flaw in a lot of feminist reasoning, they seeking to under emphasizing biological factors in gendered athletic ability and instead choosing to vaguely emphasis culture as the cause. You're the one proposing a positive correlation. You bring up the loving evidence. Your argument carries some weight with like, weight lifting and poo poo where "stronger muscles due to increased muscle development due to increased testosterone due to being male" can be directly linked to better results, because muscles are about the only thing that matters, but the overwhelming majority of other sports are much more complex. Something like running seems simple but technique is a thing, different body shape is a thing, lighter weight is a thing, etc. Those of us who care about the proper application of science will stay on the side of the null hypothesis until someone brings up convincing evidence to the contrary. Until then it would be appreciated if you stopped being a smug douchebag without any evidence to back you up. Edit: A poster mentioned horseback riding. If we go by your "biological factors in gendered athletic ability", women should be better cuz they're lighter. Yet they're not. If we assume that women indeed *should* be better (the way you're assuming men should be better at running or w/e), then it turns out cultural factors can not only make a difference between genders but actively overturn a difference to the other direction. Ergo cultural factors can be a big loving deal, and they are also much easier to accept because they are witnessed in basically every single area of the human experience. If cultural factors are confirmed to exist and have a measurable effect in education, and work (where physicality also matters, like in sports), then they are much easier to accept than genetic factors that we kept assuming caused differences throughout history, but wouldn't you know it, the overwhelming majority of the time when we study them it turns out they're not genuinely there. Dancer fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
I'm going to double post because I can make that last post much more succint. Basically, we, as a society, have over and over again thought "here's a self-evident biological difference between genders/races" and over and over we have been proven wrong as the difference slowly shrunk (and either went away entirely or is still shrinking) as the genders/races integrated and got closer to equal opportunity. You're saying "yes we've been wrong in the past so many times. But this time! This time we got it right and here's this difference between men and women that can't possibly go away. And here's some biological mechanism that might be the cause." Except you haven't actually proven that the difference will not shrink or go away. And while we can definitely see how that biological mechanism *could* be responsible for a hypothetical fundamental biological difference, it's an assumption to say that because the mechanism exists, the fundamental difference exists also. That's cargo cult science (yes I know I've used this term repeatedly, but that's only because it applies so well). You have a hypothesis. Hypotheses are assumed to be wrong until evidence is produced that actually supports them. And all those hypotheses about fundamental biological differences that were assumed to be true in the past *turned out to be wrong*, so this is also a field where we have a history of being too eager to make assumptions. It would be foolish to suddenly accept the idea that *this time* the supposed "self-evident" hypothesis is true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Also maybe the precise limits to how much humans can lift and how fast they can move are pretty irrelevant since the invention of the forklift.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Do u even forklift, bro?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Dancer posted:You're the one proposing a positive correlation. You bring up the loving evidence. Your argument carries some weight with like, weight lifting and poo poo where "stronger muscles due to increased muscle development due to increased testosterone due to being male" can be directly linked to better results, because muscles are about the only thing that matters, but the overwhelming majority of other sports are much more complex. Something like running seems simple but technique is a thing, different body shape is a thing, lighter weight is a thing, etc. Those of us who care about the proper application of science will stay on the side of the null hypothesis until someone brings up convincing evidence to the contrary. Until then it would be appreciated if you stopped being a smug douchebag without any evidence to back you up. The optimal jockey isn't just the lightest possible human but one that can support and compliment the horse's locomotion with their own compact muscular frame. That said there are many small women and men but pound for pound a male is more likely to be more athletic. Spacial coordination appears to be a more attainable faculty for people born male: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/jakabovics/mf2.html https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124430.htm https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mens-brains-are-wired-differently-than-women/ When you mention body shape differences it seems as though you are making the point that they are somehow separate from hormonal factors: wikipedia posted:Female traits Sorry if I come off as rude or whatever but to me spacial faculties between gender and the impacts that hormonal spikes in puberty play really isn't remote information to me. Asking me to prove it seems to reach on unnecessary. Having a human factory in the abdominal area has the disastrous consequence of inhibiting athletic performance. That and gender differences apparently create differences in neural structures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Dancer posted:I'm going to double post because I can make that last post much more succint. One thing that makes me uncomfortable about the subject in general is that people on the extreme ends of both sides of the argument are wrong. Yes, there is biological sexual dimorphism in Humans. No, it doesn't make one sex more 'superior' than the other. Yes, it is limited to physicality. Yes, physicality influences socialization and civilization processes. Debate and philosophical discussion about AI needing a human-like body in order to be human-like in intelligence is along these same lines; quote:Meaning is rooted in agency (the ability to act and choose), and agency depends on embodiment. In fact, this is a hard-won lesson that the artificial intelligence community has finally begun to grasp after decades of frustration: Nothing truly intelligent is going to develop in a bodiless mainframe. In real life there is no such thing as disembodied consciousness. An anthropomorphic AI would not ever evolve or foster a human-like intelligence if it was indestructible, or could see wavelengths and colors we couldn't, or if it was so many times faster at thinking, and such. Because it's behaviours would be affected by its bodily capability. The physical gap between men and women is a lot smaller that a hypothetical AI, obviously, but it is hasty to posit that physical differences have absolutely nothing to do with how an individual experiences (and is therefore culturally, socially and intellectually affected by) the world. Rakosi fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Sethex posted:The optimal jockey isn't just the lightest possible human but one that can support and compliment the horse's locomotion with their own compact muscular frame. That said there are many small women and men but pound for pound a male is more likely to be more athletic. Okay, so you have a working hypothesis. That's not sufficient to say "Women are worse at running/horseback riding because of this", and it's not enough to judge that the disparity currently observed is anywhere close to what the "natural" disparity would be, absent cultural factors. "gender differences apparently create differences in neural structures" is not an argument supporting your case because this could go in favour of either gender. What if (pure random example I pulled out of my rear end) women have better rhythm, so they're capable of more accurately making the repeated motions involved in running. Nobody is denying that dimorphism is a thing, we're just denying that it's justified to conclude that it's what causing the disparity. I was not arguing that body shape is separate from hormonal factors. I was just arguing that it's a thing that is different and, like hypothetical different neural structures, may very well serve either gender better. There's nothing "self-evident" about any of this, and if it seems like I'm not supplying any evidence for my cause, it's because the burden is on you to justify the positive correlation you claim to have observed. As said, too many "self-evident" things in the past have proven to be spurious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:One thing that makes me uncomfortable about the subject in general is that people on the extreme ends of both sides of the argument are wrong. Yes, there is biological sexual dimorphism in Humans. No, it doesn't make one sex more 'superior' than the other. Yes, it is limited to physicality. No-one denied that dimorphism exists. I didn't even argue that it's limited to physicality. I was purely arguing that you can't possibly know that that's why men are "better" at sports. Edit: Okay, I did gently caress up. Some of my previous statements are ambiguous and could indeed be interpreted to read "dimorphism doesn't exist". Dimorphism very obviously exists at a basic biochemical level like "more testosterone" or "wider hips". My argument (and what I was trying to claim with my ambiguous statements) is that this is separated from "sports performance" by so many levels that you need very strong evidence before you can possibly causally link the two. Dancer fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Dancer posted:No-one denied that dimorphism exists. I didn't even argue that it's limited to physicality. I was purely arguing that you can't possibly know that that's why men are "better" at sports. Yes but you can't take those facts in a sociological discussion and end it there. What effect does high testosterone have on adolescent boys? Does it make them more aggressive? How does this aggression affect how boys socialize and civilize in developmental years? What affect does a less athletic physicality of women have on the way they feel they compare to boys around them, in sport? "biotruths" have more of an effect outside of the actual biological factoid itself, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:One thing that makes me uncomfortable about the subject in general is that people on the extreme ends of both sides of the argument are wrong. Yes, there is biological sexual dimorphism in Humans. No, it doesn't make one sex more 'superior' than the other. Yes, it is limited to physicality. I'm not seeking to make any argument that any sex is better or more good. I am however comfortable with accepting that emotional and cognitive differences are impacted by human sexuality without having to make it into a value statement. How can you be certain it is limited to physicality? I did provide material demonstrating that females have more interconnected hemispheres and the paper made a direct reference that this impacts female emotional intuition and behaviour? I understand that you can make the argument that cultural factors can influence brain development but that would require evidence which I have never happened upon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Yes but you can't take those facts in a sociological discussion and end it there. What effect does high testosterone have on adolescent boys? Does it make them more aggressive? How does this aggression affect how boys socialize and civilize in developmental years? What affect does a less athletic physicality of women have on the way they feel they compare to boys around them, in sport?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I'm not seeking to make any argument that any sex is better or more good. I am however comfortable with accepting that emotional and cognitive differences are impacted by human sexuality without having to make it into a value statement. the differences between members of the same sex in humans are far, far larger than the proposed impact of biology between the sexes. that's why biotruths are so ridiculous when used as an explanation -- humans are dimorphic, true, but their individual differences withing the same sex are so much more pronounced than what biology accounts for. (outside of fringe cases where you're pretty much looking at top athletes etc.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Is page 29 the right place to bring up that even biological sex is somewhat a cultural concept? Not as much as gender but that it is almost entirely a frequency distribution thing instead of any sort of hard solid thing. Like even if you take transgendered people out as "gays and sjws" or something there are "men with vaginas" and "women with penises". Some with ambiguous genitalia you can write off as "that is just a birth defect, so I don't have to count it", but something like complete androgen insensitivity syndrome makes feminine rear end female bodies that have XY chromosomes. And these conditions are somewhat rare, in the 1 in 10,000 ranges but that isn't so rare that you haven't ever been in the same room with someone with them. It's not some crazy cryptid that is so nonexistent that they can be written out of the conversation, multiple such people live in any town you go to, probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
It's rare enough to be considered an outlier. So if you're calling that a cultural concept, then 'humans have 2 arms and 2 legs' is also cultural, since birth defects are a thing. Actually, calling it a 'cultural concept' is a bit a misnomer, because it's a basic categorization with a biological basis, in the same way that the idea of discrete 'species' are also a categorization. You may as well call every word used to describe anything a 'cultural concept', if you're going to use that interpretation, thereby rendering the idea of a 'cultural concept' as all encompassing and, therefore, a superfluous distinction. I mean, the chair you're sitting on is losing atoms all the time, does that mean that 'chair' is a cultural concept?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
botany posted:the differences between members of the same sex in humans are far, far larger than the proposed impact of biology between the sexes. that's why biotruths are so ridiculous when used as an explanation -- humans are dimorphic, true, but their individual differences withing the same sex are so much more pronounced than what biology accounts for. (outside of fringe cases where you're pretty much looking at top athletes etc.) This isn't really true though? I mean, if you include top level athletes then there are women that are ocmpetitive with men, but it tends to be stuff like the best women in the world (literal world champions) competing against a men's high school team and coming out 50/50. Obviously there's more differences between members of the same sex if you compare an olympic weightlifter to Stephen Hawking but if you remove the outliers things are pretty far apart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:This isn't really true though? I mean, if you include top level athletes then there are women that are ocmpetitive with men, but it tends to be stuff like the best women in the world (literal world champions) competing against a men's high school team and coming out 50/50. Obviously there's more differences between members of the same sex if you compare an olympic weightlifter to Stephen Hawking but if you remove the outliers things are pretty far apart. You're making some massive - and ambiguous - claims and providing zero evidence. I will admit I don't exactly follow the news on "female world champions playing against male high-schoolers" but from my limited experience in sports I played at a high school / university competitive level (table tennis and ballroom dancing), the women I encountered who were even high level national players were miles better than anyone on the team. Edit: Seriously, what you said is beyond ridiculous. Olympic table-tennis (again, limiting myself to sports where I can reasonably judge the quality of play) last year was way beyond the level anyone in my club used to be able to reach. I find it hard to believe you're not talking out of your rear end. Dancer fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
We are no longer a society of hunter gatherers, so we can at least move past the point where biological differences would be determinant of one's social role - the nature and extent of gender differences has an almost exclusively academic role in this regard.Dancer posted:You're making some massive - and ambiguous - claims and providing zero evidence. He's referring to stuff like this: http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-womens-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.html https://www.reddit.com/r/sports/comments/3ceeih/the_us_mens_u17_soccer_team_played_the_uswnt/ He took it too far though, those competitions are between professionals / junior draftees, not random kids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:He's referring to stuff like this: http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-womens-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.html Okay that is pretty fuckin crazy... Though I do notice he did not present any reason as to why those results would be the result of biology and not... you know all those other things we're discussing (caveat for the 15th time: I am not denying that biological reasons may be there. Just that after centuries of "it's a biological difference, duh" I'm gonna assume that it's just as bullshit now unless proven otherwise). Now that I'm re-reading the argument, this conflation does jump at me. botany was making the case that (if we simplify male and female populations to an abstract normal distribution with mean and variance) there is a difference between the two means, but that the distributions are so wide that that difference becomes difficult to distinguish from statistical noise. This is true and, as I understand it, refers purely to the biological sense. NovemberMike then immediately goes "But look the difference between the two genders is actually really big" and gives examples from society. That's exactly the case we're making, in modern *society* the differences do end up disproportionally large, and *larger than can be accounted for by biology*. NM did not present any indication that the difference in biology is as large as the one he perceives in society. Dancer fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
They could learn a thing or two from boris johnson about how to play sport with kids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Sethex posted:page 28 of this thread does a pretty good job of demonstrating the flaw in a lot of feminist reasoning, they seek to under emphasize biological factors in gendered athletic ability and instead choosing to vaguely emphasis culture as the cause. Golly gee, why won't those feminists support unethical human experimentation, like me, a purely rational man?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:We are no longer a society of hunter gatherers, so we can at least move past the point where biological differences would be determinant of one's social role - the nature and extent of gender differences has an almost exclusively academic role in this regard. Yeah, I'm exaggerating a bit. It's pretty clear if you remove the adversarial bit from the competition though. Take a look at olympic weightlifters, when they do the same lifts at the same weight class the numbers aren't comparable. IIRC the women's deadlift record would be impressive coming out of a high school power lifter at the same weight. That's not unimpressive, a really good high school power lifter is very strong, but they're nowhere close to adult male competitive lifters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Dancer posted:Now that I'm re-reading the argument, this conflation does jump at me. botany was making the case that (if we simplify male and female populations to an abstract normal distribution with mean and variance) there is a difference between the two means, but that the distributions are so wide that that difference becomes difficult to distinguish from statistical noise. This is true and, as I understand it, refers purely to the biological sense. NovemberMike then immediately goes "But look the difference between the two genders is actually really big" and gives examples from society. That's exactly the case we're making, in modern *society* the differences do end up disproportionally large, and *larger than can be accounted for by biology*. NM did not present any indication that the difference in biology is as large as the one he perceives in society. Jesus loving christ. There are literally athletes that have transitioned from male to female while competing and they've seen almost the exact degradation in performance that you'd expect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Adult men in their prime physical fitness are physically far stronger and faster than adult women in their prime physical fitness. Exaggerating or minimizing this is utterly unhelpful. If you want an example of physical dominance outside of athletics, look at domestic violence; the equation is skewed one way. It's more interesting to explore what that difference ultimately means to/in society, rather than debating the degree to which it exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's rare enough to be considered an outlier. So if you're calling that a cultural concept, then 'humans have 2 arms and 2 legs' is also cultural, since birth defects are a thing. Calling a group of people an outlier doesn't make them stop existing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:09 |
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Jesus loving christ. There are literally athletes that have transitioned from male to female while competing and they've seen almost the exact degradation in performance that you'd expect. And there are literally athletes who have transitioned from female to male and they didn't get those gains (and in fact their performance degraded). It's almost like transition is a very involved process that can be very stressful and can lead to all sorts of changes in one's life. Dancer fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 19:10
|
|