Is crochet a sport yet?
Siming Chen
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
Is crochet a sport yet?
On this date in 1921, Johnny Weismuller (the original Tarzan) had the world record for swimming 400 meters, 307 seconds. The women's world record at the time was 376 seconds --69 seconds (about 23%) more
A half century later, in the late 60's when Mark Spitz held the world record, he swam it in 249 seconds, and the fastest woman swam it in 273 seconds --24 seconds (about 10%) more
Now, The world record is 220 seconds, and Katie Ledecky swims it in 236 seconds. That's 16 seconds (about 7%) more.
I'd like to make a couple points. So far as I know, nobody on the planet argues that men are not on average genetically superior to women in ways that are relevant to swimming 400 meters. But where will that gap (the one that was 23%, then 10%, and now 7%) end up? Will it stay at 7%, go to 6%, 3%? Who knows? It probably won't get to 0%, but other than that who knows. Most at least affluent high schools have a girls and a boys swim team of similar size. Club teams have boys and girls. College teams... We certainly have come a long way. If you watch swimming competition at all levels generally, you're going to see males and females at not too unequal degrees (at least I think in North America, Europe, Oceana)
If Tarzan could swing down out of the clouds to a starting block next to Katie, she could finish the race and eat an Egg McMuffin before he climbed out of the water.
But if you asked the intellectual eugenics types back then to explain the 69-second gap between Tarzan and the fastest woman, they would have been quick to point out Tarzan evolved to swing on a vine and Jane evolved to be in the kitchen. And they would have couched the nearly complete bullshit in scientific sounding rationale and the like... This kind of stuff has been going on for a long time.
What would be the performance gap between men and women at pool if we went a decade with 50% of league players being women, 50% of players hanging out and gambling in an average pool hall being women, 50% of players in regional and larger tournaments being women? Who knows. And oh, by the way, we are not somehow NOT there because woman are bred to be not competitive and the like. Watch the 10-year-olds swimming, and the high-school kids swimming, and the college athletes swimming, and the olympic athletes swimming. Athletes are athletes; they're all plenty competitive. And until you get to that equal participation from a young age and across the board, watch out for the "explanations" of observed differences.
The discussion of biological differences between men and women for pool or chess or poker or computer programming should be an arcane geeky side subject for the same scientists that might discuss the difference between Japanese and British for certain tasks. Yes, British are better apple pickers, and Japanese are better at hiding behind a short bush. There are differences. But we are not going going to put the Bush/Apple Picker issue front and center when explaining why Japan doesn't advance past the final 16 and England frequently does in the world cup. That would be ridiculous. There are many bigger factors.
With pool and chess and poker and computer programming, there are enormously bigger factors. Inserting into the conversation these subtle factors that play directly into peoples stereotypes and biases is not only counterproductive, it is actually damaging.
For the record, I see the unwillingness to seek, accept and then deal with truth to be far more counterproductive and damaging than dealing with whatever fallout is created by the acknowledgement of the truth although I understand your concern. We seem to agree that biases are a danger that must be avoided. One of the places we disagree is which “side” the biases are coming from that are causing the skewing of truth as well and the stifling of the search for it. You essentially seem to feel that the biases from the “chest beating chauvinistic” bunch are influencing the collective to see biological differences as being a bigger factor than they are. I believe it is actually skewed the other way, and severely. The biases from the “there are no or only inconsequential inherent differences between men and women” bunch are leading the collective to ignore facts and evidence that very strongly support that differing inherent abilities between men and women are the predominant (but certainly not only) factor that explains performance differences for most things.
Without elaborating too much some of the reasons for this are that those in the social sciences, who are the ones that study these things, are predominantly and very passionately in the “there are no differences between the sexes” camps. This topic is like a religion to them and they are simply incapable or unwilling to remain unbiased. Confirmation bias runs rampant in the social science community, much of it on a conscious and intentional level. The field is no longer governed by true science but by agenda. Also, because of our current politically correct environment that values not hurting feelings more than it does the seeking of truth, and because of the agenda so vocally pushed by one of the “sides”, we also now have a culture even within the general public where it is no longer considered acceptable to even consider that significant inherent differences in abilities might exist between the sexes. Doing so has now become career or social suicide. I think (and at least hope) we both agree that agenda should never stifle the search for truth or influence conclusions yet that is precisely where we currently find ourselves with this topic (and many others). Another cause for bias in this topic is that humans innately have an overwhelming desire, perhaps even better characterized as an actual need, to view all human beings as being equal and so as individuals the majority of us have this bias to at least some degree and it seems to be particularly difficult one to overcome as it seems to almost be biologically programmed into us.
We also seem to agree that there are many factors that influence performance disparities between sexes, including inherent differences, but are pretty far apart on just how big a factor we believe those inherent differences are. Fortunately we have some ways to determine which of those beliefs is likely closest to the truth. First, women are not usually the best in the world, or better on average, even for those things where their participation rate is equal to or even higher than the participation rate from men (including for things where strength is not at all involved). Second, we largely have the ability to take participation rates into consideration so that they are no longer much of a factor. If only 10% of pool players are women, we would expect to see the best player in the world, and the player who has the highest FargoRate rating, to be a woman roughly 10% of the time. We have never seen even one single woman even remotely close to being the best in the world even for one minute. Likewise, in just about everything else, woman also underperform relative to their participation rate, usually significantly so. These two facts very strongly suggest that participation rate is not the primary factor explaining their underperformance. We can debate just what all the factors are (and precisely how much role they each play), but what is pretty clear is that their participation rates explain little in regards to their performance in pool and most other things. To think otherwise requires ignoring the above two facts, and I think we also agree that facts should never be ignored.
As far as the gaps closing, I agree that it is occurring and will continue to occur. It is to be expected because of some of the factors involved and how those factors are diminishing. I also agree that we just don’t know exactly where it will end up (and I believe it will vary by activity), and I also agree that it will likely never get to 0% (for any of them). Where I suspect we may disagree is that I believe this all holds true for purely cognitive endeavors as well. One thing I am absolutely certain of (assuming we don’t destroy ourselves in the meantime which I certainly wouldn’t bet on) is that 20,000 years from now there is still going to be the very vocal contingent trying to use the participation rate argument as the majority explanation for the performance differences.
As for the other main topic that has been discussed in this thread, I think Siming’s FargoRate rating is pretty accurate and that she is favored over most people whose FargoRate is at least ten points below hers (because of the relatively small margin for error in the ratings that can occur). I think there is sufficient coupling between the sexes to allow us to be pretty confident that the ratings for both men and women are pretty accurate and as a result can fairly reliably be compared to each other. I believe this because I have a pretty good understanding of how FargoRate establishes ratings and can see how it efficiently and accurately handles these kinds of concerns, and because pretty strong evidence for sufficient coupling and the resulting accuracy in the ratings has been given by Mike a number of times in the form of several specific examples. Do I think Siming could lose to someone rated lower than her? Absolutely, just like anybody else can. But over the long haul, under similar conditions to those from which she gained her rating, she is going to be favored over those that are rated lower than her. Bottom line, the ratings are fairly accurate whether it agrees with your intuition or not, or bluntly put another way, FargoRate clocks speeds better than you do.
Last edited:
Yes of course. If you are accusing me of that, then we should probably start right there.
I don't have a "side."
[...]
I think it is unproductive to put people in camps
This is why. When you've decided this, you are in a poor position to hear and evaluate their arguments
Confirmation bias is a huge issue, but much more so outside the scientific community than in it.
Again these generalizations are unproductive. Evaluate my ideas and reasoning all you want, but please don't dismiss science or put me in some kind of "camp" with "agendas" whatever that means
more of this
more still
You're saying gobblygook
Allright already...
I'm rolling my eyes now
Phew! Finally!
Now you've got my attention
Some examples that fit the bill here would help. Swimming is one I came up with before, and I was thinking it was unusual. My mother died two years ago. And when she was born women did not have the right to vote in the United States. A mere century and a half ago--not that long-- a woman could not own property or enter into a contract. Virtually everything about our world, from education to government to defining success and writing history, has been male-driven. Things are starting to change a bit. But we are in a highly non-equilibrium situation.
If we developed our skills independently, yes this would be the expectation. That is if we had 50 clones of our world, we might find a man being the top player in 45 of them and a woman being the top player in 5 of them. But I'm not comfortable with the premise. Jasmin Ouschan is easily the best woman player in Europe. She wins a lot and gets lots of attention. It's not the same as if there were a few above her and she had to dig deeper this year than last. I talk a lot to the track coach at North Dakota State. He LOVES recruiting the 4:25 miler from the class B schools over the 4:25 miler from the class A (bigger) schools. The class B kid is undeveloped--was winning most of the time--and has no idea what his potential is.
I'm not following this. We only have one world. People are not randomly switching identities.
Again some examples would help
No, they actually don't.
I am not following this. We can talk about pool--something I have been thinking a fair amount about and analyzing data--or we can talk about "most other things." But I'd prefer you be more specific.
It feels as though your modus operandi is to make a vague claim about "most other things," call your claim a fact, and then criticize others for ignoring facts. How about we make a deal. A "fact" for our purposes is something about the universe that is measured and about which we agree.
whatever
good
also good
I interpret this as you believing the gaps will approach 0 for different activities/pursuits but won't reach them--as in they will all stay with the same sign. I believe some gaps--like swimming--will get smaller but stay positive.
Other gaps will get near zero (but of course won't be exactly zero). And other gaps will get negative.
As of course they should if there is a participation rate issue. Nobody--as in nobody--argues Minnesota kids are genetically better at hockey than Alabama kids. The "participation rate" argument is "THEY DON'T FREAKIN PLAY HOCKEY IN ALABAMA." And I'm pretty sure that will be valid in the future.
We are collecting more and more data. And as time goes on we will be in a better position to make statements on the core issue we're talking about here. For now. we're pretty silent.
Someone said there are billions of skills or talents out there that women aren’t #1 at and that you could count them on one hand that they are actually #1.
It seems there are not that many women on this forum. I’d be curious to see the response if this was said on Facebook.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It seems there are not that many women on this forum. I’d be curious to see the response if this was said on Facebook.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here are a few other things women are better than men by top researchers:
Living = women outlive men
They are better drivers
Better surgeons
better learners
higher I.Q.
more hygienic
handle stress better
more likely to graduate
and probably a few thousand other things.
I am sure women will forgive you for your ignorance since they likely have a higher I.Q. than you.
It was probably one of the worst posts I've read in a while.
Even the participation rate thing is hard to analyze. Think of the lowest-level league players you are aware of, the bottom of the "participation" pool.
Who are these people?
We got a table in the basement when my son was 15 or so. The table was a hit. There would often be a crowd of his males friends hanging around the pool table. And there soon developed a pecking order. Some of these people were picking it up easier than others and were reinforced and acknowledged for their pool skill. They were pretty awful to be sure, as they were basically new players who had maybe 50-100 hours into the game. They basically quit playing pool. Maybe a few later played odd games in a fraternity house or an occasional bar. Those 10 or so kids are now in their mid thirties. And a couple --maybe 2--might play pool league. Which two is that? The two that tended to pick it up more easily. The two that got reinforced.
So we think of those bottom league players as the bottom of the participation pool. But they are already filtered by a selection funnel.
If entry worked the same way for women, then the simple "participation" metric would be better. That is, if the women bottom league players were already the best out of half a dozen peers, then all would be good.
But if the main entry paths for women are
--have a parent who plays/pool table in house growing up/parents owned a bar, or
--hung out with a boyfriend who plays
Then we don't have that same entry funnel for females as we do males. It is all a very complicated comparison, imo.
I think our data will eventually be the best tool for addressing this general issue.
Mike, I feel like we are just going in circles now and perhaps part of the reason is that we just haven’t been clear enough about just what our positions are. These are mine:
1. Participation rate alone is not the sole cause for women’s under performance in pool (or in chess or just about anything else) even though many people continue to try to argue precisely that.
2. I do not think the belief that participation rates explain the majority of the performance gap is a reasonable one to hold considering the current evidence, but at the same time I don’t think it would be reasonable quite yet to dismiss the possibility for that completely out of hand either.
3. Women and men are inherently biologically different and unequal in respective strengths and skills and this is almost always going to at least partially explain performance disparities, and as a result of these biological differences performance gaps in most things will never disappear completely.
1. Participation rate alone is not the sole cause for women’s under performance in pool (or in chess or just about anything else) even though many people continue to try to argue precisely that.
2. I do not think the belief that participation rates explain the majority of the performance gap is a reasonable one to hold considering the current evidence, but at the same time I don’t think it would be reasonable quite yet to dismiss the possibility for that completely out of hand either.
3. Women and men are inherently biologically different and unequal in respective strengths and skills and this is almost always going to at least partially explain performance disparities, and as a result of these biological differences performance gaps in most things will never disappear completely.
It seemed to me that you brought up the “sides” by at least insinuating that those who believe that men and women are inherently different and unequal in skills (and that participation numbers are not normally the biggest factor in explaining women’s underperformance in XYZ activity) are essentially biased and pushing BS stereotypes which is dangerous. Forgive me if I misunderstood you. I responded in kind by pointing out that I very clearly see the exact opposite occurring, where those that believe that inherent differences in skills between men and women are either nonexistent or inconsequential are the ones that are far more pervasive in ignoring evidence and operating from a place of confirmation bias and who are perpetuating myths to guilt people into stifling the conversation in an attempt to preserve their agenda (the “we are all exactly equal and there is no difference in abilities between men and women” agenda) . If you don’t see the irrational desperation with which many people attempt to hold onto the “all humans are the same and of equal ability” narrative as much as possible then you just don’t have your eyes open.
If someone points out when someone else is ignoring evidence and exhibiting bias that is not putting them in a camp, it is just making an observation. Nor is it any kind of indication that the person pointing it out is coming from a place of bias themselves. And to be clear I don't recall expressing that you were one of these people nor do I recall insinuating it either although I didn't go back and read everything again expressly looking for how that may have seemed insinuated.
While I agree that confirmation bias is a much bigger issue outside the scientific community than within it, the disparity is no longer nearly as large when comparing only to the social science community and smaller yet depending on topic. I wish that were not the case but my wish doesn’t change it.
While there is validity to your point, it isn't the complete picture. The people that had the best aptitude to create and run society were the ones that did so. It isn't their fault that they were mostly male. Yes males often tried to squeeze out the females nearly completely from certain things and didn't allow them to reach their potential and there is no excuse for that but that isn't really the explanation for why men tended to ultimately end up in charge of everything, but it does explain why women had very little say in many things.
I don't think things are starting to change. I thing the change is nearly complete (in the US). There is almost nothing that holds women back from reaching their full potential today except excuses and victim-hood if they choose to partake in those.
I get your argument and there is some validity but it seems to me that you way over play the hand so to speak. I could see that as a possible explanation if a woman was only the top player in 3 or 4 of those cloned worlds instead of the expected 5, but not when she isn't the best in any of them, and particularly when she isn't even remotely close. I could see your argument perhaps explaining why a female is only at the top of the FargoRate ratings 5% of the time instead of the expected 10%, but not for why a female has never been best for any amount of the time ever, and particularly when one hasn't ever been even remotely close. Per FargoRate, currently the best male player in the world is over 25% better than the best female in the world, and this is the closest it has ever been in history. Not only is a female not the best in the world part of the time as would be expected, but they they haven't even ever gotten past 75% as good as the best.
There is nobody above Shane pushing him either, yet he has managed to be better than everybody else, and significantly better than Jasmin or even Siming (who also essentially has nobody above her pushing her yet she managed to get past Jasmin). I think you could better argue that Siming and Jasmin both have people above them pushing them since there are still better players above both of them. Perhaps I am missing your point somewhere.
To clear up my belief in how the gaps will behave in the future I will rephrase it another way. In 2,000 years, for most things, the performance gaps between genders will have shrunk by varying degrees but rarely to 0%, and with few if any exceptions women will still be better than men at the same things they are better than men at today, and likewise men will still be better than women at the same things they are better than women at today. Our differing strengths and skills have a basis in biology, and our biology’s are unlikely to change much in that period of time.
Let's at least stick to arguments that aren't disingenuous. Unlike your example where there are no hockey players in Alabama, there are in fact women who play pool. And because there are some participants instead of zero participants (and in fact we have a decent sample size and a decent length of history to look at), we can compare and analyze their performance relative to their participation rate.
Will be interesting to hear whatever the data can bear out.
Actually you are wrong about more than half of those but even if you weren't then congratulations, you found eight things out of billions. Still illustrates my point. Women and men are very different with very different abilities, some much more widely applicable than others. Being different is not a sin. It doesn't necessarily make someone less important, nor does it mean that any particular person is incapable of something. Not sure why some people are so damn resistant to the fact that we are different.
I noticed how NASCAR and Formula 1 drivers have been mostly women
and the rest of that list gets the sameJason
I dunno.. I am still thinking that your example tends to support my assertion that women just don't have as strong a desire to compete against others, so this influences their participation rate, separate from their aptitude.
The girls whose parents put a table in the basement are free to compete in the pecking order, if they see fit. But they tend not to.
Curious.
Totally expected as a male's reproductive usefulness is used up when he is too old to fight, hunt, and fight for reproductive rights, defending the territory against younger, rival male DNA encroachment.. Women's continues as long as they are able to care for children, allowing the younger males/females to leave the children to hunt/gather respectively.
By what metric? If you are referring to "safety record", this comes at cost of speed of travel, most likely. An aggressive male will tend to get from point A to point B more quickly, yes? A female's concern tends to prioritize safety. A male's tends to be "getting the job done", safety be damned. This "advantage" of safe driving puts women at a disadvantage in many, many, many, many other ventures, leading them to "cross the finish line" much later than males.
If women were ACTUALLY better drivers than men, they'd win all the NASCAR and F1 races.....
Ooooops. Awkward.
Granted, they might have the IQ to make better arguments than what you've put forth here. But I am here to pick up the slack for the males, so no harm, no foul..
I chose only two of your points to illustrate your cherrypicking, and that even these were weak arguments on your part. There are similar issues with your other points.
Specifically, your assertion that females were "more likely" to graduate. Well, funnily enough, males have historically been college degree holders at a higher rate than females for 74 of the past 78 years, and there might have been a strong bias during those last 4 years to give preference to females for government-backed scholarships, so you failed to back up even that one minor point.
Except you didn’t just say men and women are different, you said women are better at babies and men are better at everything else.
I don’t know about the list you quoted from the other poster, but here’s one: Women are better than men at school in all subjects, at all grade levels, all across the world (citations http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-a0036620.pdf). A coupla points:
1. It’s not babies. Intellectual/academic ability is the most important set of skills for the modern world. It’s why people are talking about the male crisis in education today.
2. Just a few generations ago, when women weren’t encouraged or allowed to go as far as men in education, people said that women were innately inferior academically and intellectually. They gave the same reasons you have in this thread. But when the barriers were lifted, they were proven wrong.
It doesn’t happen overnight, but what else that people like you see as a domain of male superiority - and for you that’s everything except babies - will women overtake men once barriers are lifted?
Probably men will be better at things that take physical strength, and it looks like women will be better at all the important stuff in the modern world. In fifty years, between robots and the computer programmers who run the robots, what will men do? Play pool I guess. I wonder if we’ll still be better than women at it.
I think you may be right about this--teenagers competing for dominance in a guy-guy situation seems like a teenage male idea of fun. ...and less so for teenage females. what we don't know--and we're not going to figure out just by discussing it here--is just what fraction of that is socialization and what fraction is innate differences. It's the nature/nurture thing.
You can't read. Are you male??? I can't be right or wrong because I never stated anything except what expert researchers found through their extensive research.
Just google any category I mentioned and prefix it with "Researchers find women are better than men at (fill in the blank).
If you have trouble figuring out how to do this please ask a woman to help you.
You are obviously a sexist which isn't absolutely terrible but I hope you are not any of the other even more obnoxious ____ists.
C'mon Short Buss I know you can read. At least I think you are one of those highly intellectual males with an I.Q. above 80.
I never made any assertions or arguments I only pointed out what qualified researchers had found through extensive studies. Try googling.
Men and women are more alike than they are different but at the tale end of the distribution is where the differences stand out. In the real world, someone who has been busy pointing out these differences is Dr. Jordan Peterson. Of course he's been pilloried along the way. For years many have thought that men's and women's career choices were driven by arbitrary societal norms but as JP has been pointing out, the exact opposite thing has happened in the more egalitarian countries. As they have moved their societies into a more egalitarian direction what has happened is the career choices of men and women have fallen MORE in line with traditional norms, not LESS!
What does this have to do with pool? It's quite possible that women will just NEVER be as interested in the game as men. Why? Possibly because men on average tend to be more interested in things, and women on average tend to be more interested in people. If anybody thinks that we could level the playing field so to speak, when it comes to the environment in which the game is played, and then all of a sudden we would see equal participation rates between the sexes they are fooling themselves.
So if women just aren't as interested in the game as men are, is it really that much of a stretch to think that there may just be some inherent characteristics that give men an advantage at it? I have little doubt that this is true. Because so many men that play this game are diminutive in stature, too many under rate the benefit of strength, agility, and quickness in it. Alex Pagulayan may be small in stature but if you were to line him up against a woman of similar size, I would be willing to bet that his hands would be quicker and stronger, and his overall athletic ability would be demonstrably greater. These attributes are put to good use on the table and you can see these stark differences between the men and women when they are warming up on the table and really letting their strokes out. Of course, the counter argument becomes -- well why is it even necessary for a player to be able to draw the ball 10 diamonds when that shot is never required in an actual game? It becomes a matter of capabilty. Take Jennifer Barrera for instance: If she steps to the table and is faced with a shot where she is required to fire in a long straight shot and has to draw the cue ball back the length of the table will she be able do it with regularity if she is performing right at the limit of her capability? Meanwhile, you take a male player who is faced with the same shot and they are operating at 60 percent of their capabilty so they have a distinct advantage. I think this plays out a lot more often than people like to think.
Now I say this not to undermine what a player like Siming Chen has accomplished, but to celebrate it. Women have an awful lot to overcome in this game to reach such epic levels of play. They must accentuate every positive attribute they have at the table, in order to stay one step ahead of the men that have distinct physical advantages.
What does this have to do with pool? It's quite possible that women will just NEVER be as interested in the game as men. Why? Possibly because men on average tend to be more interested in things, and women on average tend to be more interested in people. If anybody thinks that we could level the playing field so to speak, when it comes to the environment in which the game is played, and then all of a sudden we would see equal participation rates between the sexes they are fooling themselves.
So if women just aren't as interested in the game as men are, is it really that much of a stretch to think that there may just be some inherent characteristics that give men an advantage at it? I have little doubt that this is true. Because so many men that play this game are diminutive in stature, too many under rate the benefit of strength, agility, and quickness in it. Alex Pagulayan may be small in stature but if you were to line him up against a woman of similar size, I would be willing to bet that his hands would be quicker and stronger, and his overall athletic ability would be demonstrably greater. These attributes are put to good use on the table and you can see these stark differences between the men and women when they are warming up on the table and really letting their strokes out. Of course, the counter argument becomes -- well why is it even necessary for a player to be able to draw the ball 10 diamonds when that shot is never required in an actual game? It becomes a matter of capabilty. Take Jennifer Barrera for instance: If she steps to the table and is faced with a shot where she is required to fire in a long straight shot and has to draw the cue ball back the length of the table will she be able do it with regularity if she is performing right at the limit of her capability? Meanwhile, you take a male player who is faced with the same shot and they are operating at 60 percent of their capabilty so they have a distinct advantage. I think this plays out a lot more often than people like to think.
Now I say this not to undermine what a player like Siming Chen has accomplished, but to celebrate it. Women have an awful lot to overcome in this game to reach such epic levels of play. They must accentuate every positive attribute they have at the table, in order to stay one step ahead of the men that have distinct physical advantages.
Researchers come to the conslusions they are paid to come to, kn almost every case. This is how research academia has worked for a very long time. Researchers also found at one point, and after getting paid a lot of "research" money, that cigarettes do not cause cancer, and in fact have psoitive health benefits. Researchers also found at one point that leaded gasoline causes no negativw environmental kmpact. Funnily enough, that research was paid for by the petroleum industry.
Yer not helping yer case here, mang.... I'd be most interested to find out which organizations paid for the research these "qualified researchers" found through "extensive studies", and which political leanings these rssearch financiers had.
By that I mean, there is always a lot of benefit to be had in pandering to an important politicL demographic.... Let me be clear, I am not in any way saying women are NOT bettwr suited to certain things...... What I AM saying is that women seem to have an inherent disadvantage in any profession where competition is stiff and aggressive.
I spent 20 years in Academia.
I have received grant $$ --as primary or secondary--millions -- from National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health, Air Force, Navy, Army, NASA
I have also evaluate grant proposals for these and other agencies many many times--individually and on panels.
Your assessment is just freakin nonsense.