Was not talking about her. Just saying that in China the "beauties" are preferred when it comes to outside pool sponsorships. In a few cases the female player was literally "made over" to be much more traditionally feminine.
Siming Chen
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
Was not talking about her. Just saying that in China the "beauties" are preferred when it comes to outside pool sponsorships. In a few cases the female player was literally "made over" to be much more traditionally feminine.
I'll take (1) and (2) together. But first I'll make a general comment.
While my experience here is you generally are a smart and thoughtful person, I believe on this issue you are not rational. The backdrop is many people don't even want to TALK about biological differences between men and women that might impact policies and opportunities and the like (true), that some find the discussion repulsive (true), that some have a veneer of rational discussion but really are apologists for the first two groups of people (true), and that many people have a strong desire for reality to be a certain way on this issue (true).
This is where you enter. You fancy yourself a person who is not going to be swayed by the way you WANT the world to be. You are the one who is going to accept the slings and arrows and stand in the public square and say "sorry..it is what it is; the emperor has no clothes..."
But there is another group of people, and it includes many in the scientific community. It is people who really DO view this issue rationally, who are thoughtful and open to new ideas, who are capable of separating the way they might want the world to be from the way the world is. I think when and where this group aligns in conclusion with the delusional crowd above, it--to you--becomes the delusional crowd. And you are blind and deaf to its arguments.
(1) and (2): Participation Rates: This, once again, is not a variable. It doesn't explain things and it is not the cause of things. It in our discussions is essentially a catch-all for "all else being equal."
Again, when we point out that Alberta CAN produces far more good Hockey players than does Alabama, USA, that is just an observation--one we can check and perhaps all agree is true.
And when we say the Ukraine produces far more good chess players than does Japan, that once again is an observation--a measurement--that we can agree is true.
And when we say the male sex produces a lot more good pool players than does the female sex, that is just an observation that we can agree is true.
In none of these cases does the observation suggest or imply that the former is superior in some base fundamental way than the latter. If you don't want to make a claim about genetic propensities toward chess in the Ukraine vs Japan or genetic propensities toward pool in men vs women, then there is nothing to do.
However, if you DO want to make such a claim, then the burden is on YOU to make the case these and other observations/measurements are actually measuring what you claim they are. The default position in all of the above is we are observing nothing relevant about fundamental genetic differences. Once again, if you want to make a case otherwise, it is your burden to satisfy the "all else being equal" requirement. It is your burden to take into account participation rates, general popularity of the activity amongst the group, differences in recognizing and nurturing talent, barriers to entry, reinforcement, and all sorts of things.
I believe you approach this backwards. I think you say clearly men are better at pool, canuks are better at hockey, and Ukranians are better at chess, as though it is a given these simple observations are measuring something fundamental about innate propensities and you challenge others to refute that. That's unreasonable. The burden goes the other way. I know you don't like the hockey and chess analogy and you didn't make those claims about hockey and chess. But I bring them up because the same issue is at play, and I think there is less noise and it is easier for people to see.
If you made a claim that Ukranians are genetically more suited for chess than Japanese and cited the number of grand masters as support, I an--others--would simply throw the ball back into your court and say you haven't effective made the case that the number of grand masters is measuring what you claim it is.
(3) Yes men and woman are biologically different in many different ways. We are of course all biologically different in many different ways some of which are readily apparent to us and most of which are not. Tall people are better at picking apples. Men are taller on average. So, all else being equal, men on average are expected to be better at picking apples. But if all across the world 5'9" men are hired over 5'10" women to pick apples because we all know men are better at picking apples, then something not good is happening. That's a practical problem that exists even when there IS a fundamental genetic difference.
Given the myriad other things that affect observed performance differences, it will be a long time before we get even close to assessing whether women or men on average are better in some subtle way at mathematics or art or physics or philosophy or business or corporate efficiency or military strategy and any of a host of other human endeavors. In fact we will probably never get there given most things of value depend on many different individual traits and excellence can be achieved employing core competencies with different weights.
Last edited:
Mike had me until he suggested that Canadians were not inherently better at hockey! Blasphemy!
I agree with JB....we are blessed to have Mr Page in the game.
I’ve read that if someone can’t explain something in simple terms, he probably doesn’t
understand it....Mike, I suspect, was a superb teacher.
But this high school drop-out is giving carte blanche to no one....
Women make me smile....men make me grow horns and paw the ground....
Vive la difference
Well thank you..
...but whether men or women make you grow horns is a whole nuther 600+ post thread...
Yes, vive la difference, whatever we're talking about...
I love the work Mike does and by far its the best we have however the cross over from men to woman to me still lacks sufficient evidence ,,
1
"...But there is another group of people, and it includes many in the scientific community. It is people who really DO view this issue rationally, who are thoughtful and open to new ideas, who are capable of separating the way they might want the world to be from the way the world is...."
Mike
We have improved the guidance on our guided bombs and missiles - rational measurable improvement.
On May 7, 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force), five US JDAM guided bombs hit the People's Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade, killing three Chinese reporters and outraging the Chinese public.
Trump launches military strike against Syria
By Barbara Starr and Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Updated 4:59 PM ET, Fri April 7, 2017 ...
...A US defense official told CNN Friday morning that an initial battle damage assessment from the strike was that 58 of the 59 missiles "severely degraded or destroyed" their intended target. The official cautioned that this is just the earliest assessment using radar and that more robust assessments using satellites and other surveillance is still pending....
Mike
We have improved the guidance on our guided bombs and missiles - rational measurable improvement.
On May 7, 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force), five US JDAM guided bombs hit the People's Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade, killing three Chinese reporters and outraging the Chinese public.
Trump launches military strike against Syria
By Barbara Starr and Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Updated 4:59 PM ET, Fri April 7, 2017 ...
...A US defense official told CNN Friday morning that an initial battle damage assessment from the strike was that 58 of the 59 missiles "severely degraded or destroyed" their intended target. The official cautioned that this is just the earliest assessment using radar and that more robust assessments using satellites and other surveillance is still pending....
More men have no home and have to sleep on the table? Even Efren slept under the table.
You know, I watched an old movie today "the 36th chamber of Shaolin" where the main character wants to learn kung fu to avenge his murdered family, so he takes up with Shaolin monks and spends the next few years completing 36 levels of training before he can be a warrior....
The tasks are difficult and impossible at first but over time he learns to complete them and move on to the next chamber and a new task.
In the end, he is the ultimate warrior with all 36 tasks flowing at once making him impossible to be defeated.
https://goo.gl/images/XRpTKm
Now I thought, that's actually not that bad for pool training and it's that type of immersion and tactical training that goes into many of the far east professional players.
I recalled talking about the training regiment of the Taipei players with Kevin Cheng and he said early on it was not uncommon to have entire days of regimented training on only jump shots for hours on end
Your photo of Siming makes it all clear now...it's not just a sport or a quick gamble...she's coming from a warrior perspective in her training discipline.
I'm ready for the new movie "the 36th chamber of Chen"....Where she completes her 36 levels of training and takes on "color of money" Vincent at the US Open