111–120 of 232 posts
Honest question, the general physical differences between the sexes or even races are undeniable, so why is it so taboo to talk about the differences that almost certainly exist in our minds?
Given that "race" is a social construct... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the differences are insignificant then why are most sports segregated by gender? Why does the entire female FIDE rating distribution sit 200 points lower than the male distribution? The FIDE gap is not one that can be hand waved away as under-representation or discrimination or anything else. There are clearly differences between genders and races, and sometimes they are clearly significant. Whatever your views ma…
How can you say FIDE isn't just an under representation gap caused by culture or the federation itself? The number of boys who play chess dwarf the number of girls. If we took 1000 random 5 year olds and subjected them to 3 years of Magnus Carlsen style coaching I'm confident there would be no "FIDE gap."
If the delta was due to males getting additional coaching, then the left tail of the distribution would be different in shape for males and females. It is not. Nor do more progressive countries show any signs of closing the gap. The best evidence we have right now suggests it is in fact inherent in gender. Just like the women's 100m record is a full second slower than men's.
This kind of blatant ignorance of simple statistics and experiment design seems to be rife in the gender debate.
This is the Streisand Effect in action. (I am sure there are going to be people in a few years who learn of the Streisand Effect first and then learn about some random washed-up musician responsible for it second.)
What does Barbara Streisand have to do with this? She had a beautiful voice and was loved by many. Memories...
There is more going on than this. It's important to know a bit about the venues in question. Mathematical Intelligencer isn't really a journal at all; it's literally a magazine, carried on the shelves it bookstores. It runs some original research but also poetry and jokes and general cultural coverage. NYJM is, on the other hand, a serious (if online-only, lower-tier) theoretical mathematics journal. Ted Hill's paper…
Something about the hypothesis itself:
The variability hypothesis seems plausible, but there seems to be little evidence linking it to biological differences.
Variability differences undoubtedly exist, but not universally and not with same degree across cultures. As the measured variance is very culture dependent and even disappears, existing data does not support the hypothesis linking it to biological differences.
There is also strong negative correlation between variance ratio (VR) and mathematical performance. (r = -0.640, p source:
Debunking Myths about Gender and Mathematics Performance http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf
Honest question, the general physical differences between the sexes or even races are undeniable, so why is it so taboo to talk about the differences that almost certainly exist in our minds?
One reason certainly is that the physical differences betwen individuals regardless of sex are bigger than those between sexes. Also, the measurable physical differences in the brain structure of women and men are there but totally insignificant with regards to intelligence. Side note, there is no way measuring intelligence based on a MRT-scan of ones brain. Also, history might help, humanity had some bad experience…
Honest question, the general physical differences between the sexes or even races are undeniable, so why is it so taboo to talk about the differences that almost certainly exist in our minds?
One reason certainly is that the physical differences betwen individuals regardless of sex are bigger than those between sexes. Also, the measurable physical differences in the brain structure of women and men are there but totally insignificant with regards to intelligence. Side note, there is no way measuring intelligence based on a MRT-scan of ones brain. Also, history might help, humanity had some bad experience…
https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-scan-intelligence-9477/
It's not especially accurate but it does work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The third, WTF? Not really. A society where only 16% of men mate has 84% angry young men with nothing to lose. Expect a lot of violence, and not much careful consistent tending of the fields... My understanding is that this is why state-sanctioned monogamy exists: it is a tool for avoiding this situation.
> A society where only 16% of men mate has 84% angry young men with nothing to lose. Is it so crazy to think that a man with no partner could live a socially responsible life? The choice isn't a binary "Happy with wife and kids" vs "Flame, looting, violence and plague". I'm basing my experience on Australian law here, but our 'modern state-sanctioned monogamy' is a comprehensive system to stop fathers from having chi…
>The results showed that married people had lower cortisol levels overall than single or divorced people, and also that they had faster cortisol declines
So, there are measurable effects occurring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One reason certainly is that the physical differences betwen individuals regardless of sex are bigger than those between sexes. Also, the measurable physical differences in the brain structure of women and men are there but totally insignificant with regards to intelligence. Side note, there is no way measuring intelligence based on a MRT-scan of ones brain. Also, history might help, humanity had some bad experience…
I thought that scientists had just devised a way to determine fluid intelligence at least from an fMRI scan? https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-scan-intelligence-9477/ It's not especially accurate but it does work.
But I wasn't aaware of that development, so thanks for pointing it out!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could also easily differentiate between brown eyed and blue eyed people. The social construct part comes in when you try to explain why one differentiation is more 'important' than the other.
"eye color is a social construct" and "the importance of eye color is a social construct" are two completely separate ideas. OP clearly states '"race" is a social construct'.
And that's the point. In ths case, "race" is equivalent to "the importance of eye colour", because "race" is the importance and social meaning we build around certain genetic differences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One reason certainly is that the physical differences betwen individuals regardless of sex are bigger than those between sexes. Also, the measurable physical differences in the brain structure of women and men are there but totally insignificant with regards to intelligence. Side note, there is no way measuring intelligence based on a MRT-scan of ones brain. Also, history might help, humanity had some bad experience…
If the differences between sexes are less impactful than differences between individuals, why is virtually every olympic sport segregated by gender, with significant deltas in performance at every part of the performance distribution? Why are purely intellectual competitions like chess also segregated by gender due to a performance disparity?
Also, if you take boxing athletes are put into different weight classes. Making it rather futile to tell if Floyd Mayweather or Anthony Jushua is the better boxer, right?
Also, out of experience, These differences are much less pronounced if do not only look at Olympia-Level individuals. But I digress.