Obviously she is smart and she combines that with being a personality and entertainer. Which is why she makes a load of money.
That men are superior athletes. If you have 2 equally matched male/female athletes in any given sport, they each may have a 50/50 chance of winning whatever event, but there would be far fewer women capable of attaining that same standard than men. Additionally, the most athletic men are more superior than their respective most athletic female counterparts in most any given sport.
And every single one of those women smoke 99.9999% of all men on the planet. The fact that Usain Bolt can beat the best woman on the planet in a foot race doesn't mean men are superior athletes, it means Usain Bolt is the superior athlete. The woman is still faster than damn near every male on the planet.
You guys are having a disagreement that comes down to semantics. float is arguing that women can be more athletic than men-- that the distributions of athletic performance of each sex overlap. Others are arguing that the distributions of athletic performance of each sex are not equal, and that the men distribution is higher. Neither of these arguments are exclusive to one another.
How many men on the planet would you say are faster than the fastest woman? 100? 1,000? 10,000? And in their prime, say 20s, men outnumber women something like 1.1 to 1. So if your number of faster is within that 0.10% over 7 billion, you conclude it's statistically significant? So in what way is it a dumber argument than the one that is comparing the most elite of all persons on the planet, in a single snapshot of time that is less than the blink of an eye in human existence and making gross generalizations based on that snapshot, against something that changes every couple of decades? The point is that generalization arguments and comments are dumb. And here is why: what is being claimed is that something that is absolutely changeable, in athletic ability: scores, speed, etc, etc, will be held constant against something generally unchangeable, which is gender. And that ratios some how have an influence on that. Which is dumb.
I would take any top hs aau sprinter or college athlete over top woman sprinter Your devils advocate shtick on this is wasted.
This isn't devil's advocate. This is a simple time concept. Conclusions are being drawn that have very little basis to be drawn. You are saying that top male sprinters will always be faster than women, because they are today. And the evidence for this is that they are faster today. This is circular reasoning. There are no sprinter genes. Gender is not likely to change over the next period of time, but the pool that makes Y faster than X can, and likely will. So you can have your sprinters today, and I'll take all of the human future. I like my odds better.
Float says: Fastest woman is faster than 99.9999% of all males (and I would greatly dispute that number of significant digits because that would mean she is faster than all but about 4500 men world wide which I do not believe is true, but I think he is just making a point) Everyone else: Men are faster than women. Both are correct, and as Float says, at this time. And I believe, baring serious genome manipulation, it will always be that way. Women are the solid line, men are the dotted line. (this is not exact, but a simple double bell curve I found on the internet to show my point. actual data will follow). Yes, women beyond the 3 sigma are going to be faster than 90% of all men on the planet. Faster than me, for sure. But your average male will be faster than your average female, and that is just fact. All time record for women's 100m is by Flo-jo, the female equivelant of Usain Bolt. She was a freakasaurus. 10.49 100m. That is insane fast. Except it would not even get her on the top 3000 all time of males in the 100m. Not even a whiff of it. http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w_100ok.htm http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm rule of statistics: You cannot apply statistics to an individual, but only to groups. There will always be outliers. So to say a woman should not get in a fight because a man will always beat her is ludicrous to say. But it is also ludicrous to say that the best woman can be the best man in a foot race. Not unless the male pulls a hamstring coming out of the blocks. So both parties are right. EDIT: Double listed the men's records. Fixed it so the first link is to the women's.
Much like in the ESPN thread, he's arguing from the 1 percent perspective. He's not wrong, he's just arguing a point nobody has interest in debating. We get it. Outliers exist.
You are looking at a snapshot in time, to come to a conclusion that transcends time. There is nothing in "gender" that confers athleticism, and since it is pretty well static, you're claiming that something that isn't changing will always be held constant against things that always change. And your reasoning for making that claim is because you've chosen a period of time where nothing is changing. It is literally an argument against evolution. Period.
No, you don't get it. It isn't about outliers. And even if it were, you, specifically, still aren't making allowances for them. You are making a claim that something will hold true until the end of time. Period.
Why are we talking future events? We are talking now and in the past, which is the only data we have. In the future, all men might get killed by a Y-chromosome virus and the fastest people on earth will all be females. But what does that have to do with anything? As far as evolution, look at the times I gave. The men's top times are all in the last 10-15 years. Carl Lewis' world record of 9.92 from 1988 is now in 225th place. Flo-jo's time has stood for 30 years, and the women's times are shotgunned all over the place. So if anything, men have been getting faster the last 30 years, and women have made much less improvement, if not straight up static.
Because the claim is that men are more athletic than women. For that statement to be true, it must always be true, for as long as there are "men and women." Do you disagree? Which means this is a longitudinal question, not a snapshot in time. You say women's times haven't changed much in 30 years, and men have. That's great. For this to matter, it would have to hold true moving forward. To determine if it's true, you're using the same snapshot in time. How can you not be certain this period of 30 or so years isn't the anomoly. Because that is what you are claiming, that it holds true. I ask, before Flo Jo, or whomever, how many men were faster than the fastest woman. If it's now 5,000 or so, was it 10,000? 20,000? If so, you can see a decrease in the gap. And if women are in fact closing that gap, how can you claim men are indeed faster? Because you looked at 50 years? Wow. That's like a long time, in the 200,000 or so years of our existencex. It doesn't matter if it takes 600 years to close the gap, if the gap is closing, the gap is closing.
The best coverage of the Berkeley ANTIFA Fascists vs Fascist anti-fascists is this Pepsi challenge: [youtube]7u3uhKxNPNg[/youtube]
And it's also fallacious to think that just because the gap closed that it means the gap will eventually cease to exist. No data has ever supported men not being faster than women, and this 'closing gap' that's actually widened over the course of 25 years doesn't support the idea that women ever will match men's achievements -- it merely says women are getting faster.
