|
On April 13 2014 11:02 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote:
Never said anything about women being useless, both sexes need each other in order to survive. Stop putting words into my mouth kid. Kid? You call me "kid"? Grow up, but more importantly, learn to read. This is what I said, to describe your position: " In order to be equal, they need to become WORLD CHAMPION at things which are actually completely fucking useless?" I didn't put words in your mouth, you illiterate child. I said that your standards are based on useless bullshit. You said that to consider women our equals they would need to perform equally well at some bullshit games that I consider to be useless. Are we clear? Show nested quote +The basis of my argument lies on the fact that it's all based on biology. I believe in traditional gender roles where men act like men and women act like women. Thats how civilization thrived for million of years. Just because you don't agree with my view doesn't mean that my view is backward. Everything that you learn in school isn't 100% correct. You call your opinion that it's all based on biology a fact, which is by no means a given. Also civilization thrived for millions of years with all kinds of bullshit happening. The fact that it worked doesn't mean it was good. Recent studies show that women may very well be much better at things that we didn't allow them to do than we give them credit for. Civilization thrived with monarchies, tyrannies, famines, the lack of hygiene of medicine, society thrived before we knew better. Show nested quote +I didn't say anything about golf. I mentioned Tiger because he broke the racial barrier in 1997 by winning the masters by 12 shots against all odds and then continue to dominate golf for a long time. I want a woman to do something similar instead of blaming society and making excuses. Young Tiger faced racism and all sort of shits when he was growing up, but that didn't stop him from being good. Fair.
So by telling him to grow up because he called you a "kid", you went straight ahead and went to his level by returning a "child" insult. Kudos.
Women are better at one particular field while men are better at another. In STEM + athleticism, men clearly have advantages over women in terms of innovation and superhuman physical feats.
I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men. In the past of America (and present of other parts of the world) while women stayed at home taking care of the family, men were out there conducting extremely risky tasks. For example working in highly focus oriented workplace in construction and factory during the cold war. In terms of "oppression", men overall suffered just as much (if not more) than the ladies.
The worst thing about feminism isn't their original message but it is about the resentment and shaming of feminist saying that "Oh he just can't handle a strong and independent woman" after she reached into a high position career-wise but simultaneously lost her youth and attractiveness when men prefer a younger and more beautiful girl. If you chose that career path, don't be bitching about it later. Suck it up by the fact of what men find alluring in a girl.
|
On April 13 2014 12:04 Hryul wrote:
You guys are arguing in circles. Both of you have a fair point about the assumptions in the paper. One states a self selecting process among good chess players while the other blames society for it.
You cannot decide this problem through the discussion of the paper itself, but would have to test in other environments. (possibly impossible)
The paper does not make assumptions with regards to why there are less women playing. All the paper says and demonstrates is that ratings cannot be used to argue that men are better than women at chess, because the ratings do not indicate that. That's it.
|
United States42884 Posts
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
|
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote:
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of
"I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men."
this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
|
|
|
On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote:
They should be able to compete with men in bullshit games. That's the theory. Why are they still coming up short?
Because there are vastly more men competing - it's simple statistics. And in addition, sociocultural & psychological factors work against women for a good number of the games you mentioned.
On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote:
To me the answer lies in biology.
There is zero evidence supporting this.
|
On April 13 2014 13:04 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote:
They should be able to compete with men in bullshit games. That's the theory. Why are they still coming up short? Because there are vastly more men competing - it's simple statistics. And in addition, sociocultural & psychological factors work against women for a good number of the games you mentioned. There is zero evidence supporting this.
Go back to the basics. Men don't own women anything.
If you are to count about "equality in jobs/education", then they own us too regarding all the sacrifice of men, brothers, sons, and husbands, to provide that one haunch of meat or that protection against wolves in the pre-historical timeline.
Until they are able to make up for those loses, men don't have to move an inch away from the status quo.
|
On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote:
ok kid, I judge them based on those "bullshit games" because these activities don't discriminate against women.
You can keep doing that if you want, but if I were you, I would stop, considering that you started calling me "kid" because you misunderstood something I said and immediately got offended because you can't understand plain English.
In bullshit games such as dart, chess and starcraft, there is no excuse. If a girl wants to be good and go for the top and be a pro, there isn't anything preventing her from doing so. Furthermore, these games can determine people's ability. The person who is better than the other person is going to outperform the other person. Why are women still not performing? oh right it's the culture again. because women can't hide their gender in video games online. Ever wonder why there isn't a super good top ranked hidden talent female gamer in anything?
Well for one, being "world champion" doesn't really matter because those are extreme values. For the most part, our species thrives on solid averages and not on Michael Phelps's ability to swim quickly or the best dive at the Olympics or who won OSL 2007. The world needs good engineers, scientists, biologists, and people who don't kill other people in car accidents. In all of those things, women are capable. Yet in certain things, they are underrepresented for a variety of reasons.
Biology may very well be one of them, it's inherently hard to tell and the fact that you'd pretend to know this for sure is not surprising. Regardless, of the factors that are at play, there are the social and cultural norms. Now, you brush those off as if they were irrelevant, which is absolutely ridiculous because you're essentially denying the importance of a person's context in their uprising. Our culture very much drives us and point us in a general direction, though. If we look at the social norms in different countries, we'll see that the people end up in very different places in academia. Some countries want more engineers, other want more doctors. Men and women go to fields which they believe to be more suitable for them. And people determine what's suitable for them by taking the input from the society they live in. In other words, certain activities or jobs have a stigma of sorts, for one of the sexes. Certainly, you can argue that the sexes may have a biological affinity toward said activity, but that's a shallow analysis. Just a few decades ago, men like you outright assumed men to be much smarter than women, before women even really had any access to education. When potential is allowed to be unlocked, you notice that context does matter.
You ask me if I "ever wondered why there isn't a super good top ranked blahblahblah". Well an interesting article was posted about this and you should perhaps look into it. Very few women play SC2, and incredibly few women play SC2 competitively. The same thing can be said about other games, and jobs, etc. The fact is that there are much fewer women, and so it's a lot less likely that women would happen to reach the top. Someone made the analogy earlier, say there are 85 players, 80 have brown hair and 5 have blonde hair, it's likely that the best player of all will be brown haired, statistically. I would then add that if you constantly tell the blond haired people that they can't do it and that they're dumb and incapable of beating the brown haired and this turns out to be true, then they'll have less drive to try to overcome the issues.
Long story short, context is important. We know it's important because it's what science has been getting at in the last decades. Granted, you and many other seem to feel free to ignore a reality which is inconvenient to beliefs that you've grown attached to for whatever reason. Truly dogmatic and a little bit sad.
On April 13 2014 13:10 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 13:04 kwizach wrote:On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote:
They should be able to compete with men in bullshit games. That's the theory. Why are they still coming up short? Because there are vastly more men competing - it's simple statistics. And in addition, sociocultural & psychological factors work against women for a good number of the games you mentioned. On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote:
To me the answer lies in biology. There is zero evidence supporting this. Go back to the basics. Men don't own women anything. If you are to count about "equality in jobs/education", then they own us too regarding all the sacrifice of men, brothers, sons, and husbands, to provide that one haunch of meat or that protection against wolves in the pre-historical timeline. Until they are able to make up for those loses, men don't have to move an inch away from the status quo.
He didn't say anything about owing anything as far as I can tell... He's just saying that the article suggests that the reason why women make up less of the extreme data points is because they constitute less data points in general and therefore it follows that they wouldn't have as many of the extreme ones.
Social justice is about choice, too, not settling imaginary debts from a fuzzy past that you haven't had anything to deal with. I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in any trenches either.
|
On April 13 2014 10:57 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote:On April 13 2014 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 13 2014 08:43 Darkwhite wrote:Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players. This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate. Is the each a typo'ed both? No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population. If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one. No, they do not need to assume that. Their statistical analysis, which does NOT take/need to take into account women who are not in the sample, proves the differences in ratings among the population under study can be attributed to population size because the actual differences in ratings match at 96% the expected differences in ratings based on the differences in population size. That's how statistics work. They're not making a statement about people which are not in the population under study. If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match. For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two. Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings. Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote:
I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100. The methodology of comparing the top 100 is based on the fact that they need the same number of people following an equivalent placement order to be able to measure differences. It's like you don't have a clue of what they're doing in the study. Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote:
Darkwhite already neutralized Kwizach's argument. I thought kwizach was right but then darkwhite came a long. He has a better explanation. Darkwhite has no explanation. He clearly failed to understand what was in the study and provided no actual evidence whatsoever to support his own idea that men are better at chess. How can you possibly fail to see this? 96% of differences in ratings were explained by men being overwhelmingly more numerous than women. Is it surprising to you that if two groups compete to see who jumps farther, for example, a group of 16 competitors is statistically more likely to have one of its members get the first place than a group of 1 competitor? And the remaining 4% can be explained by sociocultural and psychological factors of the type presented in the papers I submitted to you earlier and in the other one you found yourself about chess. I'm not interested in antagonizing you, but I just don't get how you can possibly go back to your initial position if you're honest when you say you're willing to take into account contradictory evidence and arguments.
The problem with a comparison to hair color is that we have much better reasons to assume hair color and chess talent are independent, than chess participation and chess talent.
You are sort of right on a technicality; the article does not scale up the size of the female population, by inventing additional players. They just do the opposite instead; they scale down the general (predominately male) population, assuming mean and variation remains unchanged. The difference is entirely superficial; solving for y in terms of x, rather than for x in terms of y, but maybe that clears something up.
Now, why is this scaling a problem? Let's quote someone you might listen to:
As Janet Hyde writes, "assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group"
Replace surplus females taking the SAT with surplus males playing chess. There is every reason to expect that, were there fewer males playing chess, the pruning wouldn't be random, but biased towards the less talented players.
Now, in the SATs, the ratio of females to males is roughly 1.2 (one point two). In the sample of German chess players, the factor is approximately 17 (seventeen). If there were supposed to be any noticeable effect on the mean values from uneven populations in the SATs, the effect would be orders of magnitude larger in the case of the German chess players. And that effect would pull, as Hyde argues, towards a larger male advantage in mean value, than the one which already exists.
You can't have your population normalization effect to pull whichever way you want from case to case.
|
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote:
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history. What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand? They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
|
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote:
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history. What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand? They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs. When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
|
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote:
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history. What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand? They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs. When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason. All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones.
Sometimes.
Whatever it is that you meant, not only does it apply to individual women because our notion of equality has nothing to do with our history but has to do with practical equality as it should be in practice, men have historically treated women like animals. To say that we don't owe them anything (and we don't) because we fought wars in their place is pointless. We fought wars for our women and against the women of others - every single time.
|
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote:
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history. What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand? They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs. When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason. All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
|
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote:
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history. What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand? They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs. When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason. All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question. I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +and systematically rape the women on the losing side. They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
|
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote:
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history. What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand? They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs. When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason. All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question. I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +and systematically rape the women on the losing side. They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes. As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
Gonna hit the hay, but I question the morality of some of the people in this thread =_=.
|
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote:
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history. What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand? They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs. When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason. All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question. I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote:
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history. What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand? They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs. When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason. All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question. I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +and systematically rape the women on the losing side. They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes. As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee). And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
|
On April 13 2014 12:46 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +Kid? You call me "kid"? Grow up, but more importantly, learn to read.
This is what I said, to describe your position: "In order to be equal, they need to become WORLD CHAMPION at things which are actually completely fucking useless?"
I didn't put words in your mouth, you illiterate child. I said that your standards are based on useless bullshit. You said that to consider women our equals they would need to perform equally well at some bullshit games that I consider to be useless. Are we clear? ok kid, I judge them based on those "bullshit games" because these activities don't discriminate against women. In real jobs, women can claim that society is holding her back. She didn't get her promotion because she's a "woman." In bullshit games such as dart, chess and starcraft, there is no excuse. If a girl wants to be good and go for the top and be a pro, there isn't anything preventing her from doing so. Furthermore, these games can determine people's ability. The person who is better than the other person is going to outperform the other person. Why are women still not performing? oh right it's the culture again. because women can't hide their gender in video games online. Ever wonder why there isn't a super good top ranked hidden talent female gamer in anything? There was a belief that black baseball players are inferior to white baseball players. That was proven wrong when blacks were allowed into the MLB and everyone could see their ability. If women are truly equal to men in term of ability. They should be able to compete with men in bullshit games. That's the theory. Why are they still coming up short? To me the answer lies in biology.
Just a few things you fedorable bigot. No hidden top girls in gaming, what about scarlet or hafu in wow? Tossgirl was a low tier pro in bw, which means she was better than 99.9^100 percent of everyone to ever play the game. And Jenny Finch struck out something like 23 major leaguers, but shes clearly useless at baseball. Or that 9 year old girl who is the youngest chess player to reach expert rank ever?
|
On April 13 2014 10:57 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote:On April 13 2014 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 13 2014 08:43 Darkwhite wrote:Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players. This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate. Is the each a typo'ed both? No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population. If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one. No, they do not need to assume that. Their statistical analysis, which does NOT take/need to take into account women who are not in the sample, proves the differences in ratings among the population under study can be attributed to population size because the actual differences in ratings match at 96% the expected differences in ratings based on the differences in population size. That's how statistics work. They're not making a statement about people which are not in the population under study. If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match. For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two. Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings. Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote:
I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100. The methodology of comparing the top 100 is based on the fact that they need the same number of people following an equivalent placement order to be able to measure differences. It's like you don't have a clue of what they're doing in the study. Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote:
Darkwhite already neutralized Kwizach's argument. I thought kwizach was right but then darkwhite came a long. He has a better explanation. Darkwhite has no explanation. He clearly failed to understand what was in the study and provided no actual evidence whatsoever to support his own idea that men are better at chess. How can you possibly fail to see this? 96% of differences in ratings were explained by men being overwhelmingly more numerous than women. Is it surprising to you that if two groups compete to see who jumps farther, for example, a group of 16 competitors is statistically more likely to have one of its members get the first place than a group of 1 competitor? And the remaining 4% can be explained by sociocultural and psychological factors of the type presented in the papers I submitted to you earlier and in the other one you found yourself about chess. I'm not interested in antagonizing you, but I just don't get how you can possibly go back to your initial position if you're honest when you say you're willing to take into account contradictory evidence and arguments.
This logic alone is insufficient to explain why men in general tend to have higher ELO's than women. Surely we can explain why the outliers in the larger sample lie farther out than the outliers in the smaller sample through this - it's just statistically to be expected. But obviously this applies to the other end of the spectrum too. We are going to expect to find more men at utterly terrible ELO's.
And this property of having more numerous and more extreme extremes on both ends (ought to) just weigh itself out; that is, there's no reason to think the average would be different for the larger sample and the smaller one, just based on the fact that one sample is larger. This makes obvious sense: if we take a certain group of players (say, men) and we add more and more men to the sample whose ELO we are averaging, we should just expect the ELO to eventually reach the real average for men, not steadily climb higher as you add more and more men. But this, weirdly enough, would happen if our initial sample was women, and then we started adding more and more men into the sample we were averaging.
This isn't the target of the article (for good reason), and maybe some sort of other statistical finagling will show that the difference in average ELO can't be attributed to (say) biological differences. But, in any case, this article only displays that a very specific phenomenon can be explained away by statistics, not that the notion of innate inequality is in itself untenable or unnecessary to account for differences.
|
United States42884 Posts
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote:
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history. What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand? They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
|
United States42884 Posts
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote:On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote:
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history. What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand? They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs. When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason. All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question. I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason. Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status. Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote:
Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history. What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand? They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs. When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason. All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question. I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +and systematically rape the women on the losing side. They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes. As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee). And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point. It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women in the past because they have a working knowledge of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
