1 user browsing Discussion: Kawaoneechan | 1 guest | 6 bots  
Main » Discussion » Something about cheese!
Pages: First Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Last
Posted on 19-06-17, 11:20
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #403 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 74 days
Last view: 72 days
Posted by CaptainJistuce
You know, if intellect is genetic, people of similar intellect interbreed because like attracts like, and socio-economic status is dictated primarily by intellect... how come two of my grandparents had children land in all levels of society from poor to comfortably middle class(until the economic crash at the turn of the century wiped out their retirement fund) to literal millionaire*?

I can, with a single generation, disprove your hypothesis.

Their contribution would only have been 25%, assuming you mean their grandchildren. Also, SES doesn't even need to be primarily determined by intelligence. It's enough that it gets selected for little by little to create the class stratification effect.

As you say, there's obviously shared environment and non-shared environment contributors to income too. This doesn't prevent Herrnstein's syllogism from holding, since those would even out on a longer scale.

I don't have the actual data, so there's little I can do to respond to your claim in more detail than that.
Posted by wertigon
Another way to disprove the hypothesis:

Take any middle school class from any "bad" district. Tell the parents these are gifted children, and put *all* of them in a special school where this class has four tutors that challenge them. The students spend an entire year in this school, stay at dorms, and function the same. I can guarantee you, this middle school class at the end of the year will outperform their peers by a long shot. Every single one of them.

According to you though, this should be impossible. It's not. It's only impossible, because we as a society do not have endless resources.

Well, this would be a good way to evaluate it. It also has been done, more or less.

Once, they did what you describe, but for a smaller gap. They took "gifted" kindergarteners whose IQs tested > 157 and did more or less that, and then they ended up regressing to an average of 130 as adults because child IQ tests are a bit unreliable. Not very many of them accomplished a lot.
Then you have their high school, which was selected for in the same way but with IQ tests later on on life. Despite having a less impressive curriculum (e.g. they hadn't been going there for very long), they ended up doing better.

https://www.gwern.net/Hunter

The other way is to look at teacher quality and see what effect it has on students. If you have one group of poor students with a bad teacher and another one with a good, according to your hypothesis, the one with the good teacher ought to significantly outperform the one with the bad teacher, no?

https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2016/05/09/my-response-to-the-nytimes-article-on-school-districts-test-scores-and-income/#teacher_quality

Perhaps more interestingly, as he points out, the kids from higher SES families stood more to gain from better teachers. So if one wanted to increase educational equality (which I do not), the best thing to do ought to be to give everyone the worst teachers you could find.

You can also do the opposite: take students from random SES backgrounds, perform interventions to decrease their IQ without telling anyone, and see what this does to educational outcomes.

This was (accidentally) done in 1989, following an accident at the Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine. It's well known that radioactivity during some prenatal stages decrease intelligence. Sweden carried out intelligence tests of her entire male population until 2008, and we can see a decrease for those who had been in those stages of prenatal development around that time of around 0.15 SD (2.25 IQ points). Most likely, this decrease was more pronounced in the areas which received more fallout. And you can see how high school drop out rates in the counties hit hardest by fallout increased: http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__UF__UF0506/Utbildning/.

You could probably find better data (e.g. average SAT scores/GPAs by location of birth, and more granular intelligence test results), and it'd be very interesting, but I think it at any rate shows the value of intellignce in education.

Posted by sureanem
But just to be clear here: you claim is that intelligent poor kids do as well in school as intelligent rich kids, and intelligence is strongly inheritable, and that it is a strong predictor of success, just that it can be trained and that this could be done ad infinitum given enough time+willpower?


There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-17, 12:12
Custom title here

Post: #521 of 866
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 2 days
Last view: 15 hours
I meant my parent, aunts, and uncles on one side of my family.

And your initial argument was in fact that societal standing was determined solely by inherited genetic intelligence. You are moving your goalposts, and I'm calling you on it.

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-06-17, 13:06
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #404 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 74 days
Last view: 72 days
Posted by CaptainJistuce
I meant my parent, aunts, and uncles on one side of my family.

Well, 50% then. My bad, sorry. I still can't respond to anecdotal evidence very well, can I?
And your initial argument was in fact that societal standing was determined solely by inherited genetic intelligence. You are moving your goalposts, and I'm calling you on it.

I don't think it was:
Posted by sureanem
Due to assortative mating, [poor people not having access to education] is not as big of an issue one might think. Since intelligence causes socio-economic status, and intelligence (and by extension, SES) is strongly heritable, the people who would make great contributions to science are to a greater extent found within the upper classes. In other words, the potential loss from talented students who can't afford college is commonly overestimated, and in particular when considering social class rather than direct socio-economic status.

I never mention income here, just social class, and I never once claim or even imply the correlation should be unit. I do imply the correlation for SES should be lower than for social class. I don't think that should imply either one of them are unit, but rather the opposite.

This is what you mean by my initial argument, right?

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-17, 14:24
Post: #58 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 21 days
Last view: 7 days
Sorry, you completely missed what my experiment was about.

I was not saying, take a number of "gifted" people and do a study about them.

I was saying, take any class from the 4th quartile of grades (e.g. worst performers), and give them one year with a team of 4-6 teachers. They live the entire week in school, get to see their parents on weekends. No homework on weekends, too - all studies done with once they get to spend time home.

Tell these kids, all of these kids, that they are gifted and have a natural talent for... Something. Drawing. Math. Woodcarving. Whatever you desire. I would say math because math is the most useful skill from my perspective, but what exactly is not important.

I can guarantee you this entire class would go from fourth to second quartile after six months, possibly even get to first quartile after a year.

Of course, this would be a significant amount of resources spent on a single class. This experiment would net around a quarter million, when all is said and done. And education simply doesn't have this kind of money to spend on everyone.

In fact, this has been done a few times, take a look at schools that went from bottom feeders to decent to even competing at the top. Most bottom dwellers just need some support, and they can achieve great things.
Posted on 19-06-17, 16:29 (revision 1)
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #405 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 74 days
Last view: 72 days
Posted by wertigon
Sorry, you completely missed what my experiment was about.

I was not saying, take a number of "gifted" people and do a study about them.

I was saying, take any class from the 4th quartile of grades (e.g. worst performers), and give them one year with a team of 4-6 teachers. They live the entire week in school, get to see their parents on weekends. No homework on weekends, too - all studies done with once they get to spend time home.

Tell these kids, all of these kids, that they are gifted and have a natural talent for... Something. Drawing. Math. Woodcarving. Whatever you desire. I would say math because math is the most useful skill from my perspective, but what exactly is not important.

I can guarantee you this entire class would go from fourth to second quartile after six months, possibly even get to first quartile after a year.

Of course, this would be a significant amount of resources spent on a single class. This experiment would net around a quarter million, when all is said and done. And education simply doesn't have this kind of money to spend on everyone.

In fact, this has been done a few times, take a look at schools that went from bottom feeders to decent to even competing at the top. Most bottom dwellers just need some support, and they can achieve great things.

Well, let's say for the sake of argument they'd probably be in the first quartile after a year. I'm not even sure this is the case (see the second link in my previous post), but let's go along with it. Then it follows that if you'd expend the same effort on first quartile students, they'd be in the 99th percentile or something along those lines. There's still a difference in ability, even if you throw money at the problem to try and hide it. And if you did have infinite money, everyone would develop to their full potential, meaning that you'd see the same relative ordering of students as before, e.g. 4th quartile students remain in 4th quartile.

To give an analogy, it's like claiming women are as strong as men because you (in theory) could have them do a lot of physical training and then have them exceed the male average. Sure, but they're still innately weaker and they'd still be weaker if both groups exercised as much as they could.

So it'd be vastly more cost-efficient to do these interventions for the best students than the worst; the overall benefit to society of someone going from prominent researcher to Nobel prize winner is greater than that of someone going from tradesman to civil servant, which in turn is far greater than that of someone going from drooling retard to drooling retard who does low-grade construction labor. And in terms of total learning per tax dollar, since intelligent people learn stuff faster, it's apparent that they'd learn more from a given intervention all else equal.

Case in point: Singapore, a country which is extremely competently run and highly values education, #1 in PISA rankings and so on and so forth, they realize this. That is why they doesn't waste money on special education, but rather just exempt the students from compulsory education instead, which is a far cheaper solution. With the money saved from one such student, they can help several gifted students who'd actually amount to something develop further. And they actually invest in such education for gifted students, unlike the West which just flushes the money down the drain with idiotic "No Child Left Behind" programmes or whatever they call it on the other side of the pond.

EDIT: Oops, that's the second last post (>>3400). And on second thought, tradesman -> civil servant is probably a downgrade. But you see what I mean.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-17, 19:17 (revision 1)
Post: #59 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 21 days
Last view: 7 days
So. This either disprove your theory that intelligence cannot be taught, or that education is a function of IQ.

Which one is it, mister? Katt, or Nina?
Posted on 19-06-17, 19:28
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #408 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 74 days
Last view: 72 days
Education being a function of IQ does not entail the correlation being unit. If you take someone with 130 IQ and lock them in a room and wait a year, of course they'd be behind someone who went to school for a year, although of course they could catch up. To claim that I claimed otherwise would be a strawman beyond belief.

Conscientiousness does play a role, definitely. They find that too. I'm not going to dispute that, it's common sense.


Well, education is mostly a function of IQ, but deficiencies in IQ can be compensated for by increased conscientiousness up to a point. Or if you wish infinitely, but then there is a limit to conscientiousness.


If we assume for a moment that education is solely a function of intelligence


It might disprove an unrelated third party's theory that knowledge cannot be taught, but certainly none of mine.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-18, 07:44
Post: #60 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 21 days
Last view: 7 days
The problem with your reasoning is that we are not talking about a hypothetical scenario. What I am describing has already been done, several times. I know because I was part of one of these classes. However, they have not been performed in a formal setting from what I can see.

We managed to raise our class from fourth quartile in my country to upper second quartile in about 10 months. And with far less resources than I was describing, too. Our teacher got some inspiration and changed a few things, laid down a few ground rules and inspired us to do better.

How could he do that if your claims are correct? It's a direct contradiction.

My only conclusion is that you argue for a flat world when real world experience points to the world being at the very least, curved.
Posted on 19-06-18, 09:26
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #410 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 74 days
Last view: 72 days
Posted by wertigon
How could he do that if your claims are correct? It's a direct contradiction.

Do you want me to just quote my previous post on the matter again? That would feel somewhat pointless and rude. So I'll ask instead, is there something in >>3407 you disagree with?

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-18, 11:45 (revision 1)
Post: #61 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 21 days
Last view: 7 days
Yes, I argue that by focusing on the most brilliant minds, you miss all the late bloomers. And those do exist. How many times have you heard this story?

"Yeah, so I was approached by this guy who wanted me to invest in their company. Scruffy looking college kid, heck he had even dropped out recently. Of course I didn't invest a penny. That person was Mark Zuckerberg, and his project was Facebook."

There are way too many anecdotes like that which tells me, no it's not enough to simply focus on the brightest and the best. Everyone benefits if all children could understand Calculus. Not just the academically bright.

Unfortunately there are no silver bullets, but hard, nit gritting painstaking work that is straight up undermined by armchair nay-saying scientist such as yourself. But hey, don't let me ruin your fun. :)
Posted on 19-06-18, 22:01
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #411 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 74 days
Last view: 72 days
Posted by wertigon
How many times have you heard this story?

"Yeah, so I was approached by this guy who wanted me to invest in their company. Scruffy looking college kid, heck he had even dropped out recently. Of course I didn't invest a penny. That person was Mark Zuckerberg, and his project was Facebook."

A lot of times. You hear it because it's uplifting, not because it's true. Zuckerberg scored a perfect 1600, and apparently was bright enough to get into Harvard.
At Ardsley High School, Zuckerberg excelled in classes. After two years, he transferred to the private school Phillips Exeter Academy, in New Hampshire, where he won prizes in science (mathematics, astronomy, and physics) and classical studies. In his youth, he also attended the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth summer camp. On his college application, Zuckerberg stated that he could read and write French, Hebrew, Latin, and ancient Greek. He was captain of the fencing team.

Sounds like whatever the polar opposite of a late bloomer is.

More importantly, there is no such thing as a late bloomer here. Or, sure, you could have someone who's really smart but for various reasons doesn't go to college until he's 25. But there's no such thing as your IQ magically taking a leap of a standard deviation or two after you've already hit adulthood.
There are way too many anecdotes like that which tells me, no it's not enough to simply focus on the brightest and the best. Everyone benefits if all children could understand Calculus. Not just the academically bright.

Really, anecdotal evidence (which also happens to be wrong, mind you) as a source?

I don't understand what you're saying here. Of course everyone would stand to benefit from everyone being able to learn calculus, since 'everyone' would include them, and the statement that it's beneficial if you can understand calculus is just plain tautological.

The benefit to society, however, from spending inordinate amounts of time and money on teaching everyone calculus is a lot less clear to me. Given limited resources, it's more efficient to focus on the brightest students and drop spec ed, giving resources in roughly direct proportion to their skill level.

Unfortunately there are no silver bullets, but hard, nit gritting painstaking work that is straight up undermined by armchair nay-saying scientist such as yourself. But hey, don't let me ruin your fun. :)

Well, how is anything getting undermined here? I am just claiming that there are innate differences in ability, that no amount of training can "fix," just as no amount of training may make women stronger than men. But surely, what I claim can't actually warp reality one way or the other?

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-19, 08:14
Post: #62 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 21 days
Last view: 7 days
Zuckerberg may have been intelligent all his life and did not need the college education since he already knew everything he needed to know, yes.

This is one example of many, however. While Zuckerberg is the extreme end of the spectrum, there are plenty of geniuses and successful men with an average IQ. Heck, even Albert Einstein was overlooked at first glance, and was a constant underperformer until 1905.

I know it is possible to lift any school class out of the trajectory it is set on. But it requires the right guidance at the right time.

If you do not believe me, then perform this experiment. Take one of the worst, underachieving classes in your town or county. Offer them one hour a week of your time for a year. I can guarantee you these kids will achieve a lot better at the end of that year.

However, you do have to approach these students with the mindset that they are not idiots - just poorly taught. And frankly, I do not think you are the kind of person that is up to that task.

Now, I'm sure you have all kinds of objections, but save them. I could pull out a hundred real world examples of where you are proven wrong, but finding these is like finding proof that water is wet. It is frankly not worth my time or effort, because you are not open to that kind of evidence. Which is a shame.

This means I am done here. :)
Posted on 19-06-19, 14:36
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #415 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 74 days
Last view: 72 days
Posted by wertigon
This is one example of many, however. While Zuckerberg is the extreme end of the spectrum, there are plenty of geniuses and successful men with an average IQ. Heck, even Albert Einstein was overlooked at first glance, and was a constant underperformer until 1905.

Underperformer?
Einstein always excelled at math and physics from a young age, reaching a mathematical level years ahead of his peers. The twelve-year-old Einstein taught himself algebra and Euclidean geometry over a single summer. Einstein also independently discovered his own original proof of the Pythagorean theorem at age 12.[23] A family tutor Max Talmud says that after he had given the 12-year-old Einstein a geometry textbook, after a short time "[Einstein] had worked through the whole book. He thereupon devoted himself to higher mathematics... Soon the flight of his mathematical genius was so high I could not follow."[24] His passion for geometry and algebra led the twelve-year-old to become convinced that nature could be understood as a "mathematical structure".[24] Einstein started teaching himself calculus at 12, and as a 14-year-old he says he had "mastered integral and differential calculus".[25]

At age 13, Einstein was introduced to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and Kant became his favorite philosopher, his tutor stating: "At the time he was still a child, only thirteen years old, yet Kant's works, incomprehensible to ordinary mortals, seemed to be clear to him."[24]

In 1895, at the age of 16, Einstein took the entrance examinations for the Swiss Federal Polytechnic in Zürich (later the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, ETH). He failed to reach the required standard in the general part of the examination,[26] but obtained exceptional grades in physics and mathematics.[27] ... In September 1896, he passed the Swiss Matura with mostly good grades, including a top grade of 6 in physics and mathematical subjects, on a scale of 1–6.[30] At 17, he enrolled in the four-year mathematics and physics teaching diploma program at the Zürich Polytechnic.

I really don't think that sounds like someone of average intelligence.

In fact, I don't think there are any geniuses of average intelligence at all. "A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, creative productivity, universality in genres or originality," Wikipedia says. It's a bit difficult to display exceptional intellectual ability when your intellectual ability by definition is average, don't you think?

(That there are successful people of average intelligence is not something I have ever disputed)

I know it is possible to lift any school class out of the trajectory it is set on. But it requires the right guidance at the right time.

If you do not believe me, then perform this experiment. Take one of the worst, underachieving classes in your town or county. Offer them one hour a week of your time for a year. I can guarantee you these kids will achieve a lot better at the end of that year.

However, you do have to approach these students with the mindset that they are not idiots - just poorly taught. And frankly, I do not think you are the kind of person that is up to that task.

I have never claimed otherwise. Of course it would (probably) be possible to teach them mathematics and have them reach a given benchmark, but it would be a far better use of time to help the gifted ones. In practice, I think both would be pretty bad because I have next to no teaching experience, but I digress.

Anyhow, it stands to reason that if both groups were given the extensive support they needed to reach their full potential, the gifted students would come out on top. In effect, all such a project would serve to accomplish would be to create the intellectual equivalent of womens' soccer.

Now, I'm sure you have all kinds of objections, but save them. I could pull out a hundred real world examples of where you are proven wrong, but finding these is like finding proof that water is wet. It is frankly not worth my time or effort, because you are not open to that kind of evidence. Which is a shame.

This means I am done here. :)

Real world examples such as the mediocrity of Einstein and Zuckerberg? Or the class of dull kids where "most did pass Calculus" after extensive coaching? Or the poor kids who don't have time to do their homework?

I have yet to see one of these supposed hundreds of real world examples that held up under any scrutiny.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-20, 05:42
Post: #63 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 21 days
Last view: 7 days
Posted by sureanem

I have never claimed otherwise. Of course it would (probably) be possible to teach them mathematics and have them reach a given benchmark, but it would be a far better use of time to help the gifted ones. In practice, I think both would be pretty bad because I have next to no teaching experience, but I digress.


So, wait wait wait...

Education is mainly a function of intelligence, but unintelligent people (e.g. poor people, since SES and IQ has a strong correlation) would become highly educated if given the chance? And you do not see this as a contradictory statement? 'k, fine. :)

Posted by sureanem

to create the intellectual equivalent of womens' soccer.


... I... Just... Wow.

"Hey everybody, I have an idea! Let's create a soccer team with 10% the funding and a second-rate coach and then wonder why everyone think they suck!"

Noone is taking them seriously because noone is taking them seriously because noone is taking them seriously because...
Posted on 19-06-20, 12:09
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #419 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 74 days
Last view: 72 days
Posted by wertigon
Education is mainly a function of intelligence, but unintelligent people (e.g. poor people, since SES and IQ has a strong correlation) would become highly educated if given the chance? And you do not see this as a contradictory statement? 'k, fine. :)

Passing calculus is "highly educated" now?

Also, "given the chance" is misleading. They'd have far more resources spent on them than the normal students, so it wouldn't be as if they'd be competing on equal footing. All you'd end up doing is spending inordinate amounts of money to replace conscientiousness.

If both would be given the same resources, or even resources in the same order of magnitude, the smarter people would end up far ahead. And curiously, this advantage grows as the resources assigned increase, even if both end up getting more.
... I... Just... Wow.

"Hey everybody, I have an idea! Let's create a soccer team with 10% the funding and a second-rate coach and then wonder why everyone think they suck!"

Noone is taking them seriously because noone is taking them seriously because noone is taking them seriously because...

...they suck.

The national teams consistently get beaten by teen boys. The reason I can't find any links for normal teams is simple: they don't even bother playing against them.

Utter shitholes with hardly enough money for food manage to scrape together half-decent soccer teams, so I don't think it's about money. And surely, not all teen boys' teams can have better coaches (let alone funding) than the bloody national team, even if they're women?

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-21, 10:33
Post: #64 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 21 days
Last view: 7 days
Posted by sureanem

Passing calculus is "highly educated" now?


Yes, since it is part of college curriculum, it is per definition "highly educated".

Posted by sureanem

Also, "given the chance" is misleading. They'd have far more resources spent on them than the normal students, so it wouldn't be as if they'd be competing on equal footing. All you'd end up doing is spending inordinate amounts of money to replace conscientiousness.


Wait, the "normal" students would be the ones with an IQ above 130?

Posted by sureanem

...they suck.

The national teams consistently get beaten by teen boys. The reason I can't find any links for normal teams is simple: they don't even bother playing against them.

Utter shitholes with hardly enough money for food manage to scrape together half-decent soccer teams, so I don't think it's about money. And surely, not all teen boys' teams can have better coaches (let alone funding) than the bloody national team, even if they're women?


Yes, they are put to a lower standard. Which is a shame, really. Because there is nothing physically hindering them from doing as good a job as men does.

Sure, men will kick the ball harder and run faster. But strategy? Technique? Player awareness? All those are things that women could do just as well as men. If you would let the women train on the exact same terms as the men teams, they would also perform on a similar level. But we don't and they don't.
Posted on 19-06-21, 12:53
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #426 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 74 days
Last view: 72 days
Posted by wertigon
Yes, since it is part of college curriculum, it is per definition "highly educated".

We took it in high school, but YMMV of course. Still, it'd be early college at any rate.

Wait, the "normal" students would be the ones with an IQ above 130?

No, the normal students would be those who didn't have to retake the exam several times. They still would fare worse if given equal resources, and the claim that they're as good because they'd get almost equal results if given far more resources than the students who aren't under-performing is just plain dishonest. That's like saying, "I'd lose in a fair competition all right, but if I did tons of 'roids beforehand and drugged my opponent I might be able to draw it". Still doesn't make them equally good, now does it?

Yes, they are put to a lower standard. Which is a shame, really. Because there is nothing physically hindering them from doing as good a job as men does.

Sure, men will kick the ball harder and run faster. But strategy? Technique? Player awareness? All those are things that women could do just as well as men. If you would let the women train on the exact same terms as the men teams, they would also perform on a similar level. But we don't and they don't.

Well, clearly there must be. Either the physical differences are too great, which is I'm claiming, or they're worse at the other stuff as well. Chess is hardly physically intensive, and they're terrible there too, so it's wouldn't be unprecedented if they indeed were. They get curb stomped while playing against youth teams with far worse funding and coaches. They could play against even better teams, but they don't because they'd get curb stomped even worse and it would be an utter disgrace to the "sport". 9-0 is not very good optics already, so imagine if they'd get twice that.

The USWNT's players get $600k a year. I can't find any numbers on FC Dallas, but I don't think their 13-14 year old players get anywhere close to that.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-25, 13:22 (revision 1)
Post: #67 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 21 days
Last view: 7 days
Posted by sureanem

Chess is hardly physically intensive, and they're terrible there too, so it's wouldn't be unprecedented if they indeed were.


Not true. Please refrain from spreading this lie further.

Posted by sureanem

They get curb stomped while playing against youth teams with far worse funding and coaches. They could play against even better teams, but they don't because they'd get curb stomped even worse and it would be an utter disgrace to the "sport". 9-0 is not very good optics already, so imagine if they'd get twice that.


... Because women are NOT drilled to the same extent as men, they do not have to meet the same standards, hence they don't. And also statistics e.g. Lower size of women in general are interested in Soccer => lower number of really good players => lower interest and worse games => lower interest in Soccer => ...

People in general will only do as much as is expected of them and not an inch more. If you expect more of them... They will magically give more. Until they reach their threshold, but that's usually very far above what is expected of them.

That is also what is wrong with the current school system. If you tell a kid (s)he's dumb enough times he/she will eventually believe it, and thus no expectations are put on, well, any kid to achieve. This is what feeds the "dumb as bricks" students we see exiting the classroom of today, most are stuck in a negative feedback loop that tells them they are dumb as bricks which makes them dumb as bricks.

Not cool, man!
Posted on 19-06-25, 14:35
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #442 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 74 days
Last view: 72 days
Posted by wertigon
Not true. Please refrain from spreading this lie further.

Their method makes no sense at all. Why didn't they just separate out the male and female distributions, if they had the raw data? The fit is quite bad. If I were feeling conspiratorial, I would say they were deliberately obfuscating a politically sensitive issue in exchange for headlines and funding.

Also, why only look at the top 100 players?

If you compare the share of women in the 80th percentile to the share of women in the 60th percentile, for instance, you find that the latter is lower, and you get more women the further down you go.

I don't know how to get ahold of the German chess database, but FIDE is public. And there you can verify this yourself, without having to rely on kook scientists.

The easiest way however is probably to go at it this way: if there are 10x more male players than women, then–correct me if I'm wrong–you can fit ten men inside one women's rank to get the same percentile. From that it follows it follows that a woman with female rank k should have the same Elo as a man with male rank 10k. In other words, the relationships between the ranks should be linear, with the slope of the regression being the same as the inverse share of women.

Whereas, if the discrepancy was a result of differing abilities, then the slope would be sharper than 10, and a linear regression wouldn't be a good fit.

Now, which one is it? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894898/

Of course, this will never be reported on because of course women are better at everything. But the reporting doesn't change the matter of things.
... Because women are NOT drilled to the same extent as men, they do not have to meet the same standards, hence they don't. And also statistics e.g. Lower size of women in general are interested in Soccer => lower number of really good players => lower interest and worse games => lower interest in Soccer => ...

Well, these are two different explanations.
One, women play less soccer. But even if it's just 3% as many, that should mean the USWNT (~300 million) should be able to beat the soccer team of any country with ~10 million, assuming equal participation rates.

This doesn't hold true. In the example of the female soccer teams vs. youth teams, the pool for the WNT would be (female population * share of women who play soccer), while the pool for the youth team would be (city population * share of youth in city * share of youth who play soccer).

Dallas' metropolitan area has 7.2 million people. In Dallas County, you've 88k 10-14 year olds, so around 22k, of which half are male, so 11k, out of a population of 2.3 million. That'd give a pool of 68k 14-year old boys for the whole of Dallas.

USWNT players are 20-30 years old. There are just north of 20 million women that age in the whole US.

That gives the USWNT about 325x larger base player pool. Now how many of the youth in Dallas play soccer? How many American women play soccer?

Say 1% of USA women do it. Then ~340% of Dallas boys would have to play soccer. As you might imagine, this is not possible.

The second one. Do you think 14-year olds are drilled harder than the national team? That would be absurd - for starters, 14-year olds do not typically play soccer professionally.

People in general will only do as much as is expected of them and not an inch more. If you expect more of them... They will magically give more. Until they reach their threshold, but that's usually very far above what is expected of them.

Sure, but this is the national team we're talking about. Surely, at least one country out of the many who has them would have figured out that by now? The USSR had infamously brutal training for its athletes, yet their women's soccer team was positively mediocre.

That is also what is wrong with the current school system. If you tell a kid (s)he's dumb enough times he/she will eventually believe it, and thus no expectations are put on, well, any kid to achieve. This is what feeds the "dumb as bricks" students we see exiting the classroom of today, most are stuck in a negative feedback loop that tells them they are dumb as bricks which makes them dumb as bricks.

Not cool, man!

Correlation doesn't imply causation. It makes far more sense that dumb kids would get told that because they are.

I agree with you that higher pressure ought to be put on the students, but this would exacerbate inequality and not decrease it. I disagree with the part where we should spend money in inverse proportion to aptitude - if you did that, then you'd get everyone performing close to the average, meaning very few prominent scientists and such, whereas if you spent money in proportion to aptitude, you'd get the middle people as they were before, more brilliant scientists, and slightly worse trained retards. Provided the latter is close to zero-cost (say $1000 a month, that's $12k a year) and a brilliant scientist an enormous gain for society (surely more than $12k a year), it stands to reason inequalities ought to be exacerbated rather than alleviated.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-25, 21:36
Post: #68 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 21 days
Last view: 7 days
Now you are just plain and simple deliberately misreading statistics. I see you never took a proper statistics course - or if you did, you must've never passed it. :)

If you would have bothered to find and read the original paper, you would have found this excerpt in the discussion (emphasis mine):

This argument sounds reasonable but it rests on a controversial assumption. It requires that there should be innate differences between men and women in the intellectual abilities required for success at chess. The topic of gender differences in cognitive abilities is a hotly debated one, which lacks conclusive evidence (for example, Geary 1998; Kimura 1999; Kerkman et al. 2000; Pinker 2002; Spelke 2005; Summers 2005; Lachance & Mazzocco 2006; Ceci & Williams 2007). Even if such differences exist, it is unclear which, if any, intellectual abilities are associated with chess skill (for a recent review, see Bilalić et al. 2007). Whatever the final resolution of these debates, there is little empirical evidence to support the hypothesis of differential drop-out rates between male and females. A recent study of 647 young chess players, matched for initial skill, age and initial activity found that drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar (Chabris & Glickman 2006).


The study is legit and has been successfully defended a number of times, and the formulas used to check out the conclusions hold up (check appendix A). At this point, if you are going to argue with science then go right ahead, but I will laugh at you. :)

As for women soccer, well, there are a ton of improvements happening already and as time move on, things are bound to get better. :)
Pages: First Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Last
Main » Discussion » Something about cheese!
Kawa's Github