Post a reply

Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby edwards2000

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/27253279

According to Steve Davis, the reason males are better at Snooker (and perhaps he is suggesting why men are better at almost all sports) is because they simply enjoy 'wasting their time' at 'silly games'. Well, thanks for that Professor, but I have a better theory, which is backed up by common sense, unclouded by PC drivel, and agrees with everything we know about animal evolution.

And here it is:

Men are better than women on average at a great number of things, including things that are not physical in nature. Apologists will often shrug off arguments as to why men are better runners, better swimmers, better tennis players, by simply mentioning the physical aspects of these games. But when it comes to darts, snooker, chess... they are at a loss. Because their ideal clap-trap "everyone and everything is equal" world falls down around them.

The reason men are better than women on average at non physical games, as well as physical games, is that they evolved to be the hunter-gatherer. It makes sense that the main bread winner has an advantage if he can outwit, and out-perform his opponent. It is a scientific fact that men have better spacial awareness, better IQ (on average), and better hand-eye coordination than women. This is because those qualities aided in acquiring food. Nature doesn't get beaten down by accusations of sexism. It simply IS the way it IS.

Women, on the other hand, were designed to be the child-bearers. This is why they are generally better at communicating, socializing, and have more empathy. This is the fundamental reason why males are more prone to the most heinous of crimes.

We are DIFFERENT. There is NO SHAME in being different. Equal opportunities- YES, pretending we are all born exactly the SAME- NO. The only shame is in the BBC socialist propaganda that strips the truth out of everything, hurls names at things it won't discuss rationally, and tries to con the masses that the elephant in the room is just decoration.

As the wise Richard Feynman observed: Nature cannot be fooled.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby sundaygirl

Oh where to begin ...
Edwards since you seem to obsessed with statistics do you have anything to substantiate these claims?
I am particularly taking offence your referring to average men and average women. Elite sportsmen and women are by definition anything but average.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby SnookerFan

:zzz:

If you have to start a thread based on some drivel Steve Davis said, just so you could 'prove' that male sports stars were better than women, then you probably need to get out more.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby NNear

There is nothing wrong at all with Edward's claims. Having done a lot of research on it myself, the things he's saying make complete sense to me. My only area of contention is that he implies a sort of 'men are superior' approach. I don't see things that way, just recognise that not all are made equal, even on average. Nurture does obviously contribute, which culture is a part of.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby NNear

I'd like to add though that honestly in a sport like Snooker or a game like chess I see no reason why it isn't possible for women to become top professionals in the future. In chess, Judit Polgar was one of the best in the world for a long time and reached the top 10. In Formula One we have had female drivers and there are a couple more coming through right now which we may see in the future.

Men in general are more guided to such pursuits though how much of this is inherent and how much is sort of indoctrinated is another question. In the sporting world there are psychological and philosophical barriers that are being overcome that will afford women greater opportunities to show themselves as elite sports people even against the men. I do believe it's possible in games such as Chess and Snooker, but not really in sports like Rugby or American football.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby NNear

SnookerFan wrote:
NNear wrote:There is nothing wrong at all with Edward's claims.


You an Edwards alias? rofl


No, I'm just a realist.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby NNear

Especially salient from Edward's post is this:

''We are DIFFERENT. There is NO SHAME in being different. Equal opportunities- YES, pretending we are all born exactly the SAME- NO. The only shame is in the BBC socialist propaganda that strips the truth out of everything, hurls names at things it won't discuss rationally, and tries to con the masses that the elephant in the room is just decoration.''

At the same time, one should not understand that sort of sentiment and then place unnecessary barriers in their lives because of it. People being born different and also nurtured different does not have to close doors. In the world of sport though it is excessively hard for women to bridge the gap due to physiological differences.

Even between races there are differences and also a lot of success is probably guided by culture. It's no coincidence I think that the Brazilian football team have played with such a wildly varying ethos to the English football team. Look at sprinters. Look at chess players. There has been a top female player but never a top black player. I'm not sure why that is but the main point is that it's true that people aren't created equal. As things stand, in the UK, girls are doing much better than boys in education and are achieving higher average grades.

A lot of this is nurture, but some of this can be nature. Not all of that can be proven but basic things such as men on average are physically stronger than women is pointless to deny. I just don't want it to create barriers.

And please, nobody accuse me of racism or having ulterior motive. I'm of caucasian and afro-caribbean blood. I'm just having an honest and realistic discussion while also saying that though the statement in essence is true, barriers should not be created or if they are it should be within reason. By within reason, a great example is tennis.

In tennis, women get paid the same amount as the men and have a whole tour dedicated to themselves. It's often argued and sometimes true that the women's tour is more popular than the men's tour. This is a fair treatment that does in its way bridge the gap between obvious physiological differences and it's a great example to us and for other sports.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby sundaygirl

There is an interesting debate to be had regarding how much success in sport is due to natural talents of physical and mental ability and how much is due to coaching and practice.
It could be argued that total dedication is itself is a rare natural talent. It could be argued that lack access to coaching means that many very talented young people never reach their potential.
I would agree that in sports with a high athletic component men and women will never be able to compete on a equal footing. I would put forward equestrian sports forward as an example of sexual equality.

The opening statement of this thread however is full of inaccurate staments and wild generalisations

"It is a scientific fact that men have better spacial awareness, better IQ (on average), and better hand-eye coordination than women. " absolute bullocks

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby Roland

Yeah he's a real lady charmer isn't he?

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby NNear

sundaygirl wrote:There is an interesting debate to be had regarding how much success in sport is due to natural talents of physical and mental ability and how much is due to coaching and practice.
It could be argued that total dedication is itself is a rare natural talent. It could be argued that lack access to coaching means that many very talented young people never reach their potential.
I would agree that in sports with a high athletic component men and women will never be able to compete on a equal footing. I would put forward equestrian sports forward as an example of sexual equality.

The opening statement of this thread however is full of inaccurate staments and wild generalisations

"It is a scientific fact that men have better spacial awareness, better IQ (on average), and better hand-eye coordination than women. " absolute bullocks


On average, males have scored better regarding spacial awareness just as females have for language. There are general gender differences that present themselves but the question is whether that's nature, nurture or a combination of the two. I agree with your examples such as equestrian and also how about gymnastics? The events are moulded for the different genders. I imagine that the men wouldn't be able to equal the women on the beam. My point is here that sports have been tailored to male attributes. In an event like the beam in gymnastics, this has been tailored more to female attributes and they may be outright superior on that apparatus.

The recent news about more female drivers testing formula one cars is good and I've long thought that it's very possible in games like snooker, chess, darts for a female to genuinely compete at the highest level with males. Why not? I think it's reasonable. In a sport like basketball, although a woman would not be able to be a Michael Jordan, why wouldn't it be possible eventually for some to be good enough to be used as role players?

The fastest women run the 100m faster than most PROFESSIONAL male athletes. What I'm saying is that your top 100m sprinters are running it faster than most wingers in pro male rugby or pro football. Steffi Graf ran middle distances much faster than Andy Murray. As such, given that you don't have to be of elite strength or speed to at least play in say, the NBA, then indeed, I see it as possible that female players could in the future play in the NBA.

Athletics and tennis are good and fair sports for the genders because the top performers get their deserved recognition and respect.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby sundaygirl

@NNEAR I am mostly in agreement especially with your comments regarding professional sports people, they are regardless of gender exceptional. Also thank you for back your thoughts with actual examples. It is an interesting topic when discussed reasonably.

With regard to the original bbc article in support of Steve Davis and a way in which women do differ from men

FACT 52% of the population is women, they live longer on average
This is because men and teenage boys in particular take more risks than girls leading to far higher rates of accidental death.
It is reasonable to suggest from this that boys are more likely than girls to choose to devote themselves to a pursuit that may pay off with large earnings and fame but could equally result in reaching your mid twenties with no money little education and no plan b.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby SnookerFan

I read somewhere once that the average life expectancy is getting closer, partly due to the fact that a generation or two ago it wasn't common for women to drink and smoke anywhere near as much as men.

Now stuff like that is a lot more common.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby roy142857

edwards2000 wrote:
The reason men are better than women on average at non physical games, as well as physical games, is that they evolved to be the hunter-gatherer. It makes sense that the main bread winner has an advantage if he can outwit, and out-perform his opponent. It is a scientific fact that men have better spacial awareness, better IQ (on average), and better hand-eye coordination than women. This is because those qualities aided in acquiring food. Nature doesn't get beaten down by accusations of sexism. It simply IS the way it IS.



Certainly the lack of major success of female snooker players is a potentially interesting area of study ... but just to set the record straight, picking up on the comment about males having higher IQ on average ...

James Flynn is Professor of Political Science at the University of Otago, and one of the world's leading experts on IQ studies, in particular of the 'Flynn Effect', whereby IQs have increased by an average of 3 points per decade as a result of increased mental exercise required by modern technology (e.g. in "Massive IQ Gains in 14 Nations: What IQ Tests Really Measure", Psychological Bulletin 101, 1987).

Quote from Flynn (New Scientist, 18 Sep 2012) "Women have gained on men over the past generation, to the point where they now equal or slightly surpass men."

Flynn also notes that at university women are two or three points on average behind men, for the simple reason that more marginal girls than boys go to university. Flynn - "a girl with an IQ of 100 thinks of herself as university material and has the marks. A boy with the same IQ hates school and doesn't have the marks." So sometimes differences can be down to culture and attitude.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby edwards2000

That simply isn't true. They have been deliberately doctoring the tests, and changing the rules, to make it appear that way. But there are far far more studies that conclude male superiority in IQ (especially at the top level). It is also true that women are greatly outnumbered at MENSA. Most great scientists, writers, and artists are men. Nearly ALL great chess players are men. Only Judit Polgar got anywhere with chess, and she was no match for the likes of Kasparov.

In the end, nature and facts cannot lie. I think some here are already misrepresenting what I am saying. I am not making an argument that all men are superior to all women in everything. Nor do I find it pleasing that the dice are loaded against females in so many endeavours. I don't like the way the world is, but it is that way. I don't like self delusion. I especially don't like socialist propaganda. If we see our differences, we are much better equipped to deal with them, and to find better, different teaching methods to bridge the gap. I also want to make it clear that I am not making an argument for one sex being "better" than another. If the word "better" is used, then we must take into account all the negative aspects of both sexes, and looking at the history of war and conflict, violence and murder, it doesn't bode well for males.

But in sport, there is no level playing field. Not even in chess. And we can all see it. There's NO escape from it. Lying about it isn't going to make it change, or address any of the issues that need addressing. This is the most damaging thing about socialism, and our far left plonkers in government. They sweep everything under the rug and cause a TON more issues by doing so.

Snooker does things the right way. It allows women to play on a level playing field, but they simply can't. But the important thing is that the opportunity is there, and sooner or later, the law of averages say that a competent female player will come along. The problem is, they will be a massive minority, and they won't match the very top male level.

On IQ:

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx

And more sources:

http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-better.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm

Also, men have slightly bigger brains than females. This is a fact. They have many more neurones, which is the probable likely cause of better IQ and exceeding in mathematical and scientific fields.

Daniel G. Amen, MD, Psychiatry, answered

The most obvious difference between male and female brains is that his is larger, about 8 to 10% on average. That’s no surprise, since male bodies are larger overall. However, even correcting for total body weight, it has been estimated that men have 4% more neurons or brain cells than women.


http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... fferently/


I did have a MASSIVE list of official studies that showed conclusively that males have a higher IQ on average, but these will have to do (I'll try to find it). The overwhelming evidence is that males have higher IQ. Unfortunately, social engineering is trying to ignore the elephant in the room again.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby NNear

Good post on the whole.

The main point is that it's a *fact* that not all are created equal, not just on the individual level but also on larger collective levels. Differences can be and are utilised for maximum effect. However, through differences and the general path of the societal evolution of our civilisation, these differences, though used with a utilitarian bent, have also been used to create barriers and almost impenetrable biases. The challenge going forward then is acceptance, compromise and opportunity.

There is a general naivety among the public when it comes to discussions about so called ''equality''.

Much of the science behind the cause of these differences is still nebulous, however, a lack of definitive proof does not equate to a lack of existing proof, whether it be in a theoretical or practical/pragmatic realm of operation.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby sundaygirl

Edwards
You construct posts in a way that makes hard to agree with anything you say, buried in there somewhere is

"a competent female player will come along. The problem is, they will be a massive minority, and they won't match the very top male level."

This I totally agree with this part, I think somewhere there are 6 year girls watching this years world championship who have the potential to to become future professionals. I also think they will have to be better than the boys in some aspects to overcome deficiencies in others.


However re brain size, yes you are correct that a man's brain is larger than a women's BUT dolphins and whales have larger brains than humans so size isn't everything. *insert your own joke about aquatic chess and/or penises*


Regarding male IQ (which is not the same as intelligence) there has been shown to be a greater spread for males ie more at BOTH extremes than for women but tests which have been judged non bias do not support you statements


For anyone interested in this topic generally may I recommend "Intelligence - Born Smart, Born Equal, Born Different" from Radio 4 and currently on the iPlayer.

Re: Apologist PC Nonsense

Postby edwards2000

Dolphins and whales are different species, and I also mentioned neuron count. Humans have the most neurons (followed by African Elephant). And males have far more than females. There is a direct correlation between neuron number and intelligence. Especially in the neo-cortex.