|
by Oratio 02/10/2007, 7:19pm PST |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Most articles like this are bullshit. In general, the lie is a complete focus on difference. Reading the entire stat body a different way, you'd find that 97% of people are pretty much the same, and only 2-3% differ on any one thing. Except this gets turned into shit like 'woman aren't as good at science or math' Well, no, for example, 64% (to pull a number out of my ass) of them in general excelled, except that gosh, in this study, 67% of men did. These kinds of divisive statistics do not take into consideration that most percentages come from statistical outliers. Men could have a slightly higher percentage of skilled anything at all, but in the media, this morphs into no woman is as good as any one man.
One explanation I've heard for this is another bullshit stat, but at least it fits the criteria. The (bullshit) study found that for (bullshit) things, women tend to have a lower statistical standard deviation than men. In plain terms, while both men and women will have the exact same average, men will tend to have both the best and worst statistical outliers, the anomalies. The bell curve extremeties.They will have like the 3 smartest, most capable, blah whatever people, and also the 2-3 worst.
In this tennis study, they are only studying excellence. I guess, if you only study excellence, in general you may (if you believe any of this), find that men will be the top performers. If someone wanted to fund a study about how shitty tennis players played, they'd probably find that the men choked more in competition.
None of this means anything at all, of course. At least, not in any study that someone did in order to write an article or get some letters after their name. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Hey, Zseni! by laudablepuss 02/09/2007, 2:11pm PST 
Re: Hey, Zseni! by Zseni 02/09/2007, 10:11pm PST
by continuing to overcompensate by obviously 02/09/2007, 10:39pm PST
Anonymous Zseni slams are the folding like a napkin/woman of Caltrops. by motherfuckerfoodeater 02/10/2007, 2:39am PST
Aww...that's sweet. Who says that chivalry is dead? by Neener 02/10/2007, 3:55am PST
Re: Hey, Zseni! by Oratio 02/10/2007, 7:33pm PST
Over 900 men could piss their name in the snow legibly vs women's less than 100! NT by Mischief Maker 02/10/2007, 7:55pm PST
Only women listen to pseudoscientific reports about nutrition, fatty acids etc. NT by Advantage: Men 02/11/2007, 7:51am PST
Re: Hey, Zseni! by laudablepuss 02/12/2007, 10:38am PST
Oh yeah! They're TANGIBLE all right! Heh heh! NT by Mischief Maker 02/12/2007, 12:06pm PST
Re: Hey, Zseni! by Zseni 02/12/2007, 2:05pm PST
Let's talk about dogs and licking! by laudablepuss 02/12/2007, 2:50pm PST
No, the content just doesn't support the headline... by Zseni 02/12/2007, 5:30pm PST
Re: Junk Science by Furcifer 02/13/2007, 9:34am PST
Re: Junk Science by laudablepuss 02/13/2007, 10:24am PST
You're an idiot, Laudable NT by Cannibal Dave 02/13/2007, 2:56pm PST
That's very easy for you to say, sitting on your ass and eating cheetos, BUDDY. NT by laudablepuss 02/13/2007, 3:39pm PST
Thanking God Laudablepuss isn't in charge of anything science related. NT by The World 02/13/2007, 3:46pm PST
Re: Junk Science by Furcifer 02/14/2007, 7:16am PST
Re: Junk Science by laudablepuss 02/14/2007, 10:23am PST
Re: Junk Science by Furcifer 02/15/2007, 7:02pm PST
Pearls before Laudable NT by Cannibal Dave 02/15/2007, 7:27pm PST
Re: Junk Science by laudablepuss 02/16/2007, 10:05am PST
Re: Junk Science by Furcifer 02/18/2007, 10:05am PST
there's lots of bitchy and aggressive women NT by whacha talking about willis? 02/19/2007, 11:46am PST
Thanks for making my point. by Furcifer 02/19/2007, 2:31pm PST
Re: Hey, Zseni! by Oratio 02/10/2007, 7:19pm PST
Re: Hey, Zseni! by laudablepuss 02/12/2007, 10:42am PST
A screed on brevity by in 8 words 02/12/2007, 8:09pm PST
Re: Hey, Zseni! by Jerry Whorebach 02/13/2007, 10:54pm PST
|
|
