3 ms·

That's not what you asked. What you first asked was simple, with a simple answer: if all else is considered equal, the best practitioners are statistically mos

by bronson 12y ago

That's not what you asked. What you first asked was simple, with a simple answer: if all else is considered equal, the best practitioners are statistically most likely to come from the largest population. What you're asking now sounds just as uninteresting. "The population higher in testosterone makes better bricklayers? Call the Nobel committee!" It's true, you can set up giant psych experiments to demonstrate pretty much any bias you want. Have fun, but don't expect the bodybuilders and math students to care about your results. And try not to wander too close to eugenics.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
>if all else is considered equal, the best practitioners are statistically most likely to come from the largest population. // So as USA has a slightly greater female population the best practitioners of anything, say, will be female? >"The population higher in testosterone makes better bricklayers? [...]" // My point is that whilst I find that completely uncontentious and largely unremarkable it's the equivalent assertion that in other fields no one sex can in any way be said to be better, eg based on biological principles, that feminism trumps scientific observation that there are actual differences in the sexes that can manifest themselves in different occupational abilities (across a population). This is writ large in the assertion which is often found that because there are fewer of one sex than the other in a given occupation there is sexism involved rather than there being the possibility of a sex bias in ability or desire to participate. I might also note that it's almost exclusively "too few females" in higher-paid jobs that are male dominated but that the proponents never seem bothered by their being "too few females" in lower paid jobs or "too few males" in higher-paid female dominated occupations. >eugenics* // We're pretty far away from that in asserting that observation of populations show that traits often have a statistical sexual bias. Surely so-called "positive discrimination" is far closer to eugenics than my laissez-faire approach of not concerning ourselves with the sex of people in any occupation but instead providing equal opportunities to the sexes to enter careers their personal inclinations and proclivities favour. Though TBH I'd be happy to entertain the debate over whether reproduction should be supported by states along more meritocratic lines in order to avoid breeding the population away from desirable traits. So now you can justify commenting on eugenics to me as at least related to concepts I'm happy to explore.
- bronson 12y ago
  > So as USA has a slightly greater female population the best practitioners of anything, say, will be female? Is all else considered equal here? Obviously not. As for the rest, any results are guaranteed to be biased and I have a hard time seeing any meaningful purpose (other than discrimination of course). Not interested. Have fun with it, try not to hurt anyone.

by bronson 12y ago

pbhjpbhj 12y ago

>if all else is considered equal, the best practitioners are statistically most likely to come from the largest population. // So as USA has a slightly greater female population the best practitioners of anything, say, will be female? >"The population higher in testosterone makes better bricklayers? [...]" // My point is that whilst I find that completely uncontentious and largely unremarkable it's the equivalent assertion that in other fields no one sex can in any way be said to be better, eg based on biological principles, that feminism trumps scientific observation that there are actual differences in the sexes that can manifest themselves in different occupational abilities (across a population). This is writ large in the assertion which is often found that because there are fewer of one sex than the other in a given occupation there is sexism involved rather than there being the possibility of a sex bias in ability or desire to participate. I might also note that it's almost exclusively "too few females" in higher-paid jobs that are male dominated but that the proponents never seem bothered by their being "too few females" in lower paid jobs or "too few males" in higher-paid female dominated occupations. >eugenics* // We're pretty far away from that in asserting that observation of populations show that traits often have a statistical sexual bias. Surely so-called "positive discrimination" is far closer to eugenics than my laissez-faire approach of not concerning ourselves with the sex of people in any occupation but instead providing equal opportunities to the sexes to enter careers their personal inclinations and proclivities favour. Though TBH I'd be happy to entertain the debate over whether reproduction should be supported by states along more meritocratic lines in order to avoid breeding the population away from desirable traits. So now you can justify commenting on eugenics to me as at least related to concepts I'm happy to explore.

bronson 12y ago
> So as USA has a slightly greater female population the best practitioners of anything, say, will be female? Is all else considered equal here? Obviously not. As for the rest, any results are guaranteed to be biased and I have a hard time seeing any meaningful purpose (other than discrimination of course). Not interested. Have fun with it, try not to hurt anyone.