Intoscience

I always have a "word of the day", one which I like to include in some correspondence or communication that day. Today I'm going to use this word. Thank you for the inspiration.

Yes, this in my own experience is something that you often see. Years ago, I was having many physical issues and went to see my GP. I was diagnosed with deep depression and the GP put me on mild medication and arranged counselling. I hadn't realised how low I was and that I was sinking further each day, I certainly never considered myself depressed!. The counselling really helped, by giving me a new perspective. But what I find helps me most these days, is setting myself goals, ones that are achievable but take time to get there with effort and commitment. This gives me something to focus on and some sense of purpose and stops me sliding back into the hole I was heading down years ago. A good friend of mine's wife is severely depressed and has attempted suicide. She is on strong medication and has regular counselling but this only keeps her head above water. I wouldn't have any idea what would help her. Though many techniques work to a degree, each case is individual and it's therefore difficult to find the right formula for everyone. The last thing a depressed person needs to hear is people saying "what are you depressed about, you have all these lovely things and you are still not happy..." They also don't appreciate being patronised with over sensitive comments either " you are such a wonderful person, you have all this going for you"... etc, this just seems to fuel the guilt they feel for being so low in the first place. I think depression is very sad and a deep concern, many people suffer silently!

Yes, I don't have a problem with open events. Open events offer people the opportunity to participate against those that they would not normally have the chance to. I do this very thing myself in my chosen sport where I will enter the open class thus competing against the elite athletes. I do so with the understanding that I have no chance whatsoever of ranking anywhere of any significance. I do so for the enjoyment not for the competition of trying to win. This matters not because my sport is my hobby not my profession. However if I want to compete to win then I have to enter the category where my peers are on a fairly equal standing (theses days in my case - age based). When I was much younger and was able to compete at the highest level, and get paid for doing so, then it was important that the category I entered was such that I was competing with a realistic chance to win. Where my hard work, efforts and years of dedication allowed me to show off my skills and be rewarded for it in the process. So in essence my stance is that open competitions are welcome and should be available for all that want to participate and/or compete. But for professional events then it's important that categories are set so as not to discriminate against those that are unfairly disadvantaged. Where those that have the dream of becoming the best (usually determined by winning) at what they do can exhibit their skills and be rewarded in the process for doing so. I believe this is what the general public would want and actually what they would demand for their hard earned money.

It's a difficult one, especially when decisions are made from emotional response. Not sure though if a child at 8/9 is mature and experienced enough to understand the implications of making such a life changing decision? After all, a child at that age would not even likely concern themselves with a good diet and education, more likely to eat candy and go just play and have fun all day. So at this point it becomes the responsibility of the parents to do what they regard as "best" for their child. It's even more difficult when different parents share differing opinions on what is the "best" way to raise their kids. Back to the thread, There is nothing stopping the rules from being changed in sports to allow for an "open to all" event, but there is no getting away from the fact that in many sporting disciplines the events will be predominantly dominated by men. At the elite level (I know you are not interested in this area, as you seem to feel that its irrelevant) where the money, spectacle and exposure is, this dominance will be even more pronounced and will result in non-inclusion for many, mainly females. I really don't see how this is a forward step - you are welcome to compete, but you are unlikely to win anything

Though the audience, and indeed the sponsors who pay the professionals, are not that interested in the 100th ranked. The majority want to watch the potential winners. This stinks of the modern culture of "its the taking part that matters, not the winning" well if that's the case then why have "competitions" in the first place? Why strive to achieve success? Competition is healthy and fundamental to development its the wanting to win that drives people to success. Take that away then there's no point to it all is there? If tennis and many other similar sports where "open" then all you will achieve is a discriminative outcome. Its a backwards step in my humble opinion.

There is a difference between "of use" and "matter to" lots of things matter to lots of people for a variety of different reasons. This particular thread doesn't "matter" to me, however, the subject I am particularly interested in. I haven't commented on your premise because I have nothing of value to add to what has already been discussed by others. My initial comment of "I doubt It" was in response to your delusional interpretation of the viewing numbers.

There are masses of people who are interested in science who are not scientists, myself included. This doesn't mean no scientists read threads like these, this forum has many scientists both active and retired. But as it as already been pointed out, the number of views is not an indication as to the quality or validity of the content. Plus, I certainly doubt a thread such as this is going to change many views, especially those who are experts in the field.

I doubt it.

Or, maybe intelligent life is common and abundant, and we are at the bottom of the scale, and not much different than thousands of other "more" interesting intelligence. Something I have considered is whether aliens would recognise us as intelligence in the first place? We often talk about maybe we cannot detect aliens because we do not recognise any signature of what we assume to be looking for. Maybe that works both ways?

It's an interesting story and the fact that your friend described what he saw and then another person completely (as far as you know) unconnected described the same thing a few years lately raises the interest and adds some validity to your friends account. Thanks for sharing it with us! My father had a similar experience when he was courting my mother. They had been out for the evening, whilst driving home he stopped at a layby to well... "use the toilet". At this point he saw what appeared to be a figure, grey in colour around human height and shape but not very discernible. Spooked he shot back into the car and asked my mother if she had seen anything, she said "only you crossing the road". He then explained that he had not crossed the road at any point, at which point it dawned on her that she had found it odd that he would have crossed the road and also that she couldn't really make out if it was him or not and that she had just assumed so. Neither of them are suppositious or believe in the paranormal. Even to this day my father always states that it was just an illusion due to him being tired. This might well be, and probably is the case, however the only oddity being that my mother saw a figure that was not my father cross the road at the same time.

True, it would be better if I'd said - Teaches you to consider as many perspectives as possible.

Well we have been learning for a long time and seem not yet to have learned our lesson, so go figure. A good teacher teaches you to view from all perspectives, leaving you to make up your own mind.

The question relies on the assumption God exists in the first place. Ok, so lets assume this is the case (not my belief by the way) are we talking about an all powerful omnipotent being that lies outside of the all known existence? Because if so there is no reason to assume any laws, logic or causality applies, therefore the very question could be moot. God may not have been created, God is just is. Personally though I'd go with (like many others have said) God(s) is/are a figment of human imagination.

+1

Your are correct of course, I do, and I'm sure others also agree that in some disciplines a system like this would work just fine. However the difference between male and female competitors extends beyond just skill sets, weight and height etc... Tell me how would iNow's system set the criteria for sports like tennis? Also, and I will chuck this one in there because I have experienced just this attitude only today at work. Some women don't not want to be forced into competing against men, they are proud of their sex and would like to maintain an equally accepted but separate category, where they can compete against each other on what they feel is a fair playing field. I think there are many more factors other than skill, weight, height strength... that play a part in performance overall between males and females. At the elite level where every little thing makes a big difference then those small differences can have a huge impact on performance, recognition and finances.

Yeah but a woman (in general) at an equivalent weight as a male (in general) even if both athletic in build, is most likely to still be weaker and often slower. That's the thing with male and female forms, the way that fat and muscle is distributed and then called into action when required. How about say a sport like tennis? McEnroe was slated for his remark around Serena Williams. She even agreed that competing against men she would struggle to break the top 400 ceded players. So based on your system, no female would ever be regarded as an elite player. yet she is regarded as the best female player of all time and she certainly exhibits, strength, speed, aggression, skills and she isn't no dainty little lady and is probably capable of beating on most average men. Seems like a step backward to me.

Ever feel like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place... Apologies, I appreciate your position. I was reminded earlier in this thread that the evolution of modern humans plays little part, since there has not been time long enough. So unless we start seeing females physically enhanced by genetic manipulation then we aint going to see females (in general) as big and strong as males (in general) any time soon. I'm all for removing prejudice, but not by shifting the problem around. I don't see how categorising (equally) persons by gender is such a big deal? Why should a person not feel proud to be who they are and applaud the category they find themselves in? So what qualification standards do you suggest would be suitable and fair? Your idea in my mind just encourages discrimination, basically you are saying - you can play in the with the top players, if you like cause you have shown that you have the skill sets to compete, but tough shit that you weigh 100 pounds less and stand 1' shorter.

Then what's all the fuss about? Crack on with an unworkable idealism. But if you limit the criteria to only skill sets then, you will end up with a more skilled person being discriminated against because of their physicality. This is why there are weight divisions in many sports, and why there are female and male divisions, so neither is unduly discriminated against, just because of the way they pee! A highly skilled female boxer is most likely (at the elite level) going to lose against a larger stronger less skilled male boxer. So in doing away with male and female divisions you will end up with the highest levels of sports where physicality plays a role in success, dominated by males. Sounds like progression to you? Yep pretty much, kids come in different sizes and shapes so we need water fountains of differing sizes and shapes, else all the bigger/stronger kids will have the water, leaving non for the little ones. (Edited my bold) "ALL kids to have access to safe clean drinking water so long as we’re and we are certain that THEY use all have access to different suitably sized water fountains".

In a nutshell yes, and it pissed me off! I agree, but how can this be achieved without some form of discrimination? iNow's suggestion of scraping the sex category may create a wider field of opportunity. But this will inevitably lead to a discriminative outcome, since, men in general, certainly at the elite level, tend to be stronger, faster and more aggressive than women. So how's that going to work out then? The vast majority of elite sports totally dominated by men? Seems like a step backwards to me, then I do have my head up my bunhole. Ermm.. I said "vast majority" at the elite level, I never said "all"! At the amateur level and in certain sports where its all about fun and games then maybe not so much. What all 6 of the athletes you mentioned? or all the rest of the transgender population? I thought this thread was centred around transgender sports persons? No one is suggesting its an appalling idea, its just a crap idea, all it will do is constrain the eventual outcome. I want to see all sexes - female, male, trans whatever.... competing "fairly" at all levels, with equal status, equal pay and recognition. I don't want to see a 6'4" 250 pound man beat a woman to death in a boxing ring thanks.

Ok, In general sports as pastimes - "fun and games" then any differences, advantages, weaknesses... are less important since as the good PC brigade keep ramming down our throats "its the taking part that counts". Fine this works just dandy. But at the elite level where "professional" sports people are competing at the highest level and are earning their living from this then the distinction between differences, advantages, weaknesses become majorly important, to keep things as "fair" or rather, as equally opportunistic for those people. Ha ha, Nobody said they are, we are discussing why they should/shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to do so in the first place. How many times in history people have suffered the consequences out of ignorance? Me personally I couldn't give a shite since it doesn't really affect me if Mr Joe decides to become Miss Jo and kick everyone's ass. It just amazes me that people are so afraid to speak of such, even to ignore the very evolution of humankind just because it doesn't fit in within modern western society. Crack on if it fits in with PC, and makes everybody feel better about themselves. I had a discussion at work yesterday, I'm a middle aged man who's hair is now well receded and consider myself bald (though technically I'm only slightly bald). Apparently I offended a colleague. They were offended that I did not mind when somebody else, in jest, remarked on my hair. They asked why it did not bother me and why I had not reported the incident to our human resources department. I explained that I enjoy a little banter and that it was all in good fun. They were shocked and dismayed and proceeded to report this themselves. My point being that, in my humble and perhaps archaic opinion, this world is a bit fucked up and we have bigger problems to worry about other than all this over bearing PC.

So you believe that the performance differences between males and females is sociological rather than biological? The vast majority at the elite level, yes. Especially those sports where physical strength plays a major part in performance.

It will be interesting to see if this premise pans out, if equal opportunity continues gaining momentum maybe we will see a shift to a more equal outcome? I'm not sure it's just a general assumption that girls are good at some things and boys are better at others. I think that it is that way due to years of evolutionary necessity. Maybe with evolution this will change, but I think this will only happen over a long period of time if left to happen naturally. If you consider the roles that males and females adopted from the course of evolutionary survival and environmental requirements over history (pre-to modern humans), then it is quite easy to link certain skills in modern sports back to ancient skills developed over time.

Or maybe males (in general) have a more natural affinity to sports than females? Much like females (in general) seem to have a more natural affinity to nurture than males? Both of which may have come from the evolutionary process? This is the crux of the main argument in the OP (my bold) However, now the thread has diverged to skill capacity in addition to physical strength. I think you are correct that certain skills are handed down through evolutionary processes. Though, sporting skills (in evolutionary terms) are quite a recent phenomena.

I know some extremely good off road women riders that are faster and more skilful than the vast majority of male riders. However, when they compete at the higher levels in open competitions against males they just don't compare. Not only do they struggle in comparison physically, but their skill level is not as high. So what is the difference other than physical strength? Why do males often have a higher skill level in some sporting practices than females? (this is a sincere question that I'm interested in learning the answer to)

I'm also a non expert, but share the same view. There seems to be so much judgemental pressure on the younger generation through social media. Yeah I think this is certainly plays a part in it, especially since bullying can be easily done over social media these days. Thanks, I never considered this. So do you think that the morality of suicide being a crime originally stems mainly from Christianity?