Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5556222" data-attributes="member: 4937">I guess that's a 'No' then.Strawman?  You are the one who refuses to offer a definition of strength that would allow your position to be assailed.  I know exactly what you are trying to say because I've presented evidence against it like three times now.  You are trying to say that while everyone agrees that men are somewhat more able to lift and carry things than women, that that is not real strength but merely a small and perhaps neglible bonus to lifting capacity.   But when anyone questions you about what 'real strength' is, you can provide no evidence for your assertion.This is what I see.  You have to concede lifting strength because its easily measured, even though you try to handwave even that away with comments about relative size as if that hasn't already been addressed.  But the more difficult it is to measure the strength, the more likely you are to suggest that no difference exists in that more intangible area.   For example, punching power is notoriously hard to measure well, so you argue at several points that punching power between the two sexes is similar.   But in fact, because the primary difference between the two sexes in terms of strength is that testosterone encourages the growth of 'fast muscle' so that men possess proportionally more dynamic power (the difficult to measure kind) than than they do static power (from slow muscle) compared to women.   If anything, lifting power as a function of size is one of the areas women are most closely comparable to men than things like punching power.When challenged on that I produced a long list of strength related areas where men excell women by large margins.  These include swimming (strength based skill), jumping (strength based skill), sprint speed, and punching power (damage bonus from strength).  There are very little other areas of the game that are impacted by strength.  What haven't I covered?No, +1 to Strength means +1/2 to everything.  It means virtually no difference between the two in outcome.   If the difference was only +1 we'd expect differences in outcome of less than 5%.   Instead we see differences in outcome of at least 10-15% which suggests +2 or +3 bonuses.   But a +2 or +3 bonus suggests not +2 or +3 to strength, but +4 or +6.   When I brought outcomes in jumping, swimming, and the like previously you responded as you did with lifting capacity.  "Well, perhaps men have a +2 bonus to jumps."But if men have a +2 bonus on jumps, and +2 bonus on swimming, and a +4 bonus to lifting capacity and so on and so on, what's going to be left to justify not just making it a large bonus to strength?No, I'm saying that if we believe Bilbo Baggins has only a -2 strength penalty, then women are to men as less than male humans are to halflings (and by implication, halflings must have musculatures more similar to chimpanzees than humans... which would go a long way toward explaining their fear of water).   That's not a 'pretty steep claim'.   Given the large differences in outcome we observe anything less than that is an unreasonable claim.I have nor have I confined myself to power lifting figures.   You have produced nothing credible to assert that there isn't a large difference. Already covered.  Even when adjusting for size, the difference remains statistically large.Then you get back to a Billie Jean King comparison.   It's no more relevant than asking what happens if we compare the top 10% of men to the 50th percentile of women.   The only fair comparison is to compare the 50th percentile of men to the 50th percentile of women, or the 25th percentile of men to the 25th percentile of women, or the top 1% of men to the top 1% of women.   We are trying to establish whether men are stronger than women in general, something you assert 'no one contests', but you keep contesting it.  The most essential problem with your claim that there is at most a +1 Strength difference between the two sexes (and you've two or three times argued that even this is questionable), is if the difference was that small we'd see much closer to parity between the sexes in competitions that emphasized physical strength.   There is often a much more than +1 strength difference between two highly competitive boxers or two highly competitive NFL football players.  If the difference was only as small as +1 Strength, you'd strongly expect to find that while the best NFL linebacker out there was probably a man, there would be at least one NFL team with a fearsome women as an outside linebacker, and while the cruiser weight boxing champion was likely a man that maybe 10% of the sport was females competing on equal terms with the men.  But you don't see that in real life.   This suggests the differences are much closer to 'huge' than 'trivial', and the list of measurable outcomes supports that.   Its only by assuming that the difference is large that not only is the best female linebacker in the country not playing for the NFL, but that she can't earn a spot amongst any of the best 50,000 or so linebackers playing at the high school level.I made no such comment.  So who is really playing 'dirty pool' here.</blockquote>

Verification