---

Quote: from greatescape11 at 9:36 pm on Feb. 28, 2008

---

Quote: from Justinc08 at 11:35 pm on Feb. 28, 2008

---

Quote: from Rikk at 11:34 pm on Feb. 28, 2008

---

I won't be alive by then anyway

---

Exactly... how can a scientist even determine such bull shit?

---

 

 Im gonna go out on a limb here and say...math.

---

Sorry I'm not an expert at all this mathematical stuff but something I find strange is that they are using data from only 1928 to 1992 (64 years) and using it to predict results 148 years into the future. Wouldn't that be wildly inaccurate? It would be more believable to me if they used data that covered say 1000 years (yeah I know that isn't available).  

Gee, I don't know about the conclusion, I'm not sure what factors affect these things but I'm not really confident about the method used.

Side note: what is it with academics that waste resources to study seemingly pointless things like this? I always see "study shows this and study shows that" and I just think why? Why would someone even bother to research something that helps no one at all.

Other side note: what is with all the female supremacist propaganda that has been posted on lw recently?

---

The glaringly obvious flaw with this study is that women simply had more room for improvement being that the male elite runners were closer to their glass ceiling due to more rigorous training and attention to diet in the past than were women. An apt analogy is to compare the relative results over a year of two bodybuilders: one who started that same year, and another who had been bodybuilding for fifteen years prior to the comparison. The novice will improve much more rapidly than the veteran simply because there is more room for improvement.

-------
Deckard: You come across a full-page nude photos of a girl...
Rachel: Is this testing whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?

---

The glaringly obvious flaw with this study is that women simply had more room for improvement being that the male elite runners were closer to their glass ceiling due to more rigorous training and attention to diet in the past than were women. An apt analogy is to compare the relative results over a year of two bodybuilders: one who started that same year, and another who had been bodybuilding for fifteen years prior to the comparison. The novice will improve much more rapidly than the veteran simply because there is more room for improvement.

---

See that makes a lot of sense to my simple mind but then I wonder how can supposedly intelligent academics get away with publishing stuff like this if it has such obvious flaws?

---

Quote: from Brade runna at 4:27 am on Feb. 29, 2008

---

The glaringly obvious flaw with this study is that women simply had more room for improvement being that the male elite runners were closer to their glass ceiling due to more rigorous training and attention to diet in the past than were women. An apt analogy is to compare the relative results over a year of two bodybuilders: one who started that same year, and another who had been bodybuilding for fifteen years prior to the comparison. The novice will improve much more rapidly than the veteran simply because there is more room for improvement.

---

See that makes a lot of sense to my simple mind but then I wonder how can supposedly intelligent academics get away with publishing stuff like this if it has such obvious flaws?

---

Well to be fair, it seems like they didn't publish it with the hope that all around the globe people would be talking about how a female will be the fastest runner in the world by as soon as 2064; rather, it seems like they were just having a bit of a laugh. Reading the actual article nets you this:

---

Tatem is the first to admit that the study represents a purely academic exercise. A disease researcher by trade, he says the new study was a result of noticing a strong and interesting trend in sprinting. Indeed, the relationship was surprisingly linear and no other model fit the data as well. �We decided to throw caution to the wind and see if current trends continued, what would happen in the future,� he remarks. Potential confounding factors that are not addressed in the new analysis include illegal drug use, environmental conditions on race day, national boycotts and timing accuracy. In addition, some researchers contend that humans are hurtling toward the limits of their potential and that the winning times predicted for 2156 (8.079 seconds for the female champion and 8.098 seconds for the male winner) are simply beyond our grasp. The next chance to check the trend comes in 2008 at Beijing.

---

My question then is: why bother?

-------
Deckard: You come across a full-page nude photos of a girl...
Rachel: Is this testing whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?

---

Quote: from greatescape11 at 9:36 pm on Feb. 28, 2008

---

Quote: from Justinc08 at 11:35 pm on Feb. 28, 2008

---

Quote: from Rikk at 11:34 pm on Feb. 28, 2008

---

I won't be alive by then anyway

---

Exactly... how can a scientist even determine such bull shit?

---

 

 Im gonna go out on a limb here and say...math.

---

Sorry I'm not an expert at all this mathematical stuff but something I find strange is that they are using data from only 1928 to 1992 (64 years) and using it to predict results 148 years into the future. Wouldn't that be wildly inaccurate? It would be more believable to me if they used data that covered say 1000 years (yeah I know that isn't available).  

Gee, I don't know about the conclusion, I'm not sure what factors affect these things but I'm not really confident about the method used.

Side note: what is it with academics that waste resources to study seemingly pointless things like this? I always see "study shows this and study shows that" and I just think why? Why would someone even bother to research something that helps no one at all.

Other side note: what is with all the female supremacist propaganda that has been posted on lw recently?

---

Female supremacist propaganda????? Hahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahh

Oh dear god.

Find me one sentance that says, "Women are better than men."  Or any variation of it.

It's a study.  I personally am not reading that far into it but I posted it because it's interesting.  I made it a poll to see what other people thought of it.  

Dont get your balls in a knot.   Im sure youre still the "superior sex"

-------
I see we're both crazy, that's alright with me
The night was kind of hazy that's the way it's gonna be
I say now
Hey girl, come with me and let yourself go

---

Female supremacist propaganda????? Hahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahh

Oh dear god.

Find me one sentance that says, "Women are better than men."  Or any variation of it.

It's a study.  I personally am not reading that far into it but I posted it because it's interesting.  I made it a poll to see what other people thought of it.  

Dont get your balls in a knot.   Im sure youre still the "superior sex"

---

Over reacting much? There was a pretty decent discussion about this study and yet you choose to go ape shit over a quite minor and irrelevant point?

---

Quote: from greatescape11 at 7:25 am on Feb. 29, 2008

---

Female supremacist propaganda????? Hahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahh  

 Oh dear god.  

 Find me one sentance that says, "Women are better than men." Or any variation of it.  

 It's a study. I personally am not reading that far into it but I posted it because it's interesting. I made it a poll to see what other people thought of it.  

 Dont get your balls in a knot. Im sure youre still the "superior sex"

---

Over reacting much? There was a pretty decent discussion about this study and yet you choose to go ape shit over a quite minor and irrelevant point?

---

I don't enjoy having topics I post on here referred to as "feminist propaganda".

The main reason for this would be due to the fact that it perpetuates the myth that feminism is a bad thing.

As for over reacting much....I'm not the one who thinks this is a gender revolution on a teen forum.

-------
I see we're both crazy, that's alright with me
The night was kind of hazy that's the way it's gonna be
I say now
Hey girl, come with me and let yourself go

---

I don't enjoy having topics I post on here referred to as "feminist propaganda".

The main reason for this would be due to the fact that it perpetuates the myth that feminism is a bad thing.

As for over reacting much....I'm not the one who thinks this is a gender revolution on a teen forum.

---

Fine, I don't think anyone actually mentioned the word "feminism" but whatever. I don't think it was an attack on feminism, as much as it was an attack on seemingly pointless topics about pointless studies which state "X gender is better than Y gender at Z so nah nah nah nah!  " And yeah these I've actually seen plenty of these topics aimed at males and females and they all go the same way.

For example:

http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-pbssoe-support-a.html

So what is your opinion on the original topic? I'm interested in why you posted this in the first place and what you think of the "glaring flaws" that people have pointed out. I mean, I can tell you have enough intelligence to recognize these flaws for yourself, so maybe you were just reaction seeking?

---

Quote: from greatescape11 at 11:25 am on Feb. 29, 2008

---

I don't enjoy having topics I post on here referred to as "feminist propaganda".  

 The main reason for this would be due to the fact that it perpetuates the myth that feminism is a bad thing.  

 As for over reacting much....I'm not the one who thinks this is a gender revolution on a teen forum.

---

Fine, I don't think anyone actually mentioned the word "feminism" but whatever. I don't think it was an attack on feminism, as much as it was an attack on seemingly pointless topics about pointless studies which state "X gender is better than Y gender at Z so nah nah nah nah! " And yeah these I've actually seen plenty of these topics aimed at males and females and they all go the same way.

For example:

http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-pbssoe-support-a.html

So what is your opinion on the original topic? I'm interested in why you posted this in the first place and what you think of the "glaring flaws" that people have pointed out. I mean, I can tell you have enough intelligence to recognize these flaws for yourself, so maybe you were just reaction seeking?

---

I know what you mean by those topics...there are some stupid ones out there.  The main difference would be that they just post a topic that says "Women are better, duh" or something stupid lie that.  No evidence to even create remotely intelligent discussion, so it turns into a flame war.

While I realize there are flaws in this study, and that is not meant to be ground breaking research...I thought it was interesting.  That's all.  

Call me a nerd but I was interested in the concept of it, and the math they did.  

Reaction seeking...?  Not so much.  Just wanted to see what others thought of it.  Not say I didn't imagine there wouldnt be a reaction because there usually is with this kind of stuff.  But that is why I made it a poll.

-------
I see we're both crazy, that's alright with me
The night was kind of hazy that's the way it's gonna be
I say now
Hey girl, come with me and let yourself go