Jump to content

Are females equal with males...in poker i mean?


Crriss

Recommended Posts

@Crriss

The IQ is distributed equally amongst men and women within the same race/nation, however pure genius is a male trait. So if intelligence is positively correlated with poker success and you're playing against regular people, the sex of your opponent doesn't matter.


@FreedoMwrote:
@CrrissI think any human being could do anything as long as he/she has the will to do it. The gender/color makes no difference.

LOL. I think you need to do some additional research on this very interesting topic.

We're gonna win on so many levels! We're gonna win, win, win. You're gonna get so tired of winning, you're gonna say: "Mr. President please, we don't wanna win anymore, it's too much!" And I'm gonna say: "I'm sorry, we're gonna keep winning because we're gonna make America great again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@theMachinewrote:


@WuDuwrote:

pure genius is a male trait. 


@

THE ARROGANCE OF MAN


Commanding @theMachine to compile a list of all Nobel Laureates (except Peace for obvious reasons, of course) and report back with the male/female ratio.

We're gonna win on so many levels! We're gonna win, win, win. You're gonna get so tired of winning, you're gonna say: "Mr. President please, we don't wanna win anymore, it's too much!" And I'm gonna say: "I'm sorry, we're gonna keep winning because we're gonna make America great again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@WuDu The men/woman ratio among nobel price winners is a unvalid argumente for only men being genouis for several reasons.

First of all the nobel price are awarded for old discoverys which make a lot of the discoverys come from a time when women had a reallly hard time being able to participate in higher education and even less getting the possibility to have a leading academic position and get their reaserch founded. So genoius or not, far less women then men were able to contribute to science in general and on top of that several big discoverys made by women were taken credit of by men with a higher adademic position. This is recognized by the scientific community.

Second, to get the nobel price you first need to get nominated and there is mostly men that are invited to nominate, its well known in psychological research that men in general tend to choose other men in thoose situations. Since the nomination proces is secret and the nominations dont get realesed for 50 years no one really know the ration among the nominated but the nobel committee secretery says that its a problem that very few women are invited to nominate and that they will try to change that in the future. 

The same thing goes for the voting for the accual winner, among thoose who have the right to vote only 15% are women.

So there is several factors that explain why only 5,9% (excluding the 26 organisations giving 49 vs 836) of the nobel price winners have been women and it have nothing to do with intelligence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello @triceraatopp


@triceraatoppwrote:

@WuDu The men/woman ratio among nobel price winners is a unvalid argumente for only men being genouis for several reasons.

First of all the nobel price are awarded for old discoverys which make a lot of the discoverys come from a time when women had a reallly hard time being able to participate in higher education and even less getting the possibility to have a leading academic position and get their reaserch founded. So genoius or not, far less women then men were able to contribute to science in general and on top of that several big discoverys made by women were taken credit of by men with a higher adademic position. This is recognized by the scientific community.

Second, to get the nobel price you first need to get nominated and there is mostly men that are invited to nominate, its well known in psychological research that men in general tend to choose other men in thoose situations. Since the nomination proces is secret and the nominations dont get realesed for 50 years no one really know the ration among the nominated but the nobel committee secretery says that its a problem that very few women are invited to nominate and that they will try to change that in the future. 



marie-curie-9263538-1-402

 

Marie Curie says hello. Nobel Laureate in 1903 AND 1911, way before the first women in Europe were even allowed to vote. 115 years ago and her work was recognized not once but twice. Which makes your "women are opressed and thus not recogized"-argument obsolete. If the ratio were 60/40 or 65/35, you might have a valid point, but not at 95/5 or whatever it is right now.

 

We're gonna win on so many levels! We're gonna win, win, win. You're gonna get so tired of winning, you're gonna say: "Mr. President please, we don't wanna win anymore, it's too much!" And I'm gonna say: "I'm sorry, we're gonna keep winning because we're gonna make America great again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not going to go in a debate with the troll persona of Wudu doing the whole brainless trump supporter act, the bait is strong in this one. Just wanted to say that I think the whole pure genius thing is bs. I think there's no such thing as pure genius, and this term is either used for people to feel better about themselves and their lack of accomplishments, because they weren't born "geniuses", to lower the accomplishments to just genius, or just to describe under one word what is essentially a combination of an extreme amount of hard work, luck, timing, and opportunity. The last factor being one that was definitely not at the same level throughout history for many various categories of people.

Also how is this a blog? ūüėŹ

Link to comment
Share on other sites




@FeelsBadManwrote:

 I think there's no such thing as pure genius, and this term is either used for people to feel better about themselves and their lack of accomplishments, because they weren't born "geniuses", to lower the accomplishments to just genius, or just to describe under one word what is essentially a combination of an extreme amount of hard work, luck, timing, and opportunity. The last factor being one that was definitely not at the same level throughout history for many various categories of people.


 

giphy

 :Cheeky: 

 Jordan Peterson is great, especially when dealing with leftist "journalists":

 

 

 

We're gonna win on so many levels! We're gonna win, win, win. You're gonna get so tired of winning, you're gonna say: "Mr. President please, we don't wanna win anymore, it's too much!" And I'm gonna say: "I'm sorry, we're gonna keep winning because we're gonna make America great again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No females are not equal with males. Males have more testosterone for a start and when they are ill they are poorly sick and dying and take to their beds for days :P Women on the other hand when we get ill we just carry on regardless, doing the tasks we do everyday. Looking after the kids, cooking, cleaning all the general gender stereo types. It's women that empower the men to be what they are. Behind every powerful man there's been an equally if not more powerful woman shaping them into what they become in the end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...