Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

What the article points out is that the left side of politics (or, at the very least, people who are progressive in mindset and/or possess a belief in the idea of progress) is faced with a conundrum created by the inequalities within society: that some individuals are superior to others (either by dint of superior intellect or athletic ability, which are genetic insofar as can be proven at them moment) or that it is the inherent structures within that society that create the inequalities. It then goes on to demonstrate - via surveys conducted within academia - that people of a left wing bent are more likely to blame those inequalities then the inherent superiority of individuals; dismissing the scientific.

It then points out how completely at odds that point of view is with the left wing's full endorsement of climate change action.

It's worth a read, if you've got the time.

As far as things go, I don't think this is an either-or proposition. Individuals are perfectly capable of being smarter/stronger/thinking faster etc than anyone else is, but it's completely pot luck most of the time determining this kind of thing from a genetic level, or attributing things to race or to gender. Per capita, men might be physically stronger than women, yet that does not immediately entail that I could beat Rhonda Rousey in a no holes barred smackdown. However, that this is true does not detract from the embedded inequalities that can be proven exist within most governmental systems. A mixture of both - individuals of superior attributes rising to the top, regardless of where they're from, and status and/or money creating an easier path to the upper classes than experienced by someone of different attributes/beginnings - seems to me to be a more reasonable take.
One example: have a look at the birth dates of the top athletes in football, basketball etc.

They are mostly at the start of the year or mid-year, depending on whether the season starts mid-year or early in the year.

Kids sign up at an age when 6-12 months normal development is a big factor. The more developed kids are picked and trained and fast tracked. Simply because they were born closer to the start date for the season.

There are very few sports where there is inherent talent or genetic advantage. Mostly it depends on how much development they receive at an early age. This includes how much their parents can pay for close, directed personal training. How much they can take time off to ferry them to events and training.

That is, it is social factors rather than genetic factors that determine who rises to the top in most sports.

Academically, there are very few geniuses. And "genius" (however you define it) is often not an indicator of success. Many child geniuses just plod along in the middle of the pack in adulthood.

In the US the biggest factor in a child's educational development is their postcode.

Physical health correlates to income.

So, I have never been convinced that genetics is a bigger factor in many of the success stories we see. The studies show it is mostly non-genetic. That's the best place to start if you want equality of opportunity. Just placing the same opportunity in front of two people isn't a guarantee of equality of opportunity if one is poorer than the other or socially disadvantaged in other ways.
 
May 1, 2016
28,390
55,345
AFL Club
Carlton
One example: have a look at the birth dates of the top athletes in football, basketball etc.

They are mostly at the start of the year or mid-year, depending on whether the season starts mid-year or early in the year.

Kids sign up at an age when 6-12 months normal development is a big factor. The more developed kids are picked and trained and fast tracked. Simply because they were born closer to the start date for the season.

There are very few sports where there is inherent talent or genetic advantage. Mostly it depends on how much development they receive at an early age. This includes how much their parents can pay for close, directed personal training. How much they can take time off to ferry them to events and training.

That is, it is social factors rather than genetic factors that determine who rises to the top in most sports.

Academically, there are very few geniuses. And "genius" (however you define it) is often not an indicator of success. Many child geniuses just plod along in the middle of the pack in adulthood.

In the US the biggest factor in a child's educational development is their postcode.

Physical health correlates to income.

So, I have never been convinced that genetics is a bigger factor in many of the success stories we see. The studies show it is mostly non-genetic. That's the best place to start if you want equality of opportunity. Just placing the same opportunity in front of two people isn't a guarantee of equality of opportunity if one is poorer than the other or socially disadvantaged in other ways.
Like I said, I don't disagree.

However, included in the article are a number of examples of 'shout out' culture attacking people for making scientific comments that are essentially true.
 

CheapCharlie

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 12, 2015
6,416
7,985
AFL Club
Sydney
One example: have a look at the birth dates of the top athletes in football, basketball etc.

They are mostly at the start of the year or mid-year, depending on whether the season starts mid-year or early in the year.

Kids sign up at an age when 6-12 months normal development is a big factor. The more developed kids are picked and trained and fast tracked. Simply because they were born closer to the start date for the season.

There are very few sports where there is inherent talent or genetic advantage. Mostly it depends on how much development they receive at an early age. This includes how much their parents can pay for close, directed personal training. How much they can take time off to ferry them to events and training.

That is, it is social factors rather than genetic factors that determine who rises to the top in most sports.

Academically, there are very few geniuses. And "genius" (however you define it) is often not an indicator of success. Many child geniuses just plod along in the middle of the pack in adulthood.

In the US the biggest factor in a child's educational development is their postcode.

Physical health correlates to income.

So, I have never been convinced that genetics is a bigger factor in many of the success stories we see. The studies show it is mostly non-genetic. That's the best place to start if you want equality of opportunity. Just placing the same opportunity in front of two people isn't a guarantee of equality of opportunity if one is poorer than the other or socially disadvantaged in other ways.
Doesnt really explain then why black athletes make uo approx 70% of american football and basketball
 
Jul 5, 2011
15,238
22,970
AFL Club
Collingwood
There are very few sports where there is inherent talent or genetic advantage.
I think it's both nature and nurture in fairly equal portions. At the most elite level, genes become even more important. No matter how much you have in the way of resources, not just anyone can become Usain Bolt.

Genetic data can already be analysed to discover if someone is built more for power / burst speed or endurance. Along with their predisposition towards obesity, disease etc. It would be near impossible to become an athlete at the top level of any event without ticking the right boxes in the genetic lottery, IMO.
 
I think it's both nature and nurture in fairly equal portions. At the most elite level, genes become even more important. No matter how much you have in the way of resources, not just anyone can become Usain Bolt.
But many studies show the opposite re: nature and nuture. In most sports, nurture is the key.

There are some sports where genetics plays a part. I think with Bolt something else played a part too.
 

CheapCharlie

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 12, 2015
6,416
7,985
AFL Club
Sydney
But many studies show the opposite re: nature and nuture. In most sports, nurture is the key.

There are some sports where genetics plays a part. I think with Bolt something else played a part too.
What studies?
 

TimmeT

Premiership Player
Mar 28, 2017
4,321
4,509
AFL Club
Port Adelaide


Wonder if he will have any issue with people abusing, harassing, criticising LGBT right protesters or supporters and/or gays?
 

Maverick5

Draftee
Apr 22, 2019
18
0
AFL Club
Hawthorn
James dude aka.. short pants isn't thrilling me at replicating the 'new' world and he is trying me ..
I know I am tiring myself but I don't want to walk a thousand miles to vote.. postal vote means that I
have to get in there before i get the relevant news. nuts. ... dude...
 

its free real estate

it's free real estate
Jul 30, 2018
11,782
15,176
AFL Club
Fremantle
Im not sure what that means based on that article.

Ive seen another study showing footballers born between sept amd and December were more likely to be champions
Chief is misunderstanding statistics. You have a 0.01% chance of playing AFL. If you are born in January you have a 0.012% chance against other people born in January. If you are born in December your chance against other people born in December of playing AFL is 0.008%.

What do you think is the determinant of whether you play in AFL? Whether you are born in January or December, or something else?
 
Chief is misunderstanding statistics. You have a 0.01% chance of playing AFL. If you are born in January you have a 0.012% chance against other people born in January. If you are born in December your chance against other people born in December of playing AFL is 0.008%.

What do you think is the determinant of whether you play in AFL? Whether you are born in January or December, or something else?
I first came across this whole 'when you were born' thing at uni a decade and a half ago, so it's been recognised as a factor for quite some time
 
I first came across this whole 'when you were born' thing at uni a decade and a half ago, so it's been recognised as a factor for quite some time

I believe this is mentioned in the first freakonomics book
 
May 1, 2016
28,390
55,345
AFL Club
Carlton
What is the more determining factor? Whether you have the genes to run a 16 beep or whether you are born in January?
I ran a 15 when I was much younger, and I would say that I was far more explosively fit (go as hard as for 5 minutes, then stuffed, but short recovery times) than aerobically fit. I don't buy beep tests as measures of a genetic predilection in any direction; I see them as a measure that can be used to measure fitness, because that's what it is.

If you were going to measure it as a genetic measure, you'd have to make the test harder, and then you'd have to measure as many disparate - re, isolated - populations you can to find genetic markers towards long distance running, and then you'd have to compensate for training, adversity, diet, etc.
 

its free real estate

it's free real estate
Jul 30, 2018
11,782
15,176
AFL Club
Fremantle
I ran a 15 when I was much younger, and I would say that I was far more explosively fit (go as hard as for 5 minutes, then stuffed, but short recovery times) than aerobically fit. I don't buy beep tests as measures of a genetic predilection in any direction; I see them as a measure that can be used to measure fitness, because that's what it is.

If you were going to measure it as a genetic measure, you'd have to make the test harder, and then you'd have to measure as many disparate - re, isolated - populations you can to find genetic markers towards long distance running, and then you'd have to compensate for training, adversity, diet, etc.
Some people can’t run them at all though, no matter how much they train.

The point is: where does most of the contribution come from for playing elite sport: genetic gifts or environmental factors?

The science is fairly conclusive the majority of the contributions is is in the genes. The month you are born in has a marginal effect.
 

medusala

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,423
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
But many studies show the opposite re: nature and nuture. In most sports, nurture is the key.

Overwhelming majority of people couldnt play AFL no matter what coaching and facilities they encountered.

Also see digit ratio and correlation with sporting prowess.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2577466/

The science is fairly conclusive the majority of the contributions is is in the genes. The month you are born in has a marginal effect.

I agree with you but not necessarily re month of birth. IIRC it was Michael Lewis in Moneyball who explained how the month of birth played a huge role in draft choices.

edit: or may have been freakonomics as suggested above.
 
Back