Defining ourselves as conservative or liberal

Mommyg8

Thu, Oct 11 2018, 9:50 pm

Jeanette wrote:

I dont doubt that you saw a study and that's what you believed it said.

Its always good to question things you read and make sure they make sense.

Hi, Jeanette! I found it.

It was not where I read it originally (I honestly can't remember exactly where I read it -- I really do read so much) but I found it again here:

"Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence that Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars" by Kingsley Browne. In Chapter two, he states:

"Most physical differences between the sexes are very large, ranging from 1.5 to 4 standard deviations, meaning that there is very little overlap [emphasis mine]."

Again: "Most people acknowledge that men and women differ in physical strength, but advocates of integration often downplay teh difference by pointing out that some women are stronger than some men. In fact, however, there is very little overlap between the sexes."

This book is on Amazon, and you can read the first two chapters without actually buying the book, which is what I just did. He explains the methodology of statistics and how he has computed these statistics previously in the chapter, I did not repeat it as while I do have a basic understanding of statistics, my knowledge stopped at Intro to Statistics so I don't want to take a chance that I'll repeat it wrong.

Another quote:

"Examining data concerning lifting capacity, [Joshua Golstein] notes that 'even the most pronounced gender differences regarding height and strength alike appear to show a non-trivial overlap of bell-curves'. One can quibble about what is trivial and what is nontrivial, but the overlap was between the strongest 10 percent of women and the weakest 10 percent of men. Trivial or non-trivial, the overlap is very small."

You can read the rest of the chapter as a preview from Amazon, if you're interested in more info and statistics.

Last edited by Mommyg8 on Thu, Oct 11 2018, 11:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

Jeanette

Thu, Oct 11 2018, 10:15 pm

Even assuming that what the book says is true and that their methodologies are valid. That's still not what you said. You asserted categorically that the weakest man is stronger than the strongest woman. Your source does not assert that. I'm not sure why so important to you to believe an obviously false thing is true. Nobody disagrees that on average men are physically stronger than women (depending on your definition). What compels you to insist that EVERY man must be stronger than EVERY woman?

Mommyg8

Thu, Oct 11 2018, 10:34 pm

Jeanette wrote:

I'm quoting myself:

" The strongest woman is barely as strong as the weakest male."

Perhaps I should have said it this way: the strongest 10% of women are as strong as the lowest 10% of men.

I'm questioning your assumption that the author used questionable methodology to reach these conclusions. Have you analyzed her claims? Have you found any holes in her assumptions?

I only defended myself because I have been accused in the past of making things up. I never make things up, I'm always quoting somebody, maybe that person made it up.

I also think it's important to emphasize the huge differences because we live in a world that often closes it's eyes to reality. Women are weaker? Oh, that's only a construct of society. That is not so, and there are many well researched books and articles explaining this. This book is just one of them.

You agree that the average man is stronger than the average woman. But that can mean, and is often taken to mean, that while men score, let's say, at the 60th percentile in certain aspects of strength, women score, let's say, in the 40th percentile. This is not so; the differences are very real and significant.

"The probability that a randomly selected man will have greater upper-body strength than a randomly selected woman is well over 95 percent."

That is much higher than most people think.

Jeanette

Thu, Oct 11 2018, 10:58 pm

Mommyg8 wrote:

I'm quoting myself:

Perhaps I should have said it this way: the strongest 10% of women are as strong as the lowest 10% of men.

Yes, it does make more sense when you put it hat way but then you also have to define what you mean by "strong." For example, female babies are more likely to survive infancy (for reasons that are not completely clear) and females also have longer life expectancy.

Quote:

I'm questioning your assumption that the author used questionable methodology to reach these conclusions. Have you analyzed her claims? Have you found any holes in her assumptions?

I have not read the book so I have not made any assumptions either way. What I said was even assuming that the methodology was good it doesn't support your original assertion.

I never said you made anything up, only that you may have misinterpreted what you read.

Mommyg8

Thu, Oct 11 2018, 11:10 pm

Quote:

The book explains the term "strength" in very precise terms. Again, the first two chapters can be read for free on Amazon.

Quote:

I never said you made anything up, only that you may have misinterpreted what you read.

Someone here said that I often make things up. That's why I took the time on a Thursday night to research this.

amother

Pewter

Fri, Oct 12 2018, 12:44 am

I only read the last page here now. But no, common sense can tell you the strongest 10% of women are much stronger than the weakest 10% of men! Look around.
Although of course the average male is stronger than the average female, it doesnt work throughout the spectrum.

I know a lot of very strong women. Some from the older generation, when women did everything and were very hands on. Their hands are big and broad and as far from dainty as you can imagine. These women are much stronger than the weakest males.

I also know a few women soldiers and a few bodybuilders. Again, much stronger than weak males or very unfit males.

(I assume the study defined strength as physical prowess. Because if it's life endurance, women win every time. For example, far more women survive natural disasters than men).

oliveoil

Fri, Oct 12 2018, 1:07 am

Mommyg8 wrote:

Your comparison is silly. So let's change it - the strongest possible 22 female will be barely as strong as a 22 year old male who is on the bottom of the chart in terms of strength. Possibly not even as strong - but I do have to look it up.

The point is that males are generally much stronger than females, even weak males are stronger than strong females.

This is not remotely true. You should get out more.

yo'ma

Sun, Oct 14 2018, 9:55 am

Mommyg8 wrote:

There were studies done that compared men's physical strength to women. Those studies are most relevant to the military, police department, and fire fighters. I don't have time to list the study now, but try googling firefighters and fitness tests.

Your comparison is silly. So let's change it - the strongest possible 22 female will be barely as strong as a 22 year old male who is on the bottom of the chart in terms of strength. Possibly not even as strong - but I do have to look it up.

The point is that males are generally much stronger than females, even weak males are stronger than strong females.

They say it's real, but who knows?