This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 248 by TirelessRebutter

Comment 249 by blitz442 :

Therefore, if we had open competition b/t male and female tennis players, and the highest ranking female consistently ranked just outside the top 1000 of all professionals, then we can safely conclude that she is better at tennis than all but 1,000 people on the planet.

Which doesn't actually tell us anything whatsoever about the male and female skill distributions. The tallest female was taller than almost all men, but that doesn't mean we should say the height distributions are only insignificantly different.

And besides, this analogy with sport isn't very interesting as it has nothing to do with sex differences in psychology.

Comment 245 by Schrodinger's Cat

How on Earth would one decide a definitive distribution ? It could not be simply 'all people'....because if all the women in the world became professional tennis players and all the men didn't, one could inaccurately conclude from a comprehensive distribution that women are vastly better tennis players than men.

But that isn't what actually happens. In the real world, an average male (amateur) athelete is very likely to beat an average female (amateur) athelete.

I don't know why I jumped into this discussion, anyway, as sports bore me to tears.

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:06:35 UTC | #590942