>Or are you claiming once this hypothetical convincing theory is out "feminists" will be gone?
Hopefully not. Without opposition my hypotehtical theory would have no way of being refined further through discussion.
>I would argue that anything which has certain mental capabilities (which I'm not able to define) can be good at STEM whether or not it has a brain or even is human or not, would you agree to that?
I would agree to that in a limited capacity. These mental capabilities are more like capacities, the efficiency and speed of them is dependant on an individual. I propose that some of them may depend on which chromosome the human individual got at birth. In other physical forms this (potential) difference could be less pronounced or more pronounced.
>Yet people are concerned about doping. It's the athletes decision to risk his life for better outcome. Why does that make the competition unfair then?
Doping affects the added definition of fairness, other players who did not dope with the same skill level are outperformed; if two identically strong players were to participate, one doping, one not, then the doping one would have an unfair advantage that the not-doping player will have to compensate with a lot of hard work.
>But I can tell that the larger the differences in outcome averaged over many people, the more I'm suspicious.
That's usually a pretty terrible approach. Simply averaging the outcome is an easy way to trip over every statistical quirk there is.
The only way to be sure that the game is fair is to get a decent sample out of the population and perform a thorough statistical analysis that accounts for all variables possible. And I would suggest that the data crunching would be performed by people of differing political orientations, as much as possible, including hard right and hard left, to ensure that there is as little ideological bias as possible.
Hopefully not. Without opposition my hypotehtical theory would have no way of being refined further through discussion.
>I would argue that anything which has certain mental capabilities (which I'm not able to define) can be good at STEM whether or not it has a brain or even is human or not, would you agree to that?
I would agree to that in a limited capacity. These mental capabilities are more like capacities, the efficiency and speed of them is dependant on an individual. I propose that some of them may depend on which chromosome the human individual got at birth. In other physical forms this (potential) difference could be less pronounced or more pronounced.
>Yet people are concerned about doping. It's the athletes decision to risk his life for better outcome. Why does that make the competition unfair then?
Doping affects the added definition of fairness, other players who did not dope with the same skill level are outperformed; if two identically strong players were to participate, one doping, one not, then the doping one would have an unfair advantage that the not-doping player will have to compensate with a lot of hard work.
>But I can tell that the larger the differences in outcome averaged over many people, the more I'm suspicious.
That's usually a pretty terrible approach. Simply averaging the outcome is an easy way to trip over every statistical quirk there is.
The only way to be sure that the game is fair is to get a decent sample out of the population and perform a thorough statistical analysis that accounts for all variables possible. And I would suggest that the data crunching would be performed by people of differing political orientations, as much as possible, including hard right and hard left, to ensure that there is as little ideological bias as possible.