Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,289,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 294 of 411 FirstFirst ... 194244284292293294295296304344394 ... LastLast
Results 21,976 to 22,050 of 30795
  1. #21976
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

    Watching this and wondering where he gets the idea that 90% of the hypotheses people are testing are false? Who are these idiots testing all these bad ideas lol?

    The overall issue is actually a valid issue one though, as there is replicability crisis in science. My colleague and I are actually writing a paper on this. A lot of the problem has to do with using null hypothesis significance testing, and there's some other things that he mentions like p-hacking and low power. He doesn't mention some of the ways in which the crisis has been overblown though. For example, the reproducibility project simply counted the number of results that were significant, not whether they had similar-sized effects to the originals (which is a more sensible way of testing replicability).
  2. #21977
    90% of tested hypotheses being false seems low to me. For every fact there are tons of hypotheses.
  3. #21978
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I think the evidence on balance favours my view. I know it isn't completely unequivocal but as I've said there's limitations to what they can prove given all the variables involved.
    My man!

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I'm curious to what would satisfy you in terms of evidence? A longitudinal study over an entire lifetime with all participants matched in all respects? Half would eat 5 fruit and veg a day and the other half none? Because that study's not going to happen...
    I feel there's a misunderstanding... I'm not doubting your claims, I'm doubting the veracity with which you were asserting them.



    What will satisfy me is a conclusive finding and if that's not gonna happen, then I will remain unconvinced.
    It may or may not be reasonable, but I believe that healthy skepticism saves lives when it comes to what we put into our bodies.
    Healthy skepticism is the backbone or precursor of science, after all.
  4. #21979
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Aubrey de Grey is an example of a biologist (albeit not a dietician) who claims something along the lines of there not being evidence that we can improve our longevity and health through diet (outside of the basics, like making sure we're having bowel movements without developing hemorrhoids).

    I love me some Aubrey de Grey. If I was a billionaire, I'd fund his research and we'd defeat the diseases susceptible from aging because of it.
    Seems like an interesting guy. Hard to know how seriously to take him though when his peers seem to think he's a bit of a nutcase.
  5. #21980
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    90% of tested hypotheses being false seems low to me. For every fact there are tons of hypotheses.
    That may be, but it takes time and effort to do an experiment. Scientists are intelligent people coming up with the most plausible hypotheses, not just dopes blindly trying out every conceivable hypothesis.

    Anyone whose hypotheses turned out to be wrong 90% of the time in their experiments would be a laughing stock imo.

    Edit: unless you mean you can test a lot of different hypotheses with the same data point. Not really how things tend to work though. It tends to be pretty binary -either hypothesis A is supported (p < 0.05) or hypothesis A is discounted (p > 0.05).
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 08-20-2016 at 09:01 PM.
  6. #21981
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Seems like an interesting guy. Hard to know how seriously to take him though when his peers seem to think he's a bit of a nutcase.
    He has lots of highly credentialed peers who agree with him.

    The reason behind the arguments is what compelled me. The assessment of aging he presents makes way more sense to me than the conventional one. In fact, the conventional one makes no sense whatsoever. It seems at best to be just something people believe because even the smartest among us are good at believing nonsense.
  7. #21982
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Cool fava. It sounds like his youtube content may be related very much to his field of study? Correct?

    Maybe I should watch his channel. I only saw that video because of reddit.
    Yeppers.

    Def. do so.

    I just scrolled through his catalog and I can't believe some of those videos are so old. I can directly credit his YouTube channel for 2 of the demonstrations I've added to the curriculum for this coming semester.
  8. #21983
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    That may be, but it takes time and effort to do an experiment. Scientists are intelligent people coming up with the most plausible hypotheses, not just dopes blindly trying out every conceivable hypothesis.
    You don't hang out with many scientists, do you?

    We're like any other group. Some greats, some absolute disasters, and a whole lot in the middle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Anyone whose hypotheses turned out to be wrong 90% of the time in their experiments would be a laughing stock imo.
    Exactly. Fallible people making mistakes and then covering them up... often subconsciously... lest they become ridiculed or worse: lose their funding.
  9. #21984
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    That may be, but it takes time and effort to do an experiment. Scientists are intelligent people coming up with the most plausible hypotheses, not just dopes blindly trying out every conceivable hypothesis.

    Anyone whose hypotheses turned out to be wrong 90% of the time in their experiments would be a laughing stock imo.
    Man, this, if true, shows the sad state of science, similar to what veritasium covered. Science doesn't find out what's true; it finds out what's not true then assume the remaining is true.
  10. #21985
    I'm not saying science is in a sad state. But I do think people could be better.
  11. #21986
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    You don't hang out with many scientists, do you?
    Nope, I've published 35 papers on neuroscience and psychology while alone in my basement.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    We're like any other group. Some greats, some absolute disasters, and a whole lot in the middle.
    Really. Maybe I don't spend enough time with other scientists cause most of the ones I know are very bright.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Exactly. Fallible people making mistakes and then covering them up... often subconsciously... lest they become ridiculed or worse: lose their funding.
    Are you arguing that 90% of hypotheses being wrong is a plausible scenario? Are you saying the 'typical' scientist is running experiments that are 90% likely to fail a priori?
  12. #21987
    Wow isn't 35 papers a fucking lot?

    By heuristic, I would think >90% of hypotheses should be wrong. But that's by heuristic.

    According to the veritasium presentation, it's not that hard to massage data until it "succeeds." Also softer and biological sciences are probably easier to find success in. Granted this is way out of my statistical depth.
  13. #21988
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Nope, I've published 35 papers on neuroscience and psychology while alone in my basement.
    I deserved that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Really. Maybe I don't spend enough time with other scientists cause most of the ones I know are very bright.
    Maybe.

    I am lucky to work in a world class university, and my colleagues humble me with their intelligence all the time. The students we teach, on the other hand... just a mixed bag.

    I didn't have the benefit of getting my education from such a highly accredited institution, though it was a great school. Plenty of my co-students were just disasters who could barely follow instructions, much less perform the kind of innovative thinking required to do quality scientific experimentation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Are you arguing that 90% of hypotheses being wrong is a plausible scenario? Are you saying the 'typical' scientist is running experiments that are 90% likely to fail a priori?
    Absolutely, but we're in really undefined waters. What counts as a hypothesis?

    If I say, "I think I saw a spark," then I check with video and there is no spark, then that's a false hypothesis. It's nothing I'd ever be publishing, because it's easily demonstrated in moments w/o an expensive research project.

    If we're counting psychological, economic, sociological, etc. soft sciences, then I find it to be a low estimate. Like you said about nutrition, the field is simply too vast to pin down specific answers (at this state of technology and science), so why would I expect even 1% of hypotheses to produce plausible results?
  14. #21989
    Nah, 35 papers is respectable, but it's not stupendous. This is after 15 years.

    The way experiments are done in my field at least, you typically start with a single hypothesis. Say you believe men are better than women at doing some kind of puzzle. This is based on past research generally, or it can be your intuition or 'common knowledge' that men are better problem solvers than women (ignore whether or not that's true for this example). So you test a group of men and a group of women on a set of puzzles and see if your hypothesis is supported.

    Well, there's only three ways that experiment can turn out. Either you're right and men score higher, or you're wrong and females score higher, or you're wrong and there's no difference. But since you're testing a hypothesis you already have reasons to believe to be true in the first place, being wrong 90% of the time would suggest you're kind of a fuck up at picking hypotheses. I mean even if your hypothesis is a random guess you're still only going to be wrong 67% of the time with three possible outcomes.

    Take another example: You think treatment X will improve schizophrenia. Same three things can happen, either you're right and it does, or you're wrong and it doesn't or you're wrong and it's actually harmful. Still hard to see how you can be wrong 90% of the time. If anything, you should be closer to being right about two thirds of the time because your hypotheses should be reasonable and not counterfactual or random.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 08-21-2016 at 10:09 AM.
  15. #21990
    Of course if you're just doing something exploratory where you throw in a bunch of variables and look for correlations, then you could arguably have some vast number of testable hypotheses that can be analyzed statistically. In this case it's conceivable that a high percentage of these hypotheses could be wrong a priori - it depends on how related the variables are. But it's also worth bearing in mind that a high percentage of those 'wrong' hypotheses aren't really being viewed seriously by the researcher and if evidence was found to support them, it would just be dismissed.

    An example would be a study examining lifestyle choices and fitness. If someone included smoking cigarettes as one variable and VO2max as another, you could in theory have a hypothesis that smoking improved VO2 max. But everyone knows that's ridiculous and so why include it as a hypothesis in your study? A much more sensible hypothesis would be that smoking decreased VO2max. So this is the one people will test.

    In studies of nutrition, exploratory research is the norm because it's generally impractical and/or unethical to do controlled experiments over years and years. But when the same relationships tend to show up consistently across studies then there is reason to believe those relationships are probably true.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 08-21-2016 at 10:08 AM.
  16. #21991
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

    Watching this and wondering where he gets the idea that 90% of the hypotheses people are testing are false? Who are these idiots testing all these bad ideas lol?
    When does he say this? I just watched the video and I didn't notice him mention this.

    He picks an example to demonstrate numbers that has no real significance except it maybe artificially inflates his point. Ultimately though that's not the point because in reality no matter the % of actually true and false hypothesis the numbers being tested is vastly more.
    Last edited by Savy; 08-21-2016 at 10:24 AM.
  17. #21992
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...phoria-doctors

    Fantastically interesting article on what no one wants to talk about - girls that struggle with their sexuality and gender-role so much that they transition to male, only to realize it was a mistake.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 08-21-2016 at 10:35 AM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  18. #21993
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...phoria-doctors

    Fantastically interesting article on what no one wants to talk about - girls that struggle with the sexuality and gender-role so much that they transition to male, only realize it was a mistake.
    I've still yet to have anyone explain to me even on a simple level what it means to be a boy or girl. It strikes me as a ridiculous following of gender stereotypes that have no real reflection of what that person is. I don't get how you can feel like a male or female and what it is about those actions you can't do regardless of your gender. I also don't really see what differences hormone therapy and surgery make in who you are as a person.

    A Theroux documentary on transgender children just seemed to be parents saying ohh our male child likes wearing dresses and playing with dolls he must be a girl. That's mental.

    That all being said I'm all for people doing whatever they want to do with their own bodies. If you make decisions to alter your body in a way that's permanent obviously you should be aware of what happens if you regret it afterwards.
    Last edited by Savy; 08-21-2016 at 10:36 AM.
  19. #21994
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    I agree that if you want to transition to the other gender through hormones and surgery, if you're well informed, go for it. It for nothing else than that we'll learn the lesson of what works and what doesn't.

    I don't get how you can feel like a male or female and what it is about those actions you can't do regardless of your gender.
    It seems to me that this is the crux of the matter. After spelunking around the de-trans community, it seems like a lot of these people struggle with understanding their internal emotional state - they'll talk about longing to be male and the relief that comes with passing themselves off as one, or they'll talk about misunderstanding their attraction to other girls as meaning they aren't one themselves, or they'll talk about a reluctance to grow up in a world where women age horribly compared to men. It always seems to pivot around some internal friction or emotional churning that they want sorted out. Whereas I never gave a passing thought to my gender and never even worried about the entire paradigm.

    You can't really transition from one gender to another, though. You can either face the reality of your situation, or transition into some nebulous third gender to help disguise yourself in front of others.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  20. #21995
    I wish I was a lesbian. I might have gender reassignment to make it happen.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #21996
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Im with Savvy.
  22. #21997
    Have we had the Caster Semenya debate on here yet?
  23. #21998
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Do you guys know how calories are determined?

    It's kinda neat. In chemistry, I got to do it myself. Take a gummy bear, put it in a strong, sealed container, and explode it! Then measure the energy.

    The method even has a cool name. Bomb calorimetry.
  24. #21999
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    When does he say this? I just watched the video and I didn't notice him mention this.
    Right after when he raises the question of how much of the published scientific literature is false, around 2:00.

    The example of 90% has significance for the very reason you mention, because it artificially inflates his point. You could also say 99.9% of hypotheses are false a priori (if you're just picking a number with no real significance), in which case out of 10000 studies, one will have a .80 chance of being a true positive and there'll be on average 450 false positives. Since 450/451 published studies are in error, we might as well go home then.

    Let's take a more reasonable but still conservative estimate, such as that we begin our studies with a sensible hypothesis that is right about half the time. Let's also assume people aren't idiots and use a reasonable amount of statistical power in their studies, at least 70% (he makes a point somewhere that power is a lot lower in some field i can't remember but accurate estimates of power are hard to do because true effect size is unknown).

    Now for 1000 tested hypotheses, 500 are true and 500 are false. Now you get quite a different distribution of true/false positive/negatives:
    350 true positives
    150 false negatives
    450 true negatives
    50 false positives

    Negatives tend not be published very often (as he rightly points out), so probably 2/3 of those go in the drawer. That leaves 500 correct results and 100 incorrect ones in the published research. Still needs improvement, but definitely not as bad as he's making it out to be.

    This whole issue of reproducibility in science is exaggerated imo, for a number of reasons that I could go into if someone wanted me to, but it would take some time.
  25. #22000
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bean Counter View Post
    Have we had the Caster Semenya debate on here yet?
    Nope. A quick google about it shows me people being butt hurt that someone beat them because they have a genetic advantage.

    I like how GB gets credit for doing so well when we're such a tiny country in comparison to others who compete when what we really do is put a lot of funding into sports and steal the best talent we can from other countries to compete for us.

    edit - I actually think the olympics should be split into millions of different sections for each event where each group of athletes has exactly the same everything from genetics, to funding, to training so that the only factor we can use to determine who the best is is I don't know. What does? I shouldn't have to compete against swimmers who have size 20 feet and ridiculous arm spans who have trained for years, why shouldn't I have an equal chance for a gold medal.
    Last edited by Savy; 08-21-2016 at 12:06 PM.
  26. #22001
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Still needs improvement, but definitely not as bad as he's making it out to be.
    I agree with what you say in your post but I don't agree that this is the point. More an interesting side that he has been bias in his point probably unintentionally which further strengthens his other points about unintentional bias. To be more clear the point is that mistakes happen and as you increase the numbers of tests you do the more mistakes there are and more importantly we should be working to make the number of mistakes as low as possible.

    We can both agree that the effects that he is talking about exist and are true to some extent. You seem to have some idea of the extent I personally do not.
  27. #22002
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Do you guys know how calories are determined?

    It's kinda neat. In chemistry, I got to do it myself. Take a gummy bear, put it in a strong, sealed container, and explode it! Then measure the energy.

    The method even has a cool name. Bomb calorimetry.
    Of course, that's why calories are not the best measure of metabolic energy. Because our body doesn't set fire to gummy bears, it dissolves them and breaks them down. Furthermore, we then shit out what we don't break down. So, we're wasting some of that calorie value. And, of course, different people will retain and waste different amounts, from different types of foods. I might retain 90% of a gummy bears' calories, but only 80% of a slice of toast. Any number of medical or genetical conditions can change those numbers.

    That's why I took issue with wuf when he said something like "then she either eats more or is less active"... because even I realise it's really not that simple.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 08-21-2016 at 12:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #22003
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    More an interesting side that he has been bias in his point probably unintentionally which further strengthens his other points about unintentional bias.
    I think it's fair to say the video isn't being pitched at serious statisticians, but more like the general public who want some kind of easily digestible information on what they've heard about the replicability crisis. Whatever his academic credentials, he's certainly well groomed, speaks confidently, and has some good video skills. Obviously that's irrelevant to the accuracy of the content, but without understanding the content most people will just evaluate the messenger.

    And because of this my fear is that the general public who is watching this is likely to just go 'oh yeah this guy's right, scientists are fucking idiots. Let's slash their funding and buy a new submarine (or whatever) instead'.
  29. #22004
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    And because of this my fear is that the general public who is watching this is likely to just go 'oh yeah this guy's right, scientists are fucking idiots. Let's slash their funding and buy a new submarine (or whatever) instead'.
    I hate to break it to you but if the general public has a choice on a submarine or science funding you're losing out every time (unless you love submarines).

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's why I took issue with wuf when he said something like "then she either eats more or is less active"... because even I realise it's really not that simple.
    Even if Wuf is looking at it in a simplistic way he's doing so in such a way that is very practical for society. If you count your calories and adjust them accordingly your weight will change. It's been shown time and time again. You don't need to worry about all the other magic shit going on.
    Last edited by Savy; 08-21-2016 at 12:57 PM.
  30. #22005
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Of course, that's why calories are not the best measure of metabolic energy. Because our body doesn't set fire to gummy bears, it dissolves them and breaks them down. Furthermore, we then shit out what we don't break down. So, we're wasting some of that calorie value. And, of course, different people will retain and waste different amounts, from different types of foods. I might retain 90% of a gummy bears' calories, but only 80% of a slice of toast. Any number of medical or genetical conditions can change those numbers.

    That's why I took issue with wuf when he said something like "then she either eats more or is less active"... because even I realise it's really not that simple.
    This turned into something it was not supposed to be. Regardless of the details, a 120 pound woman has lower equilibrium calories than a 135 pound woman. The mistake I made was in saying "or more active" when it should have been "has more expenditures". The thing is that when discussing body composition, it is pretty much only calorie intake and activity that are useful things to measure. BMR varies between different people of the same weight to much smaller degrees than people think, changes in TEF account for pretty minuscule changes, and NEAT doesn't appear to be changeable (it falls into the activity category anyways).
  31. #22006
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...phoria-doctors

    Fantastically interesting article on what no one wants to talk about - girls that struggle with their sexuality and gender-role so much that they transition to male, only to realize it was a mistake.
    My position is very similar to Milo Yiannapoulos's. This newish idea that young boys that act like girls are *truly* girls in the wrong bodies is a new iteration of homophobia. It's easier on parents to think that little Timmy really is little Sally instead of just a little sally.

    Transgender, at least to a point, does appear to a be a thing. However, a significant proportion of it is probably mental disorder. Depression rates and suicide rates are astronomical for the group, and the stats don't change with reassignment. The common argument that they're depressed from oppression doesn't hold up because the response is unique to the group yet depression is not. At the very least, the point at which somebody wants to cut off his dick, he should be thought of as needing mental treatment. Even if it is 100% true that he has a girl brain, cutting up the body is not a sign of that girl brain but of a mentally ill brain.


    And yes, this applies to more than just cutting up the dick. Nikki Cox also has a mental disorder. Thus sayeth Dr. Wugy, Chief Resident at Armchair University.

    Sadface

  32. #22007
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This turned into something it was not supposed to be.
    Oh yeah I vaguely remember you saying I was being dense, and I kinda accepted I probably was so left it alone.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #22008
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    I hate to break it to you but if the general public has a choice on a submarine or science funding you're losing out every time (unless you love submarines).
    Ya, but the submarine will sink 60% of the time cause some scientist hypothesized it would float and he was wrong. It's a vicious circle really.
  34. #22009
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Ya, but the submarine will sink 60% of the time cause some scientist hypothesized it would float and he was wrong. It's a vicious circle really.
    I thought the point of a submarine was that it didn't float.
  35. #22010
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    I thought the point of a submarine was that it didn't float.
    Touche.
  36. #22011
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    I thought the point of a submarine was that it didn't float.
    Kinda also important that it doesn't sink all the way, either.

    Bigger problem is not suffocating the crew on engine exhaust. We solved that by putting nuclear reactors on the subs. That's not gonna last long in the scenario described.

    You could go the Richard Brannon route and make a personal sub with compressed oxygen tanks, though. I'd not be the man to trust one held together with hot glue and duct tape, though.
  37. #22012
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Kinda also important that it doesn't sink all the way, either.

    Bigger problem is not suffocating the crew on engine exhaust. We solved that by putting nuclear reactors on the subs. That's not gonna last long in the scenario described.

    You could go the Richard Brannon route and make a personal sub with compressed oxygen tanks, though. I'd not be the man to trust one held together with hot glue and duct tape, though.
    Duct tape no, but ....
  38. #22013
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Nope. A quick google about it shows me people being butt hurt that someone beat them because they have a genetic advantage.
    It's an interesting case, as the athletics governing bodies are being forced to define what makes a woman a woman. The definition looks to be based purely on testosterone, presumably because they couldn't find any cock and balls on a person that looks and sounds exactly like a man.

    Agree with you about the genetic advantage thing. After all, that's what competitive sports is all about at the top levels (assuming everybody works has hard and smart as each other). I don't complain that I'm not 7 foot tall and therefore can't fairly compete with an NBA player.

    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    I like how GB gets credit for doing so well when we're such a tiny country in comparison to others who compete when what we really do is put a lot of funding into sports and steal the best talent we can from other countries to compete for us.
    I think a lot of countries throw money at it, so we're still doing well. The GB funding is pretty ruthless as well from what I've heard.
  39. #22014
    Sports would probably be more fair if people were allowed to dope to their hearts content. Without doping, the top competitors are never any other than those who won the genetic lottery. Doping opens the field up to more people.

    Granted, the purpose of the Olympics ain't about this. It's all about which country has the better genes foremost with secondary concerns of which country has the better tactics, willpower, and science.
  40. #22015
    It's funny that there's complaints about the British throwing money at sport in order to compete with the best.

    You know, like that's a bad thing? The French had a moan because we're dominating cycling, but really they shouldn't moan at our funding... they should moan at their lack of funding.

    The money we're investing in Olympic sports is nothing compared to the money in football. I mean Crystal Palace can afford to spend £30m. Yet our footballers are a failure, even just against our continental neighbours. We throw a few million at Olympics, and suddenly we can beat China. We're getting golds in sports we've never been competetive in, like gymnastics and field hockey.

    Without doping, the top competitors are never any other than those who won the genetic lottery
    Not in all sports. Sprinting, yeah. Swimming, yeah. But most sports, it's a level playing field in the sense that anyone can be a world class tennis player if they start young enough and maintain peak fitness.

    Doping is a weird one. Like, I can't smoke a spliff before a race, but I can drink coffee. I know which one is more likely to enhance my performance. And, if we want to be pedantic, a banana is performace enhancing. I'll perform better in a sprint if I eat a banana five minutes before the race, compared to if I didn't, assuming all other factors are identical.

    However, if you just say doping is allowed, sport becomes a competition between those who have the most effective drugs. No normal person is going to be interested in it, except in the cases where you have huge monsters fighting each other. I don't care how fast someone can run if they're ripped to the tits on amphetamines, or how much weight a steroidman can lift. What's the point? Competition then becomes a measure of how effective drugs are, rather than a measure of athletic ability.

    So no, fuck that. Doping in sport is bad, and it shouldn't be allowed.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #22016
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Weirdest doping is blood doping. You draw your own blood in advance, and keep it fresh. Then let your body restore the amount of blood it usually has. Right before the competition, put your own blood back into your system, "doping" your blood with your own blood.

    The upshot is more oxygen carriers in the body, which is a net boon when delivering oxygen to muscles.

    Your own blood is a performance enhancing drug.
  42. #22017
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's funny that there's complaints about the British throwing money at sport in order to compete with the best.

    You know, like that's a bad thing? The French had a moan because we're dominating cycling, but really they shouldn't moan at our funding... they should moan at their lack of funding.

    The money we're investing in Olympic sports is nothing compared to the money in football. I mean Crystal Palace can afford to spend £30m. Yet our footballers are a failure, even just against our continental neighbours. We throw a few million at Olympics, and suddenly we can beat China. We're getting golds in sports we've never been competetive in, like gymnastics and field hockey.



    Not in all sports. Sprinting, yeah. Swimming, yeah. But most sports, it's a level playing field in the sense that anyone can be a world class tennis player if they start young enough and maintain peak fitness.
    Tennis is extremely physically grueling. Doping aids it.

    However, if you just say doping is allowed, sport becomes a competition between those who have the most effective drugs. No normal person is going to be interested in it, except in the cases where you have huge monsters fighting each other. I don't care how fast someone can run if they're ripped to the tits on amphetamines, or how much weight a steroidman can lift. What's the point? Competition then becomes a measure of how effective drugs are, rather than a measure of athletic ability.
    Your last line would read better as "competition becomes a measure of drugs rather than genes." Even so, either measures athletic ability just fine. To your first line, doping still expands eligibility to more people than not doping. It is far easier to get top notch drugs than it is to be born in the top .001 percentile genetically.

    As for the point that normal people wouldn't watch non-doping sports, I disagree. I think people would care far less if all the secret doping was taken out. Everybody's favorite athlete is on drugs (except for perhaps 1%), and everybody's favorite highlights happen because the athletes can generate such power because of drugs. As a Brit I know you don't watch the NFL, but it's probably the best example of a sport that would become boring without all the doping.

    Another point is that making doping legal would help equalize the playing field by making it easier for athletes to compete with the doping that the top athletes are already doing in secret. Lance Armstrong benefited greatly from doping being illegal because it gave him a advantage in procuring them. He had the money and incentive to beat the tests. If doping was legal many more athletes could have competed with him on the doping stage than actually did.
  43. #22018
    Tennis is extremely physically grueling. Doping aids it.
    Of course it does. It isn't as obvious as I thought it was, but I was talking about genetics there, not doping. Genetics doesn't give one an obvious advantage when it comes to tennis, not like Phelps, who is perfectly formed to be the greatest swimmer of all time, or Bolt, who is the most physically perfect sprinter of all time. Murray and Djokovic are just as fit as they can be, and have played tennis for as long as they've been walking, nothing to do with the way they were born.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #22019
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Why are we assuming each athlete trains and eats correctly?

    Surely genes matter to a huge extent. But I think it's unfair to complete discount an individual's work and downplay it to just genetics
  45. #22020
    Why are we assuming each athlete trains and eats correctly?
    I tend to make the assumption that any world class athlete eats correctly. I don't see how they would be world class otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #22021
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    How do I get on the "Olympian diet" then?

    I don't think such a thing exists. Is it a reach to think that most athletes train and eat differently, even within the same event?
  47. #22022
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    How do I get on the "Olympian diet" then?

    I don't think such a thing exists. Is it a reach to think that most athletes train and eat differently, even within the same event?
    Train and eat differently, maybe. But they will certainly not be eating casually, their diet and training regime will be detailed. Their diets might not be identical, but they'll be seeking to get the same balance of nutrients. Weightlifters probably all have a carb-high diet or something, especially before an event. Maybe one eats potato and another eats bread. I have no idea to be honest, but I certainly expect an attention to detail when it comes to these things.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #22023
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Why are we assuming each athlete trains and eats correctly?

    Surely genes matter to a huge extent. But I think it's unfair to complete discount an individual's work and downplay it to just genetics
    It's all of the above, for the most part. Those at the top of the top level in sports with deep talent pools tend to be at the top in everything including genes, nutrition, training, willpower, and drugs.

    I think it's important to note when we see what genes really can do. Nobody can fuck with Jon Jones on the genetic level regarding MMA. It's not even close. Although ten years from now it is likely that MMA will have a lot of athletes as genetically gifted as Jones.

    If I'm evaluating somebody like Ray Lewis, I would say he is equally as genetically gifted as the other top level NFLers, yet he worked just a wee bit harder/smarter. Still, if somebody comes in who can put Lewis to shame genetically, the dude would crush if he had any semblance of willpower. Granted, that type of person probably isn't even a realistic thing to be produced by the human gene pool.
  49. #22024
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Of course it does. It isn't as obvious as I thought it was, but I was talking about genetics there, not doping. Genetics doesn't give one an obvious advantage when it comes to tennis, not like Phelps, who is perfectly formed to be the greatest swimmer of all time, or Bolt, who is the most physically perfect sprinter of all time. Murray and Djokovic are just as fit as they can be, and have played tennis for as long as they've been walking, nothing to do with the way they were born.
    I could see it being that the genetically gifted specimen just hasn't started tennis from an early age yet. Though the point is taken, the more dynamic and intricate in motor skills a sport is, the less advantage provided by ability to generate power. In the NFL, the most important thing by far (unless you're QB or kicker) is the ability to generate power. But in tennis, a power-monster could still get dominated by a true specialist. But if a power monster, somebody with mechanics and such that just work uniquely well for tennis, who is also a specialist, shows up, he's gonna change the game. Couldn't it be said that the Williams sisters did that?

    This goes to a point I wanted to make previously but didn't since it added too much. The basic is that sports would probably change if doping was legal. What I mean is that rules and stuff would possibly change so that sheer power is less advantageous.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-21-2016 at 07:50 PM.
  50. #22025
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I tend to make the assumption that any world class athlete eats correctly. I don't see how they would be world class otherwise.
    A lot of the diet is baked into the athletic results. What I'm getting at is somebody who can run really fast is already on close to optimal diet since one can only run really fast when one has near optimal body composition, and that is by far the most important result gained from diet. A lot of what people normally think to be bad food is actually pretty basic food for athletes. Cheeseburgers, for example, are chock full of good stuff for athletics.
  51. #22026
    Don't get me wrong, a lot of detail and knowledge does go into diet for top athletes. But it's not necessarily in the way people think. If you showed people one weightlifter on a chicken and broccoli diet and another on a cheeseburger diet, many of them would probably think the chicken and broccoli dieter would be a better weightlifter, but that's not necessarily true. I'd certainly put my money on the cheeseburger guy. This is a gross oversimplification, as no top athletes (except, like, NFL linemen) would be on an all cheeseburger diet, but it does show that top athletes do eat normal food just like normal people.

    One of the biggest differences between normal diets and an "olympic" diet is probably peaking. Early in training, a lot of olympians probably eat whatever they want within a calorie range, with some attention to protein and stuff. But when peaking for making weight for competition, they'll be on totally planned out chicken/beans/rice/chocolate milk type of stuff.
  52. #22027
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Duct tape no, but ....
    what if the type was 1000 x stronger than duct tape?
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  53. #22028
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Couldn't it be said that the Williams brothers did that?
    fyp
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #22029
    Frankie Boyle talking about drugs in sports. (starts around 2.35)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E98yaPyV9E
  55. #22030
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Cheeseburgers, for example, are chock full of good stuff for athletics.
    If this is true, then eating a cheeseburger is eating correctly. I'm not saying "correctly" to mean anything other than what the individual considers correct for their required nutrient needs.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #22031
    The Phelps diet. I don't believe his calorie claim of 10k, but somebody who swims >4 hours a day really would need a lot of "junk" food to get adequate calories.
  57. #22032
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Im sure each athlete believes they are eating correctly. Nevertheless, if we believe diets impact results, then the best diet will yield the best results. But there is disagreement over what the best diet is.

    There is disagreement over the best training/conditioning as well.

    Given these differences, is it fair to say that a silver medalist lost out because he didn't hit the genetic lottery? Surely genes matter, but why are we negating the option that one athlete simply prepared better than the rest?
  58. #22033
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Tldr, I guess I'm arguing for rocky instead of for Ivan Drogo
  59. #22034
    My understanding is that the optimal diet is going to vary across individuals as well. There are differences in how people digest and how their body responds to certain things in food and these affect what counts as optimal. An extreme example would be someone with lactose intolerance, but there's other more subtle differences between people as well. It all seems pretty complicated.
  60. #22035
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Given these differences, is it fair to say that a silver medalist lost out because he didn't hit the genetic lottery? Surely genes matter, but why are we negating the option that one athlete simply prepared better than the rest?
    It's a real interesting question.

    The silver medalist certainly did hit the genetic lottery, otherwise he wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the competition.

    In most top competition, I'd say the competitors have negligibly different genes, and the one who wins is the one who trained better and all the other stuff. Though, when we step back and view the sports from bigger pictures, we do see absolute genetic freaks dominating in ways others haven't. Aleksandr Karelin, Mike Tyson, Phelps, Lebron, to name a few. Hell, I'll put Barry Sanders in that category (he's my pick for all time best athlete of any sport). That dude was on a whole different level genetically. I doubt there was anything special about him relative to his competitors except that he had superhuman agility. Michael Jordan might be the best example of what willpower can get you (mental genes?). Physically, he's not on Lebron's level, but I'd argue he would beat Lebron.
  61. #22036
    Oh god so I started my first 2veritasium video and dude is wearing a v-neck with a bear level chest hair. plz no.
  62. #22037
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Oh god so I started my first 2veritasium video and dude is wearing a v-neck with a bear level chest hair. plz no.
    Yeah. 2veritasium is a different beast entirely to the main channel.
  63. #22038
    Has anyone here ever read Gödel, Escher, Bach?
    Free your mind and your ass will follow.
  64. #22039
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    I only read American
  65. #22040
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Lolwat?!



    Actually... I like it.
  66. #22041
    Great idea.
    I was going to say you couldn't put the necessary spin on the balls without a cue, but then he goes and does it.
    Some real skills there.
    Would make a better olympic sport than dressage.
  67. #22042
    Poopadoop, where in the UK are you from? Where did you study? Feel free to tell me to get bent as I understand it can be personal.

    I only ask as you joined here just before me and I don't remember your name at any point.
  68. #22043
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by aubreymcfate View Post
    Has anyone here ever read Gödel, Escher, Bach?
    Nope, and i tried.

    That guy was deep into some nonsense. GOD stands for GOD of Djinn, and that GOD stands for GOD of Djinn.

    Gabe has, though.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  69. #22044
    I live in the UK. I studied at university. I'm not going to divulge more than that as I don't want to give myself away, sorry. I'm sure you guys are ok it's the other 7 billion people on the internet that I'm leery of.

    I joined a long time ago and posted a few times, then lurked for a while. Got interested enough to contribute when I saw some threads I liked.
  70. #22045
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I live in the UK. I studied at university. I'm not going to divulge more than that as I don't want to give myself away, sorry. I'm sure you guys are ok it's the other 7 billion people on the internet that I'm leery of.

    I joined a long time ago and posted a few times, then lurked for a while. Got interested enough to contribute when I saw some threads I liked.
    Boring, was at least hoping for a city.

    I do think it's interesting, and I had a horrible dream related surprisingly recently, that your internet history if you're approximately my age can be very damning. I'm 24 (recently) so if you go back 10 years to when I was a teenager and making all my worst mistakes that is roughly when the internet was becoming a "real" thing. I think that's a strange time to be alive. Obviously the internet was before then but I assume the time me and my friends became regulars on the internet just about precedes all the big sites which means all the stupid shit we did as young teenagers online is there for viewing.

    Also I imagine if I cared enough I could find you based on the things that you have said based upon your age and your job. Not that it matters as I won't just a note on how scary it is what people can do based upon your internet preference.

    Somewhat why I think candidates for future elections will change massively over the next 15 or so years. Arguably it'll be diminished by lack of internet knowledge as a whole rather than lack of internet knowledge & you're a teenager but still.
    Last edited by Savy; 08-27-2016 at 09:05 PM.
  71. #22046
    I suppose someone could single me out if they happened to be on this forum and happened to recognize some things I said and my way of talking, etc. I'll take that chance. My concern is someone who knows me googling stuff they already know about me like my age, job, where i live, etc.,, finding it here, and then using it to cyberstalk me. I actually had that happen once before (on another site) and that's what has made me cautious.
  72. #22047
    I do think it's interesting, and I had a horrible dream related surprisingly recently, that your internet history if you're approximately my age can be very damning. I'm 24 (recently) so if you go back 10 years to when I was a teenager and making all my worst mistakes that is roughly when the internet was becoming a "real" thing. I think that's a strange time to be alive. Obviously the internet was before then but I assume the time me and my friends became regulars on the internet just about precedes all the big sites which means all the stupid shit we did as young teenagers online is there for viewing.
    Me and my mates talk about this kind of shit from time to time, like how lucky we are to not have our stupid shit all over the internet. The worst pic of me on the internet is where I'm lying in a field under the influence of pyschadelics, but it's not like it's obvious I'm wasted. I could be drunk, or just rolling around for fun. There's no lasting evidence of anyone snorting anything, or lying asleep on the bathroom floor surrounded by vomit, or of the various people who got drawn on when they stupidly crashed out. Just happy memories.

    Yeah I'm glad I'm not ten years younger.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  73. #22048
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    @savy and poop: You guys can totally make out using PM's, you know. PM stands for Private Makeout.

    True facts.
  74. #22049
    "Savvy" has two v's, and with the lack of apostrophe in "Im", I pronounce it to rhyme with "tim davey".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  75. #22050
    In fact I'm just gonna start calling you Tim from now on.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •