NYT has a paywall, as if their assessment is valuable. Just read at the second link.
Not sure if this has been mentioned here already (at least I couldn't find it), there has been a study in Norway whether going to the gym is safe or not regarding COVID-19:
In Norway, Gymgoers Avoid Infections as Virus Recedes - The New York Times
If you want to read the paper without any extra journalism spices:
Randomized Re-Opening of Training Facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic | medRxiv
In short, it is safe, if appropriate precautions are taken. Happy training everybody!
NYT has a paywall, as if their assessment is valuable. Just read at the second link.
alsbos nailed this one down pretty well, so I'll leave that alone. But I will say that, while I don't think you're simplistic, I think if you think I'm "liberal" beyond the sense of being a classical liberal then your reading comprehension is lacking. Is it?
See my replies to Yngvi below with regard to your other question.
Concur. Yikes.
I agree that men are genetically superior athletes with regards to many of the prevailing markers we can measure clinically and empirically.
I agree with what you posit on the spread of the bell curve difference between these two groups, as well.
Agreed.
I actually feel the same way. I don't mind if we ask, scientifically, these questions and accept our limited understanding in an attempt to move said understanding forward. I don't mind when the answers don't line up with our expectations, either.
And skipping the issue of ethnicity with regard to intelligence, I'll instead use strength training. I don't take issue with the fact that men are stronger and more physically capable than women because I do not judge people ethically or pragmatically (their "worth" as a person, if you will) on the mere basis of physical capacity. Even though I'm really shitty at it, I do ascribe to the Christian principle of divine worth of the individual.
Each individual, regardless of any one spectrum or factor, such as gender, possess a genotype set at birth. I simply believe that we should all be free, and encouraged to, work hard to develop our phenotypes to their fullest potential. How much better might the world be if we all acknowledged and developed our own potential in such a way?
When I call someone an idiot that's not being passive aggressive. Relax, Nicholas. I'm not going to fuck your best friend. (There you go... two whole layers of passive aggressive)
American culture, the MSM and our academic institutions do NOT share my opinion. My opinion is not that there are not genetic factors between populations along many, many different spectrum, but that there exists such a variance between individuals that it's fucking pointless to use as a metric. And now we're already back to treating people as individuals which has jack and shit to do with ignoring traits such as intelligence, strength, creativity, etc. It simply means you can't assume shit based on group identity beyond the common factors by which the group is constituted. How that is anywhere close to Identity Politics™ beats the fuck out of me.
Frankly, I don't feel threatened by any of you who seem to take significant issue at my opinion (fucking ironic, eh?). You guys seem to get butthurt when I point out that I think you're wrong, and that you're wading knee-deep into an ocean of thought to high-five yourselves because you feel like that justifies you having your whites-only (or any other IDENTITY) tree house. Huddle behind the walls of your Benedict options, but when you withdraw your voice and the force of your actions from the world... don't be surprised when you find yourself trapped and hopelessly besieged one day with no where else in the world to run off to.
Attorney General William Barr speaks on what he's doing regarding riots and censorship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HVqRE-6bkc
I leave my cookies off and NYT lets me read most. With the Washington Post, since I have Foxfire at full ad block (I've never figured out how to turn it off), I have to click the shield icon next to the address and turn off "enhanced tracking protection" Then I can read most articles.
The thing is, intelligence, as measured by IQ scores, is a decent measure of the cognitive skills that you need in order for technical innovation or more routine science and engineering. Certain traits help you succeed and IQ tests have value in measuring a certain subset of those traits.
The usual error is conflating learned knowledge gained in a social, cultural context with the ability to think and reason.
Populations with low average intelligence - as measured by IQ tests - produce very few individuals that are good at innovation. If there were one or a few kinds of intelligence that were not measured well by IQ tests, but allowed people with low IQs to accomplish remarkable things – you’d think we would notice and we'd have to take this culturally-bound, environmentally-influenced definition of intelligence very seriously.
Many experts in the field do believe in the usefulness and validity of IQ testing. The tests have been developed to eliminate cultural and environmental factors as much as possible. Twin studies are just one of the methods used to prove the validity of IQ testing. I can agree that there may be some unintended bias, but that doesn't render testing ineffective. High test scores strongly correlate with many factors that most consider positive, such as high income, low criminality, and marital stability.
Why would you believe that selective evolutionary pressures wouldn't select for higher intelligence in certain populations? We were able to breed dogs with specific traits in just a few hundred years; humans have had far longer for variance to develop, and intelligence is an incredibly useful trait, especially in unforgiving climes.
To your point on hip displasia, you're correct that phenotypic expression for an individual cannot be perfectly predicted from genetic sequencing, but accurate predictions on group outcomes can be made.
They're not everything, but genetic differences between populations are important factors to look at when considering the causes for various group outcomes.
That's a pretty healthy subset.Methods: we randomized members 18 to 64 years with no COVID-19 relevant comorbidities at five training facilities
Not one comorbiditiy allowed?. That means no obese people.
And then the older folks in that group? Say a 55-64 y.o. with NO! HBP, no diabetes, not obese, etc etc?
I bet they were doing (because globo gyms, and no one is doing SS there) light weights, high reps, circuit training, and cardio-esque training.