Biological differences create uneven height population distributions for employment types in the NBA: true or false?
Related to the debate on gender, I'm wondering if the majority agree that biological differences explain (at least I'm part) why we have more tall people in the NBA. If so, then how would the SJWs argue that the gender debate is different? For example, if biology is related to traits such as height, and males are on average taller than females, then doesn't it follow that males will on average will be more successful at basketball (accepting that height has a direct effect on winning in basketball)? I'm not saying that you have to be tall to make it in the nba, as we all see and know of exceptions who are short (eg Isiah Thomas). But it's obvious that the nba height distribution is skewed towards much taller people than the GP. Also, if it's accepted that height is biological, then it'd be reasonable to accept that other traits are biological as well. If we consider compassion or competitiveness to be among them, and males are more competitive (on average) while females are more compassionate (on average), then JD's argument does indeed have validity to it. Thoughts? Update: this article goes into a little detail about the environmental vs evolutionary psychology debate that some people may find useful: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.amp.html
Nytimes
true that
Muggsy Bogues was 5'3" and spent 14 years in the NBA. I'd argue that if society didn't brainwash people into thinking you have to be tall to be in the NBA, there'd be more short MuggsyĀ Bogues types in the NBA.
No, not at all. What kind of silly person would think this.
Your reliance on slandering is why this debate is getting so out of hand. I'm sincerely asking a simple question and am hoping for an honest discussion. Please try to refrain from that.
lame
Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, I don't think it's valid to compare athletic ability / physical traits to mental aptitude. There's no translation there at all.
Garbage. The fact that women are made to play in their own league rather than being judged on merit is pretty telling of the way society treats biological differences. If your argument stood, the 6'7 wnba player should at least make an NBA team.
I agree that (if there were a unisex league) that there would be women in it. My question is whether you believe that it'd be distributed the same as the GP. Even accounting for the fact that men are on average taller than women.
Well here's the thing that must people don't know. The NBA is a unisex league. One woman even made it to training camp. No woman has been able to make to the league though.
How many more of you whiny broflakes are there at google? Your privilege not sufficient?
Again, please refrain from negative slanders. I'm asking very sincerely in an effort to have an honest discussion.
you are using a scenario where very specific biological traits are required to make a generic statement about a field where things are just not that simple. A baller needs to be tall, fast and agile, and nothing else. Coders can be great in many different ways: low or high level, algorithmic or architectural, individualist or team player, etc. Nobody has all relevant skills, but everybody has a different mix of them. You can't quantity what a good developer is like, there are too many different ways to be one.
"A baller needs to be tall, fast and agile, and nothing else" - a gross oversimplification. Its akin to saying whoever has the best 40 time will be a great NFL player, when data has proven otherwise. You can quantify developer quality with multiple metrics unlike a subjective measure e.g. Leadership tends more towards a popularity contest ( and feeds various "consultants" )
It is generic, but it is not height that gives black people advantages. It is more like their muscle, bone density, and running jumping capabilities. There have been about 100 dudes who can finish 100m in 10 seconds, 97 of them are Western African decedents.
Because you are talking about ability, not preference.
That doesn't seem black and white to me. We're wired biologically by the chemicals in our brains. For example, some people are meaner, or more generous, or more curious, etc. If we're born with these traits, it has to be (at least partially) due to biology and not just ability. Furthermore, some people are naturally smarter than I'll ever be. I don't see it as preference, but a gift (ie ability) that they have. Given, say a logical math proof, hey're able to see solutions so much easier than me and I'm willing to admit that they're indeed smarter than me.
What u are describing is environmental conditioning, not genetic