Winner for dumbest headline of the day: Women May Beat Men In Sprint By 2156.
All the talk of trends in the article means only this: women have gotten faster at a faster rate than men have gotten faster. There are a myriad of possible reasons for this undiscussed in the article, but the bit that blows my mind is the total lack of any actual material suggesting the trend might continue. Why would it continue? Why does it exist in the first place? Maybe (just maybe), there are reasons within sports culture that the trend exists; we don't need no pseudo-science.
The best part of this is that we have a study by Oxford University here. My goodness! Check it:
I hope for the University's sake that the study's emphasis is really somewhere else, and that Reuters grabbed onto a paragraph written in passing.
All the talk of trends in the article means only this: women have gotten faster at a faster rate than men have gotten faster. There are a myriad of possible reasons for this undiscussed in the article, but the bit that blows my mind is the total lack of any actual material suggesting the trend might continue. Why would it continue? Why does it exist in the first place? Maybe (just maybe), there are reasons within sports culture that the trend exists; we don't need no pseudo-science.
The best part of this is that we have a study by Oxford University here. My goodness! Check it:
If projections by scientists at Oxford University in England are correct, women will close the gender gap by clocking 8.079 seconds in the 100 meters, ahead of the best male time of 8.098 seconds. The current world record stands at 9.78 seconds.What do you mean, "if projections...are correct"? Gimme a break! That's seventh grade math, pure and simple. Just compile the times, and do a little seventh grade math. *sigh* "If projections...are correct"! Sorry, getting in a bit of a huff...whole thing is so silly. The paragraph following the one above quotes an Oxford epidemiologist. An epidemiologist. It's so stupid I'm repeating myself. It makes me stupid. Repeating. Stop.
I hope for the University's sake that the study's emphasis is really somewhere else, and that Reuters grabbed onto a paragraph written in passing.
Comments
Post a Comment