View Full Version : Anthropology and Pool

06-20-2002, 12:50 PM

You are probably correct in your reasoning for why this subject is so endearing. Men would like to
think that they have some inborn advantage by virtue of possessing the chromosome. Conversely,
women would not enjoy learning that they lack some genetically-linked advantage. The lesbian
question allows BOTH of these groups to jump into the fray.

For most of us, the point is moot - knowledge, practice, coaching, and individual dedication probably determine who becomes a better player. This is because we will never bump against the ceiling of our full potential. Whether SpiderMan can or can't out-play a particular man or woman has nothing to do with inborn potential. But when you look at the "best of the best", where everyone is blindingly dedicated to being all they can be, a small shift in inborn potential could easily determine who becomes one of the world's top 20.

Of course I would love to think that nothing separates my skills from Buddy Hall's but a hundred pounds and a mis-spent youth. But my "inborn aptitude" factors probably would have limited me to lesser achievements, so maybe it's a good thing I chose science. Billiard aptitude factors are surely less visible than those for basketball, but there's no reason to believe that they do not exist. And, given that inborn aptitude factors exist, I would not be stunned to find them genetically linked to other observables such as gender or even (heaven forbid) natural sexual orientation.


Quote: Fran Crimi:

Steve, I just realized why some people may want to pursue this type of discussion. Not
all, but some.

I think everyone agrees that presently the top men players play better than the women
overall. No disputes about that. However, one of the big issues for debate here has
been what about the future? Will women EVER be able to top the men? From what I've
seen in various posts, I know that some people are very offended by that prospect.
They just won't have it. For them, it can't and won't happen.

One way for them to further prove their rationalization to themselves is if lesbians are,
in fact, better players than hetero women, and in their mind, lesbians are closer to
males (which btw, there is no proof whatsoever on that issue), so that would mean
that there is an inherent male trait which would always make males superior players.

I'd bet my last dollar that some people are after that rationalization, at least just for
themselves privately.

This thread is a trap to make somebody feel better!!! LMAO


06-20-2002, 01:42 PM
Whelp, you've got lots of assumptions goin' on here Spiderman. No offense meant at all, but you have your work cut out for you if you're interested in proving your theory.

I figure you'd have to do something like this:

1) Present proof that there are "inborn factors" other than hard work, that make a particular group stand above the others in a particular field. (I can help you get started with that one: fast muscle twitch fibers, a genetic trait, can give an edge to an athlete where reflexes are needed.)

2)After you've identified what all the inborn factors are, then you would have to prove that each or a combination of several inborn factors actually does give an athlete an edge over his peers. Unfortunately, you can only do that if both athletes competing are exactly the same in all ways, with the exception of that one (or more) inborn factor(s).

3)Then after you've gotten to that point, the next step would be to prove that because inborn factors exist in another sport, they must exist in pool. That would mean specifically identifying the particular inborn factors that would apply to pool.

4)Then when you've been able to isolate specific inborn factors that relate to pool, you would have to do a study on gender to see if they exist in only one gender or both genders, and if there is a common thread with these inborn factors that can be linked to sexual orientation.

I'm sure I left out a few things. Haha!

I think what it really comes down to is that most people are just comfortable making their own assumptions without scientific fact, and saying to themselves, "Yeah, I like the way that theory sounds. I think I'll believe that."

Show me proof and I'm with you all the way.


06-20-2002, 01:50 PM
Looks like a trip down to Toys 'R' Us, for a Dr. Science Home Cloning Kit might be in order.

BTW, Spiderman, thanks for starting a new thread, instead of popping the old one to the fore. . . .

06-20-2002, 03:34 PM
Linking of traits would be nearly impossible to prove by that method. You could never limit the variables such that two athletes are otherwise identical. If the advantage offered by the inborn trait were very slight, then it could be overshadowed by other random factors as well. That's why larger populations are studied - by looking at a more statistically significant number of individuals that either do or don't share a particular trait (such as gender or sexual orientation), smaller shifts in mean performance can more readily be judged indicative or meaningful as concerns linking to the trait. Probably such populations are accessible in professional pool, and it might make a good thesis topic for someone. They would need to be genderless, though, to not be accused of bias /ccboard/images/icons/wink.gif