LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  February 2005

SOCNET February 2005

Subject:

Re: Do all networks... (sort of off topic)

From:

"D. Brewer" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

D. Brewer

Date:

Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:43:24 -0800

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (118 lines)

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

Well done, Elisa!

An even funnier part of this article in Nature is a previous one they ran
on the same topic about 10 years ago.  The authors of that piece used the
same linear extrapolation method and predicted by about this point in time
that women would have surpassed men in world records for the marathon,
with the other long distances soon to follow.  Given the discrepancy with
current reality, it's surprising that Nature continues to publish such
foolhardy predictions based on unsound procedures.

Take care,

Devon

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Bienenstock Elisa wrote:

> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>
> It is not only sociologists that find themselves perplexed by the review
> process at Nature and Science. Last year there was an article in Nature
> that will be useful to any of you tasked with teaching statistics,
> because it is a beautiful example of how NOT to use Regression"
> "Momentous sprint at the 2156 Olympics? Women sprinters are closing the
> gap on men and may one day overtake them." NATURE|VOL 431 | 30 SEPTEMBER
> 2004 |www.nature.com/nature.
>
> My husband, a muscle physiologists was outraged by the lack of any
> intuition about physiology; I by the statistical violations, so we wrote
> a reply: it was triaged. The paper extrapolated Olympic 100 meter times
> for men and women to show that by the year 2156 woman will outpace men.
> The linear model was not the best fit, but it was the "easiest and most
> parsimonious." (We reevaluated the data using a spline which was the
> best fit.) The researchers seemed to attribute the faster finishing
> times to changes in physiology that occurred this century rather than
> improvements in selection, nutrition, technology or training.
>
> The authors were not physicists.
>
> Below is the raw text of the reply (figures and citations not included).
> If anyone is interested I can email you the PDF file.
>
> Gender gap revisited: a physiological glass ceiling?
> Jon-Philippe K. Hyatt and Elisa Jayne Bienenstock
>
> The prospect that women will outpace men in future Olympic 100-meter
> contests, as recently reported in Nature1, would indeed be a momentous
> achievement in overcoming competitive, sociological, and physiological
> barriers. Today, it is not uncommon for women to stand atop the podium
> in ultra-endurance events: in 2002 and 2003, Pam Reed ran to victory
> over all entrants in the 218-kilometre Badwater Ultramarathon (Death
> Valley, USA), suggesting that the gender gap in competition is narrowing
> rapidly2. There is no argument that 100-metre sprint times for men and
> women also have converged; however, the predictions put forward by Tatem
> et al.1 are untenable from a historical, statistical, and physiological
> perspective.
>
> Assessment of gender-specific performance as a linear continuum (winning
> time x year) assumes consistent historical variables. Since the early
> 1980s, improvements in clothing, shoe technology, track surfaces, and
> event-specific training have created advantages for today's Olympians.
> Additionally, society's perception of women in sports advanced just
> prior to this period as evidenced, for example, by the adoption of Title
> IX in the United States in 1972. Assessing performance for each gender
> must control for these recent technological and social advancements.
> This is evident in our evaluation of the Olympic data: when women's
> Olympic times (ref 1, see supplementary information)
> are re-examined, curve- fitting models show that the year 1985
> delineates past and present Olympians (Fig. 1). Our new best- fit curve,
> e.g. a spline, actually shows women's time increasing after 1985, which
> is clearly an artifact resulting from the limited number of 100-metre
> times from 1985-2004.
>
> Using one winning Olympic time per four years as the primary basis of
> comparison limits our view of the potential held by each gender
> especially since the Olympics do not necessarily represent the best
> 100-metre times for men and women in the last 20 years. Expanding the
> analysis using the 100-metre times from the World Championship final's
> heat (www.iaaf.org/WCH03/history/index.html; for data set, see
> supplementary information) from 1987-2003 shows that performance for men
> and women have improved marginally, if at all (Fig. 1). Statistical
> analyses reveal that, in fact, there is a poor relationship between 100-
> metre times and year, supporting the notion that peak performance for
> this event has reached a plateau for men and women. That sprint
> performance and time (year) are unrelated in the past two decades
> indicates that it is erroneous to predict future human success based on
> past and present winning times3.
>
> The argument put forth by Tatem and colleagues is also physiologically
> incorrect, as it ignores limitations that exist for the human body. For
> instance, the logic of their linear continuum suggests that, given
> enough time, men and women will outrun quadrupeds, automobiles,
> airplanes, and even light, eventually crossing the finish line in less
> then zero seconds. Will women ever out-sprint men in the 100-metre
> event? Our examination of 100-metre times from recent years suggests
> that we are reaching our physiological limits of performance2,4,
> although there may be innovations through science and technology that
> will allow us to embrace such a fantastic achievement when it happens.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
> network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
> an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
> UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devon D. Brewer
Affiliate Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology
email: [log in to unmask]  http://faculty.washington.edu/ddbrewer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager