Politically Incorrect WSOP Post

[David Sklansky]

Christian, American, White, Males. Surely well more than half the starting field fit this criteria. Of the final 27 I count five or so. And one of them is our own Greg Raymer who as a 2+2er, doesn't really count.

Almost surely not a coincidence. They don't want to ask directions. And they won't admit there are people smarter than them who can teach them something. Whether it be religion, science, or poker.

[Macdaddy Warsaw]

Whoa, you just like...blew my mind man.

[NLSoldier]

This post is so stupid on so many levels. I gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are drunk and will delete it when you sober up.

[Josh W]

what a patently ridiculous assertion. i'm pretty sure you know that and thus made this post/thread for your own amusement.

could there be other assertions? I mean, do you think that somebody like Tiffany Williamson is better at big bet poker than somebody like Daniel Negreanu?

Even if 75% of the field is white, and 95% of the field is male, and 90% of the field is American, then you'd have to assume that something like 75% of THOSE are Christians. since this is MUCH less than random Americans, that's HIGHLY unlikely.

I would guess more like 25 - 30% of the field was Christian, American, White Males (all four, not just one of the four).

Now, of those who fit the category, it is very safe to assume that they are probably newer to poker. I would assume that the recent increase in poker players is largely from pools who would previously not consider playing poker.

I mean, honestly, do you think that there are tons more backroom-bars-in-Texas-with-guns-on-the-table games now? or more church-fundraising games? two years ago, many Christians wouldn't think of playing, but now many find it acceptable.

this doesn't mean that they "won't admit there are people smarter than them who can teach them something".

if you are serious with this post, your reasoning is pathetic.

Josh

[David Sklansky]

When I said Christian, I meant non Jewish, non Muslim, non, Buddhist. Didn't mean only religious Christians. Also remember that some ot the foreigners are Christian. Plus the attributes I ascribed to them (uninterested in learning from others) was just an average of course. Still I have little doubt that attribute is more common among the group mentioned.

The syndrome also has little to do with newbies. When you go into the Bellagio and look at games over 80-160 you will see that more than two thirds of the players are either, foreign, Jewish, Black or female. And that has been true for a long time. But it isn't true for medium size games.

Before anyone gets too insulted by my post I need to point out that it is just a continuation of my never ending quest to make sure that people know that the typical American, especially the ones who have had it easy for quite a while, are woefully uneducated and couldn't care less. They get away with their ignorance because this country can give them pretty much a free ride with only about 5% of the citizens being competant. And by competant I usually mean mathematically, logically or scientifically competant. And while a majority of Americans are guilty of this incompetance, the non Jewish, non Asian segment is more guilty, for whatever reason.

[mantasm]

Not too many mexicans either. Which is unsurprising, because they're so lazy.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
The syndrome also has little to do with newbies. When you go into the Bellagio and look at games over 80-160 you will see that more than two thirds of the players are either, foreign, Jewish, Black or female. But it isn't true for medium size games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the eugenics movement wasn't all its cracked up to be.

[Josh W]

whats a non-religious Christian?

then you say "remember that some ot the foreigners are Christian." Um, even so, doesn't that exclude them from the "White American Male Christian category"?

You made an estimation that is off by 30% or more. Don't become one of those people who refuse to learn now.

Josh

[David Sklansky]

"You made an estimation that is off by 30% or more. Don't become one of those people who refuse to learn now."

Josh

I estimate that the percentage of original starters who were, foreign, female, black or Jewish was well under 50%. That is what I was getting at.

Also your comment about Daniel being a better player than tiffany was particularly silly. For three reasons.

1. I'm talking about a statistical average, not individual cases.

2. He just recently became a devout Christian. As did all of these poker playing born agains that I am aware of. They all were expert poker players first. I still maintain that being devoutly religious stifles the quest for knowledge, especially non Jewish religions.

3. He is Canadian

[PairTheBoard]

Thank goodness we have someone with this kind of insight creating our future Religion for us as well. David will certainly go down in History.

PairTheBoard

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]


I estimate that the percentage of original starters who were, foreign, female, black or Jewish was well under 50%. That is what I was getting at.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then why didn't you say so? Why didn't you include any of those four words in your original post?

Are you trying to assert that those four classes of people are better learners (since you point out that the White Male Christian Americans aren't)?

edit: Please understand that I'm just trying to get you to say what it is you are trying to say. Three posts so far by you and you still haven't said anything....you've just backtracked so far. since <50% of the field was foreign female black jewish, then doesn't your assertion follow that greater than 50% of the remaining field should be those?

really. make a point. please. and stick with it.

[BluffTHIS!]

David makes a very valid point about members of the dominant culture in America. The reason so many, but sadly not all, minorities prosper in America and elsewhere is that they start with nothing and thus have every motivation to get as much education as they can and work as hard as they can to get ahead. Plus Asian cultures in particular tend to put an enormous value on education. And I'm talking real education here, not the usual American white graduates who only got into some state university because of its low SAT and high school record requirements, and who couldn't really earn a degree in a demanding area of study if they spent 20 hours a day on it. The dominant culture in America on the other hand, starts off even in the lowest economic tiers of our society with an income level and social safety net that would be considered downright prosperous in most of the world, thus making it easy to have lower expectations and goals. A lot of this is also an indictment of our education systems pedagogical foundations. Rote learning of the traditional topics reading, writing and arithmetic, supplemented by science introduced at an early age, produces results. Emphasis on having a "well-rounded" education that doesn't really prepare you for anything, and the sucking up of credit hours by required fluff courses and politically correct indoctrination doesn't. If you closed half the the colleges in America and increased emphasis on math and science, with the result of much fewer college admission spots for which there was increased competition, I suspect there would be an overall better positive outcome.

Other cultures in the world have constantly shown that the sincerest form of flattery is indeed imitation, and this is true in our favorite American game of poker as well.

[fnord_too]

I am very dissapointed you did not put any significance calculations in your post, even if your assumptions are SWAGs.

(Also, excluding Greg Raymer even partially based solely on the fact that he is a 2+2er is pretty weak. Would you also exclude those who vehemently argue the Christian side in these threads?)

You should make an account for trolling, since you cannot be sure you are eliciting a response just due to name recognition vice the trollocity of the post.

[mmbt0ne]

I told you in the other thread you should've been resting up for day 2 instead of posting in SMP.

Maybe if you had listened to this young white Christian American male, you wouldn't be posting right now. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
Christian, American, White, Males. Surely well more than half the starting field fit this criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not very scientific of you.

[SheetWise]

I don't get it. What's non-PC about this post?

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
(Also, excluding Greg Raymer even partially based solely on the fact that he is a 2+2er is pretty weak. Would you also exclude those who vehemently argue the Christian side in these threads?)

[/ QUOTE ]

It was obviously a joke.

David, while I think it's true that complacency does lead to a lack of progress, it's clear that there are lots of Jews/Asians who are in similar social/economical positions to the ones you suggest the majority of white, Christian Americans are in.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Christian, American, White, Males. Surely well more than half the starting field fit this criteria. Of the final 27 I count five or so. And one of them is our own Greg Raymer who as a 2+2er, doesn't really count.

Almost surely not a coincidence. They don't want to ask directions. And they won't admit there are people smarter than them who can teach them something. Whether it be religion, science, or poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
This statement is relevant to the propensity of Americans to educate and better themselves only if you know something about your current and actual readership that you're not telling us!

[Jman28]

I know nothing about the demographics of the starting feild and of the players remaining.

I just want to say that I support you, David, in looking into and pointing out things that most others would be afraid to.

I think that many people are too preoccupied with political correctness, and questions like this are avoided because of it.

All I'm saying is that I don't think it is wrong to make the statement you made as long as you realize, and I know you do, that you made some generalizations and that they aren't true for every individual in the group.

I wasn't going to post this, because I didn't have much to say. However, I'm afraid you might get flamed here by people wanting to be PC, and will not be defended by those who agree with you, for fear of not being PC themselves. So, I'm just trying to balance it out.

[chezlaw]

Isn't a not very good at poker white american christian male more likely to turn up in Vegas for a big game then a not very good at poker foreigner.

Also white american christian males might have more confident wealthy individuals who can play a lot without being very good.

chez

[ThreeMartini]

So white male Christians are inept at the poker table? Also, too belligerent to ask the proper nonwhite, nonchristian poker authority.

Give me a break.

Just come out and say it...Since non Christian 'foreigners' are so friggin good at poker compared to the stupid 'catholic' folks from the US, the idiot catholics should seek immediate help. Not only regarding cards, but in religion as well. You seem to convey that since non Christans are so much better at Hold'em they must also be 'better' at religion as well.

[dumb ox]

I don't have much of a problem with this post (just your typical bullshit) aside from the title. It should be called "Politically Correct Post."

[SheetWise]

Bashing white male Christians is politically Correct .

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
So white male Christians are inept at the poker table? Also, too belligerent to ask the proper nonwhite, nonchristian poker authority.

Give me a break.

Just come out and say it...Since non Christian 'foreigners' are so friggin good at poker compared to the stupid 'catholic' folks from the US, the idiot catholics should seek immediate help. Not only regarding cards, but in religion as well. You seem to convey that since non Christans are so much better at Hold'em they must also be 'better' at religion as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey don't leave out the stupid Protestants. You wouldn't want to dsicriminate, would you?

[sexypanda]

Hey, maybe if you stopped posting here this week (at times seemingly between hands) and actually concentrated on playing, another old white American male would still be in the running.


(Just kidding)

[Arnfinn Madsen]

It would not actually surprise me if you really checked which religion each participant belonged to, as you never seem to want to miss an occasion to discuss the subject. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
This post is so stupid on so many levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Stephen Gray]

[ QUOTE ]
2. He just recently became a devout Christian. As did all of these poker playing born agains that I am aware of. They all were expert poker players first. I still maintain that being devoutly religious stifles the quest for knowledge, especially non Jewish religions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Never let it be said that you are not a funny guy.

[slickpoppa]

What about the final table last year? I believe that 6/9 were Christian, American males: Raymer, Harrington, McClain, Krux, Dean, Hughes. One jew, one black guy, and one European. I guess those Asians suck.

Seriously David, if you want to argue that on average white American males are dumb, pointing to the results of an extremely high variance event like the WSOP is a poor way of doing so.

[SheetWise]

I propose a tournament --

Olympic style, each nation sends the best and the brightest, representing their populace. Proof of ethnic origin is strictly enforced.

Wagering on the winner is through a parimutuel pool, with no knowledge of individual contenders (other than ethnic origin). Wagering is closed prior to disclosure of names -- you are simply wagering on ...

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Christian, American, White, Males. Surely well more than half the starting field fit this criteria. Of the final 27 I count five or so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here are the final 27 players: link (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-tournaments/event.php?id=1271&screen=logs&type=0).

I count 11 American white males. I have no idea who's Jewish (or otherwise non-Christian).

[KingMarc]

Out of sheer curiosity...what semi-well known to well known poker players are Jewish?

[micacka]

Well, you might start at 'Greenstein'.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
Out of sheer curiosity...what semi-well known to well known poker players are Jewish?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Matusow is but I might be wrong.

[dragon14]

Greenstein, Bloch, Matusow, Ungar, Oppenheim, Berman, Lederer, Duke, Sklansky, Malmuth, Seidel, Elerza, Russell Rosenbloom, poker writers Peter Alson, Andy Glazer, and Michael Konik.

Something to consider is that Jews are affiliated with the gambling industry to a much greater degree than the majority of the population. Many major strip casinos started out as Jewish owned. Party Poker is largely Jewish owned. The major figure to be arrested for offshore sports book wagering was Jewish. A large percentage of gambling writers are Jewish as well. And finally when writing a paper for gambling addiction I came across a statistic that gambler's anonymous of Philadelphia had a mix of nearly 50/50 between Jews and Catholics.

Sklansky states that the biggest games consist of foreigners, women, blacks, and Jews. While I believe that Jews and Asians are overrepresented in big games, I certainly don't believe that blacks and women are represented at their numbers in the population as gamblers in the biggest games. Of course he only wishes to be politically incorrect when attacking the only group one can get away with attacking in America (non-Jewish white males).

Does Sklansky think that women buy 50% of all copies sold of Theory of Poker. Does he think that blacks purchase 13% of all copies sold of SSHE? Is he willing to state that that's because they refuse to learn from others?

There are far more blacks and hispanics then jews in the population yet I can't think of a single gambling author that is either black or hispanic. Are these groups uninterested in learning as well or is just the white christians?

[drudman]

Am I going to be the first to point out that the whole demographical analysis is flawed anyways because of class differences? The wealth and time necessary to become a serious player is unevenly distributed across demographics, obviously.

[RacersEdge]

So the premise is that Christians are closed-minded relative to learning from others? So what makes Jewish people open to learning - I mean they aren't open to becoming a Christian or a Muslim right?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
So the premise is that Christians are closed-minded relative to learning from others? So what makes Jewish people open to learning - I mean they aren't open to becoming a Christian or a Muslim right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Sklansky's main point here is that the Jews really love money.

[KingMarc]

[ QUOTE ]
Greenstein, Bloch, Matusow, Ungar, Oppenheim, Berman, Lederer, Duke, Sklansky, Malmuth, Seidel, Elerza, Russell Rosenbloom, poker writers Peter Alson, Andy Glazer, and Michael Konik.



[/ QUOTE ]

The Mizrachi's are also Jewish so they can be added to the 'list'.

And Sklansky is Jewish? I think I've totally missed something with that one...

[Michael Emery]

You can tell this post was started by a Jew, without even knowing hes Jewish.

Mike Emery

[KingMarc]

Or by some radicalist Islamic jidhaist who hates White Christian American Males...

(Note I'm not saying all Muslims hate WCAM's..)

[SheetWise]

After reading the end of this thread -- and participating -- I had to go back to the beginning, and still can't imagine how it dissolved this far. A statement is what it is. Evidence can be either mitigating or agravating. Take a position.

SAMPLE: I will make deal with Ted Kennedy, I will quit calling him a liar as soon as he quits lying. There's a deal we can all understand.

SheetWise

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Christian, American, White, Males. Surely well more than half the starting field fit this criteria. Of the final 27 I count five or so. And one of them is our own Greg Raymer who as a 2+2er, doesn't really count.

Almost surely not a coincidence. They don't want to ask directions. And they won't admit there are people smarter than them who can teach them something. Whether it be religion, science, or poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how the USA has become the richest, most powerful country on the planet after being run by mostly dumb white christian males for the last 200 years.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"Funny how the USA has become the richest, most powerful country on the planet after being run by mostly dumb white christian males for the last 200 years."

PairTheBoard

Not in proportion to their numbers. Especially in the last 50 years. I'm guessing that of the top ten thousand mathmeticians and chemists in this country (I won't count econonomists or finance geniuses because their science is inexact and one could claim some groups are more money hungry. I won't count biologists and physicists because they could have an anti religious bias. I count only these two fields because they recquire and attract only pure smarts.) an individul Jew, Asians, and perhaps also an agnostic ex Christians is almost TEN TIMES as likely to make it into that group. To a lesser extent the ultra best doctors.

Now to be fair, I suspect the Jews in question are also more likely to be agnostic than their proportion of the Jewish population. But that just makes my point stronger.

[PairTheBoard]

DS --
"I'm guessing "

Correct.

I don't see any evidence that the dumb white christian males running the show have any problem letting mathematicians and chemists solve problems for them. If you were talking about the German Nazis you'd have a point since they rejected "Jewish" physics. However, the dumb white American christian males in this country had no problem learning from jewish nuclear physicists - or Nazi Missle designers for that matter.

Mathematics and Chemistry are easy. The most difficult science to master and apply is Political.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"Mathematics and Chemistry are easy. The most difficult science to master and apply is Political."

Are you admitting my comment about the demographics of the top mathmeticians and chemists? You might quarrell with my ten times number but I think you are.

Anyway there are two points to be made. Any subject that has questions where the answer is not debatable is almost certainly harder to master than those where that is not true. That's common sense since in the non technial subjects you can have differing opinions and not be worried about being proven wrong. Those philosophy majors who were arguing that it is just as difficult to come up with a good political system as it is to invent or even fully understand an MRI are out of their minds.

Don't forget I was talking about the best ten thousand, Your flippant remark that it was easy, I don't think even you believe. You know as well as I do that there is probably not one political scientist in the world who could become one of the top ten thousand mathmeticians if a gun was held to their head and they had twenty years to learn. But a decent number of mathmeticans or chemists could become great political scientists if they had to. (Because ability in math is correlated to overall thinking ability)

Anyway, even if you don't agree with the above I will reiterate that you admitted that religious American Christians are far less likely to become superb at the hard sciences than Asians, Jews, and Agnostics. And I know that most people will agree, albeit reluctantly, that they therefore are smarter.

Oh and by the way I also have no doubt that these same groups would make better political scientists as well if given the chance.

[PairTheBoard]

I studied Math at very high levels. To me it was easy. I've also participated in Groups for many years where I've been able to observe how people manage themselves within the group dynamic - applied politics. Even though I'm far "smarter" in mathematics than most all the people I run across, I came to the conclusion long ago that most of them are far smarter than me in their management of the group dynamic. I'm guessing most of them would be smarter than you in this regard as well. There are many ways to be "smart". Those who boast of their smartness in specialized areas but do not appreciate this fact are not really very smart imo.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

Fine. Whatever. But do you admit that American religious Christians are much less likely to be superb at academic subjects where the correct answer is not a matter of opinion, than Jews, Asians and (to a lesser extent) agnostics?

[K C]

There's an interesting theory I ran into several years ago concerning this and genetics. What my friend proposed is that the Catholic practice dating back to its early days of recruiting intelligent men for its clergy and thus taking them out of the gene pool has contrubuted to the lower IQ scores you typically find when compared with other groups such as Jews and Asians. I'm not so sure of the impact of this though since first of all we're only talking a very small segment of the population, and I've always been on the skeptical side that one who is disposed to the opposite sex can be so easily recruited to something like this, meaning that the preferences of at least a lot of these folks may have been homosexual to start with, to the point where they may not have been candidates for the genetic pool to begin with.

KC

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine. Whatever. But do you admit that American religious Christians are much less likely to be superb at academic subjects where the correct answer is not a matter of opinion, than Jews, Asians and (to a lesser extent) agnostics?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they were to pursue those subjects in equal numbers I have no reason to believe they would not do equally well. Unless of course there is now a prejudiced attitude among the elite in those areas that would produce discriminatory barriers.

PairTheBoard

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Out of sheer curiosity...what semi-well known to well known poker players are Jewish?
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] I think Matusow is but I might be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


He most definitely is. He wears either a Chai or Star of David around his neck (or has in the past).

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]

The syndrome also has little to do with newbies. When you go into the Bellagio and look at games over 80-160 you will see that more than two thirds of the players are either, foreign, Jewish, Black or female. And that has been true for a long time. But it isn't true for medium size games.



[/ QUOTE ]

That really proves nothing. I don't believe there are tons of American blacks at the high limit tables. As for foreigners (black and otherwise) they are quite likely to be the elites in their respective countries, and thus rich. How does being at the top of the food chain in a sweaty hellhole somewhere prove your superiority to white male Christiandom?

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, even if you don't agree with the above I will reiterate that you admitted that religious American Christians are far less likely to become superb at the hard sciences than Asians, Jews, and Agnostics. And I know that most people will agree, albeit reluctantly, that they therefore are smarter.

[/ QUOTE ]

DS, I am looking at the list of Nobel Prize winners in Physics (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/index.html) and Chemistry and judging by the names, there do not seem to be an inordinate number of Jews or Asians on the list. So what are you basing your assertions on?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Christian, American, White, Males. Surely well more than half the starting field fit this criteria. Of the final 27 I count five or so. And one of them is our own Greg Raymer who as a 2+2er, doesn't really count.

Almost surely not a coincidence. They don't want to ask directions. And they won't admit there are people smarter than them who can teach them something. Whether it be religion, science, or poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially : "And they won't admit there are people smarter than them who can teach them something."

The more you talk David, the more I'm convinced that you are the one who best fits this description.

PairTheBoard

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
Especially : "And they won't admit there are people smarter than them who can teach them something."

The more you talk David, the more I'm convinced that you are the one who best fits this description.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on. That reminds me of Sklansky's statement that he could have won a Nobel Prize if he had tried harder or had the motivation. Seems to me that David was smarter than everyone he knew when he was 12 years old and has been making excuses ever since to convince himself that he is still the smartest.

[wacki]

First of all I think this is an excellent post. People are getting upset and angry when Sklansky is thinking very logically and speaking truthfully. I am a bit surprised that some of the more respected posters (The Dude) would call this post stupid.

Second, I think this is more about culture than anything else. I am a bit inclined to thinking that Russians (followed by Asians) are much more genetically suited to play poker simply due to their performance in the computer science and mathematics fields. I also think the American culture makes Americans lazy and unwilling to engage in the harder fields. Simply walking into any college math or computer science class will prove that.

Speaking of which I have work to do..... ugh I have no discipline. This is my last post till sunday.

[David Sklansky]

"Fine. Whatever. But do you admit that American religious Christians are much less likely to be superb at academic subjects where the correct answer is not a matter of opinion, than Jews, Asians and (to a lesser extent) agnostics?"

"If they were to pursue those subjects in equal numbers I have no reason to believe they would not do equally well."

If not equally well, close to it. BUT THAT IS MY POINT. WHY DON'T THEY? You can't use Not Ready's excuse that they have less economic deprivation. Not when I restrict it to math or chemistry. Those are subjects that are not nearly as valuable economically as many others that smart people could pursue. They attract mainly people who have a thirst for knowledge and unequivacal truths about the universe. Given that American Christians are woefully underrepresented in these fields it must be because they are either too lazy to apply themselves, too stupid to understand the subject even if they applied themselves, or that there is something about their religion that stifles this thirst for far reaching knowledge. I'll choose the third reason. What about you?

[RacersEdge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the premise is that Christians are closed-minded relative to learning from others? So what makes Jewish people open to learning - I mean they aren't open to becoming a Christian or a Muslim right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Sklansky's main point here is that the Jews really love money.

[/ QUOTE ]


I thought it was purely about learning, thinking, and reasoning - as in an academic environment.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"Fine. Whatever. But do you admit that American religious Christians are much less likely to be superb at academic subjects where the correct answer is not a matter of opinion, than Jews, Asians and (to a lesser extent) agnostics?"

"If they were to pursue those subjects in equal numbers I have no reason to believe they would not do equally well."

If not equally well, close to it. BUT THAT IS MY POINT. WHY DON'T THEY? You can't use Not Ready's excuse that they have less economic deprivation. Not when I restrict it to math or chemistry. Those are subjects that are not nearly as valuable economically as many others that smart people could pursue. They attract mainly people who have a thirst for knowledge and unequivacal truths about the universe. Given that American Christians are woefully underrepresented in these fields it must be because they are either too lazy to apply themselves, too stupid to understand the subject even if they applied themselves, or that there is something about their religion that stifles this thirst for far reaching knowledge. I'll choose the third reason. What about you?

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be that Jews and Asians are overrepresented because cultural pressures drive them into these fields. This point was already made on this thread but you ignored it. You have also ignored the points I've already made on this thread which have already spoken to the point you keep belaboring. You are really coming off the rails with this stuff David. I hope there is someone you will listen to who can talk some sense into you. If you make the mistake of putting this garbage in a book you will make a laughing stock out of yourself.

PairTheBoard

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that American Christians are woefully underrepresented in these fields it must be because they are either too lazy to apply themselves, too stupid to understand the subject even if they applied themselves, or that there is something about their religion that stifles this thirst for far reaching knowledge. I'll choose the third reason. What about you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the third reason is related to the second one.

[Warren Whitmore]

I will give this one a try. I believe that I meet the criterion for being in the top 10 000 chemists & mathematicians in the country. My time is divided equally between real estate investing, poker, teaching chemistry (college) and stock market investing. I have been quite successful at all four. Prior to this I was a statistician for a major chemical (oil) company for 18 years. I hold degrees in Chemistry, Nutrition, and Microbiology. My IQ is > 2 standard deviations above the mean.

It turns out that there are two ways of learning about the world (reality). One is through memorization the other through conceptualization. Most people are good at one or the other. People who choose or inherit a tendency towards memorization tend to do much better at school, they are the folks who get the 4.0 and tend to get elected to various offices. People who are conceptualists tend to spell poorly, forget people’s names, do poorly in school (think Albert Einstein here). Took him a while to learn how to talk (memorization) but could figure out the universe better than most (conceptualization).

Now if you take all of the Harvard professors and put them together to invest (memorizers) and pit them against Warren Buffett (a conceptualist) I think you would agree that he would beat them all combined as an individual. In fact I think you will also find that people who memorize tend to like to work in teams and conceptualists like to work alone.

Conceptualists tend to be objective. Memorizers more mystic. I have read the bible through 4 times. All of the characters are mystics except one. Satan. Him and Jehovah are always butting heads. Its no fun being the only one in my family who sides with him but what can I say. Lets start at the beginning with Genesis. Genesis 17 “But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”

This is the first sin. The quest for knowledge. Its silly of course you can see the logic flaw. If they don’t know between good and bad how can they know which is which until they have tried it. The bottom line though is that knowledge (conceptualization) is in and of itself is evil. This theme continues from the start right to the finish of the bible. The New Testament even more so. Jesus says to love your enemy as you love yourself! Talk about a self-weighting dumb ass philosophy.

Getting back to the question, the reason math and science types don’t get into the more subjective fields is because in subjective fields your risk to reward ratio is in the hands of people who are themselves subjective. This includes all religions and most political systems.
Benjamin Graham has been quoted for saying in the short run the market is a voting machine in the long run it is a weighing machine. That’s true for any objective undertaking. For subjective undertakings however the long run could very easily be never.

[David Sklansky]

It sounds like you are agreeing with me. Except why are you calling Harvard professors memorizers?

[andyfox]

"you will see that more than two thirds of the players are either foreign, Jewish,"

Those are some good eyes you've got there.

[andyfox]

"a decent number of mathmeticans or chemists could become great political scientists if they had to. (Because ability in math is correlated to overall thinking ability)"

This assumes politics (there is no such thing as political science) can be "solved," like a math problem. And that assumption leads to grand schemes to improve society and those often lead to disaster.

Are there any examples of great mathematicians or chemists who have become great political scientists?

[David Sklansky]

"It may be that Jews and Asians are overrepresented because cultural pressures drive them into these fields."

Why is that an argument against what I am saying? Unless you are claiming that the cultural pressure is to help them make money. But in the two fields I picked, the cultural pressure would be to learn objective truths about the universe. Why don't religious Christians have the same cultural pressure?

Meanwhile as long as you admit that religious Christians are less likely to enter these fields, for whatever reason, you must therefore also admit that Christians are less likely to excel in other fields that make at least some use of the rigorous logical thinking that subjects like math and chemistry teach you. That includes debating by the way.

Meanwhile another poster wrote:

"Lets start at the beginning with Genesis. Genesis 17 “But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”

This is the first sin. The quest for knowledge."

Of course this could be applied to Jews as well. But perhaps they take the bible less literally. In fact maybe Catholics are a semi exception. You I agree certainly are.

[Warren Whitmore]

Because they are. Investing is taught as a subjective subject. As are most subjects (pardon the pun). Math being the main exception. With the exception of me even Chemistry is taught as just all memorization. I meet someone at a party the other day who just got his Masters in investing.

(1) He did not know who Benjamin Graham was.
(2) He was taught that Warren Buffett was "just lucky" (Very selective / aggresive) ($100 to $100 Billion)
(3) That the efficient market theory was the only way to go. (self weighting)

Just taught to memorize a bunch of junk. I find it hard to believe that his teachers knew the concepts but just chose not to teach them.

In sharp contrast look at "the theory of poker" One concept after another great stuff.

"The intelleigent investor" One concept after another great stuff.

I believe Warren Buffett could teach a person more about investing in 2 hours than the entire Havard staff could teach that same person in 4 years.

I believe you could teach someone more about poker in 2 hours than the entire statitics staff at Havard after 4 years.

I believe Robert kyosakii could teach someone more about real estate then all the real estate agents in the world could in 4 years.

I beleive Sir Issac Newton could teach someone more about physics in 2 hours than all the physics professors at havard could in 4 years.

[12AX7]

Geez, I don't know Dave. Maybe poker is just an old white guys kind of thing?

When I was younger and surfed I never saw a black surfer, in S. Fla no less. Riviera Beach up the road was 75% black. Not one black surfer on the waves. Very few even boating for that matter. Can't recall a single black jet-skier either.

I asked a black guy where I worked about that. He said black folks don't want to go in where the sharks are. Never been sure if he was joking or not. Seemed he was serious. Knew him for 11 years. He also said blacks have a thing about snakes too. Again. Not sure how serious he was.

So maybe like golf, poker is just something middle aged white guys were attracted to... Until TV (WPT) made it fashionable. I'd guess Tiger Woods and Venus Williams have drawn some attention to the other two traditionally white passtimes of golf and tennis too. But again... the TV exposure of those two being the prime determinant.

After all TV seems to be the arbiter of pop culture these days.

I played all along the strip and downtown in '98-00. White and Asians males were some 98%+ of the players just subjectively. I can count the african players I saw in all that time on one hand.

Haven't been to Vegas since 2000. So don't know how Post-WPT card rooms look.

Have they become all "Pimp My Ride" and such? Meaning all West Coast / Los Angeles-ish?

(Granted CA has had card barns for some time.)

Would I expect to see all these kids with dark glasses and hooded sweat jackets and all that stuff? LOL! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[12AX7]

Hi BluffThis,
I really don't agree that being white is some ticket to prosperity.

If anything the it's going the other way.

I worked at a Division of IBM as a contractor. I watched kids get hired out of college ahead of me as "real IBM'er" over my 20 years of experience... where I even participated in IBM's Autonomic Computing Initative as the *only* contractor. So I know I'm qualified. (At least they thought so at IBM Boulder. Would've been hired but that division was laying everyone off.)

I was basically told... oh, but they have Master's degrees (I only have a Bachelor's)... and yet the black guy next to me in the cubicles was a "real IBM'er" with *no degree at all*. (This was IBM Tucson) "Oh he has experience." Excuse me? I have 20 years experience and 5 years of IBM experience in the job we were both doing side by side.

Anyway. I felt like I was on the recieving end of both Age and Race discrimination (or I guess since I'm white that'd be reverse discrimination).

Of course when I brought that up and a few other issues, despite my overall service record with IBM... my contract was terminated. And the black guy next to me? Aaah... still drivin' a Mercedes and and a 350Z... both cars I cannot afford despite a degree in Comp. Sci. and 20 years mainframe experience in about 6-8 Fort. 500's.

So I don't believe that the present day situation is that White = Easy ticket to Prosperity. Nor apparently is industy experience.

And beyond that, having gone through this, I'll get blackballed and not be able to work in the industry again. I mean, what do you think they'll say when it comes time for a reference? "Oh he's white, so just hire him?"

So 20 years of my life wasted because I pointed out the facts.

I feel like Galileo, He said, "Just Look" and they banished him. Or maybe more like Niccolo Machiavelli, who said, "look here's the truth" and he too got banished.

Anyway, if being white where such an advantage they'd have said... "Well heck yer a white good ol' boy, here's a cushy corner office."

The empical facts I've confronted are quite different from the ones you appear to have run into.

A quick side thought. I'd say the "dominant culture" in America is becoming african. Look at all the white working class kids wearing baggy clothes etc. Eminem etc.

It's a curious time when our youth identify with the ghetto underclass more than our leaders.

If things were going well, african youth would be sporting Brooks Bros. suits etc.

But as always, this is an artifact of the media and the push on Rapp come "Hip Hop". (Though it is a mystery to me how Hip Hop gets lumped in with R&B on the charts.)

[12AX7]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you are agreeing with me. Except why are you calling Harvard professors memorizers?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what Warren will say, and I've never been to Harvard...

But... you have two kinds of teachers, right?

1) Teaches the same year over and over again.

2) The one that evolves over time.

Like the old quip. "Have you been teaching for 20 years, or taught the same year 20 times?"

The "same year 20 times" professor I'd call a memorizer more likely than not.

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you could teach someone more about poker in 2 hours than the entire statitics staff at Havard after 4 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

im in a good position to evaluate this claim, having spent four years with the math and statistics faculty at a good school (not harvard but close enough) and having taken two hours of lessons from david. (actually only one- he still owes me /images/graemlins/smile.gif) in my opinion your statement is absurd, and perhaps you were exaggerating to make a point but it doesnt seem that way. perhaps if you were referring to the next two hours it would be true as it would probably take that long to teach those old guys the rules. but if they were acquainted with the game and had spent even a fraction of the years david has on it- ill take the professors. this isnt to take anything away from david, i think he would agree with me.

[ QUOTE ]
Because they are. Investing is taught as a subjective subject. As are most subjects (pardon the pun). Math being the main exception. With the exception of me even Chemistry is taught as just all memorization. I meet someone at a party the other day who just got his Masters in investing.


[/ QUOTE ]

you claim harvard professors are "memorizers" and then when asked why you cite what some things someone at a party told you about investing? did they even get their masters at harvard? how do you extrapolate the poor education some students have (possibly their professor is very little to blame) to such a generalization? and even if professors were merely listing useless facts in their courses does that somehow imply theyre not capable of doing more? in my experience some of the best researchers are quite poor teachers.

fwiw, my college experience was almost the opposite of what you describe. i even took several classes towards an mba as an undergraduate, including one in investing, and found those neither "subjective" nor "mostly memorization".

[David Sklansky]

"I believe you could teach someone more about poker in 2 hours than the entire statitics staff at Havard after 4 years.


im in a good position to evaluate this claim, having spent four years with the math and statistics faculty at a good school (not harvard but close enough) and having taken two hours of lessons from david. (actually only one- he still owes me ) in my opinion your statement is absurd, and perhaps you were exaggerating to make a point but it doesnt seem that way. perhaps if you were referring to the next two hours it would be true as it would probably take that long to teach those old guys the rules. but if they were acquainted with the game and had spent even a fraction of the years david has on it- ill take the professors. this isnt to take anything away from david, i think he would agree with me."

No kidding. Of course I would. Not even close. Assuming they studied that game? The two hours he mentioned is laughable. You would have to change that to eight or maybe even ten.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
People are getting upset and angry when Sklansky is thinking very logically and speaking truthfully. I am a bit surprised that some of the more respected posters (The Dude) would call this post stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusions David is drawing, nor most of his logic to get there. But there are two specific aspects of his post seem asinine to me.

First, that something with the incredibly high variance nature of a NL poker tournament would be used in the fashion it is to make a point that can be made without it. Even if you accept the variance of this single tournament as small enough for the results to support this point, you must realize that there are thousands of better examples out there. Especially since the results of last year's tournament appear to not support David's argument.

The second is that he somehow discounts Raymer from the group because he is a 2+2'er. If anything, Christians being active, prominent members of 2+2 work against David's claim, not as a reason to excuse them from the sample.

What David has written since my post has been much more reasonable.

[Warren Whitmore]

Alright change it to 40.

[Warren Whitmore]

(1) You claim Havard Professors are memorizers..., I am sure there are some who are not. I live near Havard that is why I chose it. A Chemistry professor named Bruno Depamphelus (I am certain I am spelling his name wrong) came to work at Bostik for the summer.

He was shocked at everything that went on. Went to school then directly to becomming an instructor. I got to know him quite well and through him a fair amount of the teaching staff.

Now it was my turn to be shocked. Often teachers got a months notice befor they were to teach a new subject, text books with blatant errors, and so on.

Hey Bruno! How is decided who gets paid what in teaching? Its a combination of time spent doing it and how many years of education you have had.

Does the ability to teach enter into it? No. Does the knowledge of your subject enter into it? No What drives the compensation overall? The union.

These socialist type systems long term attract memorizers. Capitalist systems tend to attract conceptualists.
overall there are more memorizers (socialists) in union driven occupations and more conceptualists (Capitalists) in market driven systems.

I have a long list of students trying to get into my class. I have the highest student rating of any professor. The highest paid teacher has been there a long time and has his PHD. The bottom line here is in the teaching profesion ability is not valued. In the private sector it is. In the self employment sector it is all that matters.

(2) How do you extrapolate the poor education some students have to such a generalization? I dont. I am certain I have the greatest standard deviation of any professor I know of. Some of my students learn a great deal others nothing at all. Teachers are told to teach to the center.

(3) If professors were merely listing facts in their courses does that somehow imply they are not capable of doing more? No. I am getting way off the subject of this thread but I am going to answer this a bit more.

Lets try basketball. Conciously or not we set up the criterian for a good player by taking 2 sigma + and - and then compare them to pick our team. Height < 5 foot 1 inch or > 6 feet 5 inches. Reflex time < .3 seconds > .9 seconds. Dozens of variables like this then pick the ones we know work. I am 5 foot 5 inches tall. Am I going to be a money generating basketball player? No its obvious. Is it prjudicy if I am not payed to play basketball? Of course. Is it justifiable? Of course.

Lets try poker. We want to pick a game. Same thing we set up parameters for our opponants and then pick the game with the higest ev. Are we prejuduce about it. Of course thats how to get from self weighting to non self weighting.

I know of only two professions which don't do this. Mental health (they spend way more time studying the ill than the health) and drive thier patients to the center. Teaching, they spend way more money to educate the retarded than the brilliant. In all casses they drive to the center. It makes no sense to me but thats the way it is.

(4) In my experiance some of the best researchers are quite poor teachers. Mine too. Its a given. They are compleatly different occupations. It would be like hiring someone to play football 20 hours a week and be a jockey the other 20. Makes no sense to me at all.

As an aside I am not trying to look down on teachers at all. As a group I respect them a great deal. It comes down to a question of compesation. There is a capitalist socialist spectrum. Teachers are stuck at the socialist extreame where ability and compensation are not linked at all.

In general:

working for the goverment (teaching): delta between ability and pay very narrow.

working for the private sector: delta increase

self employed: delta increase

Investor: even greater delta increase.

This general trend drives the most able out of the teaching field. More so for investing than for any other.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
Christian, American, White, Males. Surely well more than half the starting field fit this criteria. Of the final 27 I count five or so. And one of them is our own Greg Raymer who as a 2+2er, doesn't really count.

Almost surely not a coincidence. They don't want to ask directions. And they won't admit there are people smarter than them who can teach them something. Whether it be religion, science, or poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey dave, how many of the top 100 richest and most powerful people in the real world fit the above description.

too bad world leaders and billionaires don't spend enough time studying tournament poker...

fim

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"you will see that more than two thirds of the players are either foreign, Jewish,"

Those are some good eyes you've got there.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Of the final 27 I count five or so. And one of them is our own Greg Raymer who as a 2+2er, doesn't really count.


[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon Dave you need to revise you list of the ten smartest poker players and put Greg in there somewhere. I'm sure you can find one to demote in place of Greg.

You wrote in another post:

[ QUOTE ]
Before anyone gets too insulted by my post I need to point out that it is just a continuation of my never ending quest to make sure that people know that the typical American, especially the ones who have had it easy for quite a while, are woefully uneducated and couldn't care less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find this statement offensive. Basically I think this statement at the very least has a lot of truth in it.

[ QUOTE ]
They get away with their ignorance because this country can give them pretty much a free ride with only about 5% of the citizens being competant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you elaboratge on this because I'm certain your thinking would be interesting on this. There have been alot of posts on the Politics Forum decrying the skewing of income distrubition more towards the top 20% of income earners in the last 20 years or so. Many blame it on the lowering of marginal tax rates for the top income brackets more or less. This implies that the higher income earners should give more of their earned income to those at the bottom. FWIW if your statement is accurate, I would draw the conslusion that the skewing of income distribution has a lot to do with the incompetance and laziness that you asset.

[ QUOTE ]
And by competant I usually mean mathematically, logically or scientifically competant. And while a majority of Americans are guilty of this incompetance, the non Jewish, non Asian segment is more guilty, for whatever reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Test scores aren't the be all and end all to measure competance. However, I'm fairly certain that U.S. test scores of students in 4th-12th grade would bear out your competance conclusion.

[Warren Whitmore]

Sorry about the double post. I couldent find this material but have now. These quotes are all from "Damn right!" and are all about Charlie Muger.

"He's a poker player, likes to keep things to himself."
- Molly Munger

"Playing poker in the army and as a young lawyer honed my business skills, said Charlie. What you have to learn is to fold early when the odds are against you, or if you have a big edge, back it heavily because you don't get a big edge often. Opportunity comes, but it dosen't come often, so seize it when it does come. - Charlie Muger

"I liked the independence of a capitalist. And I always had sort of a gamling personality. I liked figuring things out and making bets. So I simply did what came naturally." -Charlie Munger

"....Just out of our respective graduate schools, my friend Warren Buffett and I entered the business world to find huge, predictable patterns of extreme irrationality. These irrationalities were obviously imprortant to what we wanted to do, but our professors had never mentioned them. Understanding the problem of irrationalities was not easy I came to study the psychology of human misjudgment almost against my will: I refected it until I realized that my attitude was costing me a lot of money and reduced my ability to help everything I loved." - Charlie Munger

"This brings me at last, to the main purpose of my talk. Large educational implications exist, if my answer to Glotz's problem is roughly right and you make one more assumption I believe true-that most Ph.D educators, even psychology professors and business school deans, would not have given the same simple answer I did. And, if I am right in these two ways, this would indicate that our civilization now keeps in place a grat many educators who can't satisactorily explain Coca-Cola, even in retrospect, and even after watching is closely all their lives. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs.

Moreover-and this result is even more extreme-the brilliant and effective executives who, surrounded by business school and law school graduates, have run the Coca-Cola company with glorious success in recent years, also did not understand elementary psychology well enough to predict and avoid the "New Coke" fiasco.

Such extreme ignorance, in both the high reaches of business, is lollapalooza effect of a negative sort demonstrating grave defects in academia. Because the bad effect is a lollapalooza, we should expect to find intertwined, multiple academic causes. I suspect at least two such causes.

First, academic psychology, while it is admirable and useful as a list of ingenious and important experiments, lacks intradisciplinary synthesis. In particular, not enough attention is given to lollapallza effects coming from combinations of psychological tendencies.

Second, there is a truly horrible lack of synthesis blending psychology and other academic subjects. But only an interdisciplinary approach will correctly deal with reality-in academia as with the Coca-Cola company.

The academically correct reation to this immense and well-publicized fiasco would have been the sort of reaction Boeing would display if three of its new airplanes crashed in a single week. After all, product integrity is involved in each case, and plain educational failure was immense.

But almost no such responsible, Boeing-like reaction has come from academis. Instead academia, by and large, contiunues in its balkanized way to tolerate psycholgy professors who mis-teach psychology, non-psychology professors who fail to consider psychological effects obviously crucial in their subject matter, and professional schools that carefully preserve psychological ignorance coming in with each entering class and are proud of their inadequacies." - Charlie Munger

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
Christian, American, White, Males. Surely well more than half the starting field fit this criteria. Of the final 27 I count five or so. And one of them is our own Greg Raymer who as a 2+2er, doesn't really count.

Almost surely not a coincidence. They don't want to ask directions. And they won't admit there are people smarter than them who can teach them something. Whether it be religion, science, or poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even a lesbian Jew wouldn't consider above post politically incorrect.
(And it makes no sense for more than one reason as it probably was already explained in some previous posts)

[Overdrive]

Yeah, yeah..but it is so easy to make fun of christians... Let's see you make a post about how bad muslims are at this or that, or are you afraid of being blown up lol. But the most important question is: Can you play poker in any Muslim dominated countries? I honestly don't know..

[malorum]

Don't know the US demographics two well. Is This White american xtian groups generally the same group that has it all laid on a plate for them.
I've met a few that have visited the UK.
Do you need to have a little hunger for money/esteem etc. to get good at poker???

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

I think this whole dispute can be settled in a pure thinking contest.

[tomdemaine]

Surely someone as well versed in statistics as yourself shouldn't be confusing correlation with causation, rookie mistake.

[lehighguy]

White Americans are bad at a lot of things. They are also good at a lot of things. It depends on the skill and subject.

Most of the brilliant Asian/Jewish math/science types I know are hopeless human beings. I don't know how they tie thier shoes in the morning. Thier inability to communicate or work in groups means thier talents are useless. They also don't seem to understand simple game theory. They do most of the hard work while others reap the benefits. They never stand up for themselves. They have no self-confidence.

I'm very good at math. I could become an engineer or a mathematician. But I don't do it because I think those people are suckers. Most of the engineering/science majors I know at my school hate what they do, they only do it because its the only talent they have and they can't put in the effort to develope themselves.

[David Sklansky]

"Most of the brilliant Asian/Jewish math/science types I know are hopeless human beings."

OK. Stipulated. Doesn't change my point. Unless you claim that studying math and science MAKES you this way.

[lehighguy]

I agree, I think the causality goes the other way. Hopeless anti-social people tend to wander into math/science. Often I find they use thier math/science ability to justify thier deficiencies in other areas. I was the same way most of my education. The real world teaches some life lessons though.

That's the thing though. There are many different kind of skills. Just being better at math/science doesn't necessarrily make you a better person.

I share your frustration with the average american. I've dealt with enough of these moron silver spoon kids in my day. Thier ignorance astounds me. Thier arrogance is revolting. I agree that America is basically being led by the top minds and the rest are feeding of them.

However, your statement is a bit generalistic. I don't think that Americans are deficient in math/science because they are "bad people" or something. Rather, I think it is that very few people like those subjects, they are less interesting then other fields of study (to most people), and as such they are happy to outsource the things they don't want to do to others.

I may be biased in that most of the math/science/engineering types I know don't like what they do. They want a paycheck/status/familial acceptence and this how they get it.

[PairTheBoard]

lehighguy --
"That's the thing though. There are many different kind of skills. Just being better at math/science doesn't necessarrily make you a SMARTER person."

Fixed your quote for purposes of this topic.

PairTheBoard

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright change it to 40.

[/ QUOTE ]

your point isn't a bad one, but having just spent 4 years studying physics (and really, i slacked off fo rmost of my senior year) it would be impossible for someone to learn what I know about physics in 40 hours.

change it to 1 year and we can start talking.

Mr. Sklansky...I think you hit this one broadside earlier when you said "they are either too lazy to apply themselves, too stupid to understand the subject even if they applied themselves, or that there is something about their religion that stifles this thirst for far reaching knowledge. I'll choose the third reason. What about you?"

I believe this subject matter is entirely secular - therefore point A was the correct assertion. Laziness and ego are the undoing of the semi-priviledged class (extraordinarily priviledged when taken in the world view) of white-American-christian-male's. They do not seek knowledge because they are CERTAIN that it is already theirs by birthright! This ego leads to laziness which in turn leads to a mediocrity in their success (we're speaking in broad, general terms). I'll grant you that a segment of staunch Christians lean upon the mysticism of their religion far too often as a way of explaining that which they find inexplicible (which, as we know, is often not the case when mathematics or science are involved) - but ultimately this is more often a matter of simple laziness rather than devout or fervent belief. Which, to me at least, seems to be the real problem - that the tenets of Christian religious faith often encourage the sort of "it's out of my hands" laziness that lead to a reliance on "luck" or "fate" or such other math-defying nonsense.

[mockingbird]

Amen ( oh, sorry )

Couldnt agree more with all of this post. As a woman who has worked in a technical field for ten years I have encountered so many white, christian, americain males who overrate themselves and are basically lazy and happy to reap the benefits of a system designed by them and for them.

It brings down standards and is somewhat less than admirable ( to put it mildly ).

The sense of entitlement in some of these individuals is mindboggling.

[ihardlyknowher]

[ QUOTE ]
Christian

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when does praying to the poker Gods make you a Christian?

[erby]

While I do agree that your average American is grotesquely uneducated, I believe that you are placing too much emphasis on the math and sciences. I in no way mean to belittle the sciences, as I am currently finishing up my premedical concentration and believe there is much merit in having a solid scientific background.

However, were the majority of Americans ignorant to Newton's laws of motions, or Bernoulli's principles of fluid dynamics, airplanes would still fly and gravity would still be here. Since your average American has no effect on the construction of an airplane's wing, he or she does not need to be versed in such skills (although it does make for a more interesting human being).

What seems more important to me is that we educate our citizenry on their role as citizens. The math and sciences can take a backseat for the moment for the sake of educating the citizenry on their role in government and their ability to induce change through expression of their ideas. Everyday the average American walks around completely ignorant of anything that is going on in the political sphere - a sphere in which his or her actions can have actual results.

I think that math and the sciences are important, but I also think that the ability to express your ideas intellectually is more important at this time.

Teach people to express their ideas well, and they will gain confidence and maybe begin to better themselves in other areas like math and the sciences.

ERBY /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[bobman0330]

This thread is really surreal.

You've pointed out 2 classes of people, scientists and poker players, presented a bunch of anecdotal evidence that they're dominated by non-white/non-Christians, then turned this into an argument about how stupid/ignorant/blind white Christians are.

Wow.

Taking on faith your assertion that poker and science require the largest amount of a certain kind of reasoning ability... who the hell would want to be a scientist or a professional poker player?

Ironically, someone with a clear understanding for figures should choose almost any profession but these two, just because there's very little money in them.

Take someone in the top 5% in ability from either group of professional poker players or scientists, and compare their salary to someone in the top 5% of almost any other professional category--doctors, lawyers, executives, Wall St. types--and the disparity would be shocking. Compare the lot of the average member and the result will be at least as unever. Plus all the scientists would be designing airplanes for you.

I'm going to offer the following counterproposition: Christians are not in fact hopelessly stupid and incurious. Scientists and poker players lack at least one of the following: ambition, self-confidence, or ability to succeed in other fields.

[J_V]

Very cool and intriguing.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
"a decent number of mathmeticans or chemists could become great political scientists if they had to. (Because ability in math is correlated to overall thinking ability)"

This assumes politics (there is no such thing as political science) can be "solved," like a math problem. And that assumption leads to grand schemes to improve society and those often lead to disaster.

Are there any examples of great mathematicians or chemists who have become great political scientists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite a few high profile mathematicians have been involved in politics to varying degrees. Without doing any research on the subjcet the following names come to mind.

Isaac Newton (MP, Warden of Royal Mint)
Pierre Simon de Laplace (French Minister of the Interior)
Paul Painleve (Prime Minister of France, ran for President)
Laurent Schwartz (humanitarian, led protests against Russian invasion of Hungary, American involvement in Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Russian war against Chechnya.)

There are countless others.

[rollingdirty]

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok this made me laugh. Laugh alot actually. My roomate asked me what Sklansy's Education level was when he read it. So what is the answer someone, or David himself?

[/ QUOTE ]

i believe he has a degree in actuarial sciences. he also appears to have a very intelligent father that passed on a lot of wisdom.

[lehighguy]

There is also one other factor to consider. I find that wealthy Asians and Indians tend to be as lazy and stupid as wealthy Americans and whites. Perhaps the correlation is partly wealth not just race or culture.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"a decent number of mathmeticans or chemists could become great political scientists if they had to. (Because ability in math is correlated to overall thinking ability)"

This assumes politics (there is no such thing as political science) can be "solved," like a math problem. And that assumption leads to grand schemes to improve society and those often lead to disaster.

Are there any examples of great mathematicians or chemists who have become great political scientists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite a few high profile mathematicians have been involved in politics to varying degrees. Without doing any research on the subjcet the following names come to mind.

Isaac Newton (MP, Warden of Royal Mint)
Pierre Simon de Laplace (French Minister of the Interior)
Paul Painleve (Prime Minister of France, ran for President)
Laurent Schwartz (humanitarian, led protests against Russian invasion of Hungary, American involvement in Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Russian war against Chechnya.)

There are countless others.

[/ QUOTE ]

You left out a biggy: Albert Einstein. Extremely active in the zionist movement, was offered the presidency of Israel. Became active in the anti-nuclear movement.

[roxtar]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus the attributes I ascribed to them (uninterested in learning from others) was just an average of course. Still I have little doubt that attribute is more common among the group mentioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my local hardware store has just had a run on broad paint brushes.

[KingOtter]

I find this interesting in another aspect, which is kind of intimated, but not really spoken.

*Generalism alert* .. Christians for the most part believe that God will interfere on their behalf on this planet. God has a plan for them... God's desires, etc. They look at coincidental, random events and attribute God's hand to them. Things happen because God wills them to, not because they'd happen otherwise. God willing, etc.

So does that mean when a Christian makes a hand, or knocks someone out with a bad beat, that God willed it?

Do Christian players exhibit more favorable variance than non-Christian players (but still blow it, as Sklansky points out how few make it to the end)? Or do they suffer from more bad variance, since 'gambling' is a sin? I think Job had some pretty crappy variance.

Does the lack of Christian players in the final numbers (taking that 'fact' as an assumption, I haven't researched it to see if it is in fact a fact) prove that there is no God favoritism, skewing the numbers for his favored followers?

Or perhaps if a particular religion has more winners, that it would, in fact, be the preferred, and possibly 'correct' religion?

Lastly, if some top poker players are finding religion, are we going to hear the 'First I'd like to thank my lord and savior Jesus Christ' speeches after winning tournaments? Or people crossing themselves, kissing their medallions and pointing to the sky after a good hand?

KO

PS: I know the answer to my questions is 'No' ... but I found it interesting to consider. Or at least 'I hope not' in the case of the last paragraph.

[RJT]

I think exactly the opposite. It is surprising to me that the field is not filled with more atheists/agnostics.

Poker is the purest profession for the atheist.

Let’s assume it is true that there is no god. From this assumption, I take it then, that there is no “real” meaning for our existence. No higher purpose for our lives. We simply exist and then we die.

What better manner to earn a living (and spend time playing tournaments) then by poker?

Poker neither adds nor detracts from the social order. I understand the economic ramifications of people who make a profit and adding to the economy (especially, now that it is such a big industry) and those who lose their life savings and all that entails. I am speaking in the sense of most (all other?) industries/businesses. Computer industry, chemical, medical, transportation, fashion, auto, farming, etc. are all businesses that effect our lives, the ecology, the economy - for better or worse - in some way or another.

But, poker truly has no redeeming, nor detracting social value. For the people who understand that human existence has no real purpose, poker is the purest manner, I can think of, to make a living.

A poker professional relies only on himself (well of course one needs other players, a dealer, etc.). There is no need to have any social graces to interact with fellow workers. Indeed, exactly the opposite might actually help. The poker player doesn’t have to worry if his profession fits into his religious beliefs, if he is making any errors in judgment that would go against his fundamental beliefs. Politicians who are believers, don’t have this luxury. I deeply religious corporate executive does not either. Doctors, etc.

Poker consumes practically non of our earth’s natural resources. So, for the atheist who feels an obligation to future human life, there is no conflict there.


For people of faith and/or people who have decided to spend their time pursuing other things in life, it comes as no surprise to me that, the WSOP final tables are not filled predominately with their likes. I suspect “more than half the starting field” is filled with those who came for the entertainment.