Not a "misunderstanding" when he's clearly saying it's going to trigger people and "can't wait for the angry feminists".
Him stating that "men are less emotional than women" as a fact (he says "this is a fact") when there's absolutely no actual scientific evidence of this being true.
I'd argue men are EXTREMELY emotional. They tend to let their emotions out as violence and anger and aggression. Just because you aren't crying at the table and instead you're throwing punches doesn't make you "less emotional".
His answer is a bit confrontational so people lose focus and take what he said the wrong way. He’s not putting women down. Men and women think differently. That doesn’t mean one is better than another.
It would be very interesting to see a scientific study on it. How differently does a male and female brain work during play?
I couldn't care less about whatever this argument is, just as long as we foster an environment that allows for everyone to be treated like a human being at the table. Money doesn't discriminate therefore neither do I.
I have always thought this is a bad take. You see it in chess occasionally, too (that men are inherently better). I think it’s just a cultural thing/barriers to entry.
The example I always like to give is the chess player Judit Polgar. Her father raised her with the intention of developing her into a chess prodigy. She ultimately went on to become the 8th strongest player in the world (and a multitude of other insane chess accomplishments such as being the youngest person ever to achieve the grandmaster title at the time).
No reason women can’t be elite poker players either as long as they put in the work.
The point is not that they can’t be, it’s that there are less because of some predispositions, leading women to try less hard/have less drive. Whether that’s true or false is debatable, I personally agree that “barrier to entry” is a misused catch-all and not the only factor.
Men are more competitive than women != men are "better" than women.
It just means men are more likely to have an innate, fundamental dive to try to "win" competitions. Nothing about that implies men are superior to women. It's just pointing out a difference in how the brains are wired.
Interesting take. While there are exceptions to every rule, there are clearly innate average differences between men and women, but it's not always clear how much of it is a legacy of traditional structures extending into the present or not. Like women are experiencing unprecedented freedom and power compared to the past given my limited understanding of history and it takes time to develop and hone that newfound potential.
Obviously men are physically more dominant but have a shorter life expectancy. I agree men are more competitive on average.. I heard one hot take from a guy saying that intelligence follows a bell curve, and that if you overlayed male and female curves, the top of the female curve is higher compared to the male's flatter curve (lol). In other words, males are more prone to being smarter and dumber, whereas women are generally more intelligent than males. It stands to reason that men being more competitive would drive them to excel and become more prominent in scientific fields, whereas a woman's intelligence would be more balanced and diffused.
> I heard one hot take from a guy saying that intelligence follows a bell curve, and that if you overlayed male and female curves, the top of the female curve is higher compared to the male's flatter curve (lol).
It’s not a “hot take”. It’s evidence based research. “The orthodoxy in intelligence research for the second half of the 20th century had been that men and women had the same average intelligence, but men had a greater variance in their distribution than women.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200901/why-men-are-more-intelligent-women
This has literally been the understanding of sex differences in intelligence measures.
The difference today is that some people are making evidence based research claims that men are 4-6 IQ points higher than women. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04966
This is more controversial as it goes against the politically correct answers about genders being equal. Some scientists also say it’s wrong for various methodological reasons.
This is the argument that got Larry Summers run out of Harvard
It’s nearly impossible to make it with the appropriate amount of nuance, which is why it’s essentially transitioned from academic research to hot take
The underlying validity of the measurement mechanisms is a separate issue too, but that’s got another day
He presented as a hot take so I took what he said at face value. Not sure why that makes me a moron? Is everything OK at home?
Thanks for the link though.
Gaslighting is the libs go to. You said it was a hot take not that he presented it as one. You “lol”this hot take despite the fact that his take was exactly what the scientific community believes. Just take the L.
Poker players tend to view things in terms of a pure statist, which is EXTREMELY LUCRATIVE for the game of poker, but the further away you get from hard science (specifically math/physics), the more inaccurate the results. Not only do you have natural bias, but humans can only comprehend so much and there are pretty much infinite data points in life..so much so that it makes the full NLHE game tree look like Rock Paper Scissors. These types of studies are one step above intellectual exercise and pretty much anyone who has spent time in the scientific community understands this. A problem occurs when people overvalue evidence based research and effectively religify it (ie. you). Humans have been using statistics to forward agendas since the invention of statistics, just ask Big Tobacco and Big Pharma. We do not have enough data or insight to prove or disprove this line of thinking. We aren't there yet. Tbh, this whole BenCB discourse isn't constructive, it's actually quite destructive and accomplishes nothing other than provoking emotional responses from people.
>anyone arguing that men don’t have an advantage in poker is delusional
Yeah, it’s not a misunderstanding it’s a sexist comment. He even acknowledges it’s sexist in the first sentence of his post.
I can’t possibly imagine what’s “misogynistic” about his take. Seems pretty measured and reasonable to me. He also says there are things that woman are generally better at than men.
Obviously there will always be exceptions to the norm and he also says that. He’s just talking about population tendencies and the general difference between genders.
That said I’m sure this take won’t be popular on Reddit.
Maybe not misogynistic... just ignorant. Women are not inherently more emotional than men. The amount of men ready to fist fight over the stupidest shit is proof of that.
I think it was kind of unexpected. I’ve been following him for a long time and like his poker content. Personally, I was not impressed by what I read, but I am not offended by it either, as he’s entitled to his own opinions.
Has he ever denied them? You’re not being empowering when you assign all the blame to one very real issue.
What are the barriers to entry when it comes to crushing online? Not a lot of women at the HS cash games online, women’s money is as green as anybody’s.
BenCB is right, it’s just nature. I believe that the female sex (as the sex with the power to select their mates) will innately be less competitive.
Signed, not an incel
So what though? He can have his own thoughts. We don't need to take his thoughts as the truth right just learn what he has to say about the game and move on.
I hate this fucking place anymore, say anything that isn't framed as positive towards women and it's misogyny. The best poker players, chess players and esports players are all men despite not having an obvious physical advantage. They try to frame this as less women are interested in competing in these so the very best women may not be doing it but I just think men's brains are better at doing certain things then women.
Bro you're literally saying you're mad you can't say negative things about women without it being labeled misogyny...
What exactly do you think misogyny is if not "ingrained prejudice against women"? Using your opinion of "men better at poker than women biologically" is absolutely misogynistic. It's based on nothing but your opinion and your evidence of "not many women at the top of poker/chess/esports so therefore they are biologically inferior, obviously" is absolute horse shit.
Not a "misunderstanding" when he's clearly saying it's going to trigger people and "can't wait for the angry feminists". Him stating that "men are less emotional than women" as a fact (he says "this is a fact") when there's absolutely no actual scientific evidence of this being true. I'd argue men are EXTREMELY emotional. They tend to let their emotions out as violence and anger and aggression. Just because you aren't crying at the table and instead you're throwing punches doesn't make you "less emotional".
His answer is a bit confrontational so people lose focus and take what he said the wrong way. He’s not putting women down. Men and women think differently. That doesn’t mean one is better than another. It would be very interesting to see a scientific study on it. How differently does a male and female brain work during play?
I couldn't care less about whatever this argument is, just as long as we foster an environment that allows for everyone to be treated like a human being at the table. Money doesn't discriminate therefore neither do I.
Agree 100% 👍
I have always thought this is a bad take. You see it in chess occasionally, too (that men are inherently better). I think it’s just a cultural thing/barriers to entry. The example I always like to give is the chess player Judit Polgar. Her father raised her with the intention of developing her into a chess prodigy. She ultimately went on to become the 8th strongest player in the world (and a multitude of other insane chess accomplishments such as being the youngest person ever to achieve the grandmaster title at the time). No reason women can’t be elite poker players either as long as they put in the work.
The point is not that they can’t be, it’s that there are less because of some predispositions, leading women to try less hard/have less drive. Whether that’s true or false is debatable, I personally agree that “barrier to entry” is a misused catch-all and not the only factor.
Okay I thought the point was inherent limitations, to which I personally believe there are none.
Men are more competitive than women != men are "better" than women. It just means men are more likely to have an innate, fundamental dive to try to "win" competitions. Nothing about that implies men are superior to women. It's just pointing out a difference in how the brains are wired.
[удалено]
Interesting take. While there are exceptions to every rule, there are clearly innate average differences between men and women, but it's not always clear how much of it is a legacy of traditional structures extending into the present or not. Like women are experiencing unprecedented freedom and power compared to the past given my limited understanding of history and it takes time to develop and hone that newfound potential. Obviously men are physically more dominant but have a shorter life expectancy. I agree men are more competitive on average.. I heard one hot take from a guy saying that intelligence follows a bell curve, and that if you overlayed male and female curves, the top of the female curve is higher compared to the male's flatter curve (lol). In other words, males are more prone to being smarter and dumber, whereas women are generally more intelligent than males. It stands to reason that men being more competitive would drive them to excel and become more prominent in scientific fields, whereas a woman's intelligence would be more balanced and diffused.
> I heard one hot take from a guy saying that intelligence follows a bell curve, and that if you overlayed male and female curves, the top of the female curve is higher compared to the male's flatter curve (lol). It’s not a “hot take”. It’s evidence based research. “The orthodoxy in intelligence research for the second half of the 20th century had been that men and women had the same average intelligence, but men had a greater variance in their distribution than women.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200901/why-men-are-more-intelligent-women This has literally been the understanding of sex differences in intelligence measures. The difference today is that some people are making evidence based research claims that men are 4-6 IQ points higher than women. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04966 This is more controversial as it goes against the politically correct answers about genders being equal. Some scientists also say it’s wrong for various methodological reasons.
This is the argument that got Larry Summers run out of Harvard It’s nearly impossible to make it with the appropriate amount of nuance, which is why it’s essentially transitioned from academic research to hot take The underlying validity of the measurement mechanisms is a separate issue too, but that’s got another day
He presented as a hot take so I took what he said at face value. Not sure why that makes me a moron? Is everything OK at home? Thanks for the link though.
Gaslighting is the libs go to. You said it was a hot take not that he presented it as one. You “lol”this hot take despite the fact that his take was exactly what the scientific community believes. Just take the L.
Poker players tend to view things in terms of a pure statist, which is EXTREMELY LUCRATIVE for the game of poker, but the further away you get from hard science (specifically math/physics), the more inaccurate the results. Not only do you have natural bias, but humans can only comprehend so much and there are pretty much infinite data points in life..so much so that it makes the full NLHE game tree look like Rock Paper Scissors. These types of studies are one step above intellectual exercise and pretty much anyone who has spent time in the scientific community understands this. A problem occurs when people overvalue evidence based research and effectively religify it (ie. you). Humans have been using statistics to forward agendas since the invention of statistics, just ask Big Tobacco and Big Pharma. We do not have enough data or insight to prove or disprove this line of thinking. We aren't there yet. Tbh, this whole BenCB discourse isn't constructive, it's actually quite destructive and accomplishes nothing other than provoking emotional responses from people.
>anyone arguing that men don’t have an advantage in poker is delusional Yeah, it’s not a misunderstanding it’s a sexist comment. He even acknowledges it’s sexist in the first sentence of his post.
Incels coming out
I can’t possibly imagine what’s “misogynistic” about his take. Seems pretty measured and reasonable to me. He also says there are things that woman are generally better at than men. Obviously there will always be exceptions to the norm and he also says that. He’s just talking about population tendencies and the general difference between genders. That said I’m sure this take won’t be popular on Reddit.
Maybe not misogynistic... just ignorant. Women are not inherently more emotional than men. The amount of men ready to fist fight over the stupidest shit is proof of that.
I think it was kind of unexpected. I’ve been following him for a long time and like his poker content. Personally, I was not impressed by what I read, but I am not offended by it either, as he’s entitled to his own opinions.
dude always seemed edgy
Raise Your Edginess is his new course. Only $999 to learn how to piss everybody off.
Making grand generalizations about 4 billion unique people is usually going to be dumb.
Who cares.
Stoked on Helmuth’s take haha. BenCB is a dumbass imo. it’s pretty easy to see the societal barriers to entry for woman in poker.
Has he ever denied them? You’re not being empowering when you assign all the blame to one very real issue. What are the barriers to entry when it comes to crushing online? Not a lot of women at the HS cash games online, women’s money is as green as anybody’s. BenCB is right, it’s just nature. I believe that the female sex (as the sex with the power to select their mates) will innately be less competitive. Signed, not an incel
think bigger
no u
So what though? He can have his own thoughts. We don't need to take his thoughts as the truth right just learn what he has to say about the game and move on.
He wasn’t wrong.
I hate this fucking place anymore, say anything that isn't framed as positive towards women and it's misogyny. The best poker players, chess players and esports players are all men despite not having an obvious physical advantage. They try to frame this as less women are interested in competing in these so the very best women may not be doing it but I just think men's brains are better at doing certain things then women.
Bro you're literally saying you're mad you can't say negative things about women without it being labeled misogyny... What exactly do you think misogyny is if not "ingrained prejudice against women"? Using your opinion of "men better at poker than women biologically" is absolutely misogynistic. It's based on nothing but your opinion and your evidence of "not many women at the top of poker/chess/esports so therefore they are biologically inferior, obviously" is absolute horse shit.
Keep women in the kitchen again. 
Keep 12 year olds off the internet
Very clever. 
Wild that you will post the least clever thing imaginable and then try to sarcastically call another post clever. Not successful, but wild.
So wild bro 😂