I really think there should be SR(State Records)

[qqwref]

I'm just going to have to straight up disagree with this. Being trained in Philosophy I have learnt that if an argument can't stand up to any hypothetical situation (as unreasonable as that situation may be) then the argument needs to be re-evaluated. This, of course, makes things extremely difficult. Welcome to Philosophy!

I can't agree with you there. That only applies to generalized statements that are supposed to apply to all theoretical situations. For example if you say "all cats are white" and I show you a black cat, or imagine one without creating some kind of logical contradiction, you're proven wrong. But if you say "all cats in my house are white" and I imagine bringing a black cat into your house... well, no, you're not disproven at all. See this is not a problem in science or theoretical philosophy but in sociology. Only allowing arguments that take into account all theoretically possible scenarios would be foolish because the more improbable ones will not actually happen in real life or may even be contradictory (in which case you wouldn't have to consider it). For example your idea of some country with 10^8 cubers but nobody under a minute - I'd say this is effectively impossible since enough people are competitive that they would want to put in the effort to break the national record, and getting under a minute is not at all difficult. Of course perhaps you could choose some kind of set of people like "elderly people with finger/hand arthritis" or "blind people" or "people who refuse to touch a Rubik's cube with anything but their feet" but that is simply not how countries are made sociologically, even if it might be theoretically or mathematically possible to create a country designation for one of these groups.


By the way, I think the cubing community is still really a very small sample space. From Arnaud's argument we can clearly see there are groups of cubers who live close enough or are good enough friends to motivate each other to get faster. We saw this too with Matyas, Milan, and Mate all getting sub-2 master magic solves together. But a lot of these very fast people got in early and perhaps taught their friends early on too, and so I'd say most of these communities started when the community was smaller still. The thing is that there are not too many of these "minicommunities" of very fast friends in the world, so it's unbalanced because of small sample size. This means that when the top ranks are dominated by a particular country it's often because of these people encouraging each other. I think in a few more years we will see more of these minicommunities spring up, and maybe when there are a few hundred groups of fast people we may see the larger countries having more of them.

The US already has at least two separate communities, in fact. There are the east coast cubers and the west coast cubers, and, although they are entirely friendly and people from one group go to the other group's competitions every now and again, many competitions in the US are dominated by the group they are closer to, and people often feel more loyal to their coast than to the country as a whole. Isn't the situation of two neighboring European countries something like this?

 

[Lotsofsloths]

Now that I have read these last 4 pages, I think we should possibly consider the following things:

Different Regional Records, not state records:
For the US this could possibly mean East Coast Records, West Coast, and the filling in between(Lol).

This way it is not only subjected to the US and other countries can also be divided into "regions".

 

[TimMc]

You can have state records if you establish an American Cubing Association or something similar.

Heh, you could have more subsidiary organisations for other countries under the parent WCA

Australian Cubing Association FTW

Tim.

 

[Me]

If there are a higher number of cubers, then the probability of having good cubers among them is also higher.

Wrong!

That is not how statistics work in real life. In real life a cluster of a few good cubers would exist no matter how high the number of cubers would be. This is because good cubers in your direct area are a high motivation to become even better. Who do you think would be faster
a) Erik/Joel/Ron after training together for a year
b) 200 schoolkids that all play with the cube during lunch hour?

(another factor in real life is training facilities. If you have just a couple of really good people you get media attention, money, better training facilities, more really good people)

The best example of this in the US seems to be Caltech. Not a very big population, but many really good cubers because they motivate each other.

I think what he may be referring to is how larger high schools and colleges in the United States are in higher, more competitive divisions. If you have a pool of 500 people versus a pool of 2000 people there's most likely going to be a better athlete / cuber in the pool of 2000 simply because there are more people.

 

[Crzyazn]

Talent distribution just doesn't seem fair when Tyson Mao, Leyan Lo, Shotaro Mackisumi etc. live in the same region (sorry, no offense to the excessively talented east coast cubers)

 

[Dene]

That only applies to generalized statements that are supposed to apply to all theoretical situations.

I don't see why so? I could say "this cup is made of plastic." You could argue that it isn't really plastic, I only think it is because the Great Evil Deceiver makes me believe so. So then, you would use reasons to give the best proof possible for your belief that the cup is plastic, thus using the JTB account of knowledge.
I think we can agree that the statement "this cup is made of plastic" is a very specific situation. But using the argument "because I think it is" can't stand up to a hypothetical situation such as there being a Great Evil Deceiver.
From what I can see there is no requirement for a statement to be "generally applicable" as a necessity of it to be evaluated hypothetically.

See this is not a problem in science or theoretical philosophy but in sociology. Only allowing arguments that take into account all theoretically possible scenarios would be foolish because the more improbable ones will not actually happen in real life or may even be contradictory (in which case you wouldn't have to consider it).

All theoretical accounts aren't foolish, they are more knowledge, even if only theoretical. Without theory some great Philosophers would lose all the power from their arguments (for example, the amazing Descartes as indirectly referred to above).

 

[Ethan Rosen]

Talent distribution just doesn't seem fair when Tyson Mao, Leyan Lo, Shotaro Mackisumi etc. live in the same region (sorry, no offense to the excessively talented east coast cubers)

Actually, Tyson Mao is an east coast cuber

Rethinking it, I don't see the point of a regional record. If you compete a few times, you should know quite a few people in your region already, and you will know if you are the best in the area at a particular event

 

[shelley]

Actually, Tyson Mao is an east coast cuber

And that's an example that illustrates why state/regional records are pretty meaningless. People move within the US pretty frequently. Tyson just moved last week and all of a sudden he's an east coast cuber, even though until then he had lived in California all his life. Leyan's originally from New Jersey. I could label myself a California cuber, or I could label myself a Texas cuber and instantly have a regional BLD record. And with many cubers being around the age where they either are in or will be going to college within a few years, a lot of state representations are kind of arbitrary.

 

[qqwref]

That only applies to generalized statements that are supposed to apply to all theoretical situations.

I don't see why so? I could say "this cup is made of plastic." You could argue that it isn't really plastic, I only think it is because the Great Evil Deceiver makes me believe so. So then, you would use reasons to give the best proof possible for your belief that the cup is plastic, thus using the JTB account of knowledge.
I think we can agree that the statement "this cup is made of plastic" is a very specific situation. But using the argument "because I think it is" can't stand up to a hypothetical situation such as there being a Great Evil Deceiver.
From what I can see there is no requirement for a statement to be "generally applicable" as a necessity of it to be evaluated hypothetically.

I don't see how this is relevant. It seems like you're bringing philosophical terms into play just to try to confuse me and to overcomplicate an argument that does not need to be that complicated. I do realize this is entirely standard practice in philosophy, but it's not the way to win an argument in real life. In a similar vein, I'm a math major, and I could easily bring probability and group theory into the debate, but I know it's pointless because it would not make my argument any better, just harder to understand on your end. Also, I don't think your last sentence (the conclusion?) follows from what you said before it.

My main problem with what you have said is that your hypothetical situation completely neglects the basic assumptions in statements. In philosophy you might want to prove everything down to the basic thought-quanta, and evaluate statements word for word, but in other fields there are a lot of assumptions that govern what hypothetical statements are worthy of consideration and what are not. For example if I say that the logical statement "p and q" implies the statement "p" you could still imagine some kind of hypothetical situation where logic works differently and this is not true, but my statement is still correct because propositional logic assumes its own axioms. The statement I made about larger countries tending to have more fast people might not be true in your hypothetical situation of a country made of a hundred million noobs, but that is not a valid hypothesis because it doesn't fit many easily-observable real-world observations, such as the fact that many people are competitive and the knowledge that solving a Rubik's Cube in under a minute does not take great amounts of skill even on a relatively stiff cube.

See this is not a problem in science or theoretical philosophy but in sociology. Only allowing arguments that take into account all theoretically possible scenarios would be foolish because the more improbable ones will not actually happen in real life or may even be contradictory (in which case you wouldn't have to consider it).

All theoretical accounts aren't foolish, they are more knowledge, even if only theoretical. Without theory some great Philosophers would lose all the power from their arguments (for example, the amazing Descartes as indirectly referred to above).

More knowledge doesn't help if it doesn't provide additional information, and it is especially useless if it dilutes the actual information. If you have a very easy algebra problem, say finding the root of the polynomial x-4, you will not be helped by considering all possible values for x to see which ones work, and you are going to be especially hindered if you go beyond the problem's assumption, that x is a complex scalar, and try to see if vectors, physical objects, or deities satisfy the polynomial. Philosophy is unlike other fields in that it has very few axioms, if any, but it's still important to realize that it is not the only field out there.



Now let's move away from the philosophy discussion, because it's pointless. (Dene, if you disagree, I will be glad to talk theoretical mathematics with you...) Ethan and Shelley raise the interesting point of which country Tyson belongs to. But that brings to mind Lucas Garron and Shotaro Makisumi. They have both competed extensively in the western US, but their WCA countries are not the US. Neither competitor goes to competitions in their country very often, but when they want to set a regional record they set it for their country, not the country they actually cube in. So if there was a more finely divided set of regional records there would be many people who compete in one region, but for another. Presumably in Tyson's case he'd be able to choose either the region he spent his first few cubing years in, or the region he currently lives in.

More interesting, I believe people have successfully changed their country in the past. Fridrich used to be in the Czech Republic but now counts as a USA cuber and is competing for an entirely different set of regional records. I don't know what the exact ruling would be, but if she had been much faster it might have been possible for her to simultaneously hold the 3x3 national record in two countries (the alternative being that moving to the USA would revoke her old Czech Republic NR). So maybe regional records will end up like that: if you move to another region and have citizenship there, you can choose to start competing for that region, or you could stay with the old.

Sure, regional records cause some new problems, and I'm not necessarily saying we should have more regions. But these problems have already had chances to arrive with the national record scheme, and maybe if we think about that more closely we can answer some of the problems we have with small-region records.

 

[Dene]

Well i guess if I avoid the philosophical debate then there is nothing left to say. I think I already stated my opinion (perhaps first page?) that state records don't really make any sense. Even if there are more cubers in America, I see no reason for there to be any special attention based there.

Btw, I love mathematics. I'm not an expert, and have chosen to leave it for now (apart from statistics for psychology.... booooring), but I would be glad to talk theoretical maths with you. I'm sure I could learn a lot!

 

[dChan]

We have national records, continental records, and world records? Isn't that enough? It is great to say that I am one of the top 100 one-handed cubers in the U.S. but it really doesn't change the fact that in the world I am number 185. I would prefer a great world ranking any day to a great state or national ranking. I mean, what is the point really? Is it just so you can say that you are the number 1 cuber in Alaska(out of 3)? Or the number 1 cuber on the West Coast?

Of course, I live in California so even if we did have State or West/East/Middle region records it would not affect me much because people like Leyan, Dan, Chris, Lucas, Shelley, Shotaro etc. live here so I might be a bit biased. Maybe if I saw that I had a chance at being number 1 in North Dakota I would be more than happy to have SR or region records.

 

[rxdeath]

Wrong direction. World records and personal records are natural and enough. Everything in between is arbitrary and artificial and ought to go.

man...everytime you speak, it's like sense comes out. i wish you could share your secret with others.


Dene its amazing how i can agree with you about the overall point, but still disagree with so much you said, every topic doesn't need to turn to a philosophical debate. while i appreciate descartes' evil genius argument, it hardly applies to this situation in practical terms, why does a topic on state records turn into a raking over the coals of 'i am, i exist'. i think you've been listening to the great evil deceiver too much yourself.

 

[Dene]

Dene its amazing how i can agree with you about the overall point, but still disagree with so much you said, every topic doesn't need to turn to a philosophical debate. while i appreciate descartes' evil genius argument, it hardly applies to this situation in practical terms, why does a topic on state records turn into a raking over the coals of 'i am, i exist'. i think you've been listening to the great evil deceiver too much yourself.

I believe it was Mr. Cohen that first brought Philosophy into the debate.

 

[masterofthebass]

Dene, umm... I never talk about philosophy. I always use fact based arguments, as I find those the most persuasive.

 

[Jack]

I don't think this would work very well in Canada, because I'm pretty sure every NR was done by an Ontario cuber.

 

[Dene]

Ok, well I've skipped the last couple of posts, but in response to Dene's argument against qqwref:

First of all, you can't look at a hypothetical when the actual has been represented.

As far as I'm concerned, that was the introduction to philosophy in this discussion. Maybe I read into it too much.

 

[brunson]

I think we should have records by first letter of last name. So everyone with A names can compete for a record, etc.

Seriously, though, state records wouldn't buy me much until Dan Knights and PJK move somewhere else.