From: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> To: Jeremy Rubin cal > Subject: Re: mah jong NOT women dominated. Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 17:20:40 +0000 I d like you to think about money simply as a protocol. some interesting metaphors. . On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Jeremy Rubin c wrote: Games where no one wins are games for losers ;) @JeremyRubin On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Jeremy Rubin c wrote: Well so maybe to generalize a hypothesis poetry observation, the types of games women "win" are ones without objective measures of winning. Games like this might be considered to be infinitely repeated games. This is similar to notions of credit as mentioned in Graeber's Debt First 5000 Years, where if the game terminates or is expected to the system fails. I guess Martin would know more. @JeremyRubin On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Jeffrey E. leevacation®gmail.com> wrote: motherhood game? card games, video games. hacking. all are games . same result.. poetry. game maybe :) On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Jeremy Rubin a , wrote: Would be an interesting to attempt to make an intellectually stimulating game where women outperform men. Unless women are inherently inferior to the maximally talented man at all tasks ;) I think there's some material which says women may be better endurance athletes (eg, long distance swimming) as an existential proof a women might be better than the best man. I'm reminded of the most-likely-not-Einstein quote: "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." In any case, it's a fun experiment. If you fail to make such a game, you provide evidence of universal inferiority which would inform you (society) to not invest in gender diversity as much, if you make one then you'd probably learn more about how to get value out of female employees. ®JeremyRubin On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 12:00 PM, jeffrey E. <[email protected]> wrote