DontFeedTheTroll wrote:
LiarLiar wrote:
The actual text of the question is as below
"Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?"A bunch of issues with that question, least of which is the word COULD. Not "would", but "could". 100% of people COULD win a point of Serena.
That's an unnecessarily pedantic reading of the question. I assume you also believe you could beat Eliud Kipchoge in a marathon? Or win Western States?
If your hypothetical involves everyone else dying, leaving you the winner by default, then I think we are stretching the definition of "could" to its breaking point.
No, I agree with LiarLiar's interpretation.
And did anybody actually look at that link? It doesn't even say that 1 in 8 men think they could win a point. It says 7% think they could, 81% think they couldn't, and 12% don't know. That doesn't exactly make it sound like men as a group are totally delusional. If you throw out the "don't knows", that's 1 in 14 men think they could score a point. I'm sure they're not off by that much.
Also, scoring a point off Williams and beating Kipchoge is a bad comparison. As many have commented, you only have to win a point, not a match. There is not really anything about a segment of a marathon that is analogous to a point in tennis. You can't get lucky and run a particular mile in 4:30, or whatever.