Racial differences...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

If anyone says that blacks are meeting athletic because they just are I will find you and kill you.

That assumption is my biggest pet peeve, probably because I'm an athlete

---

Blacks are meeting athletic because they just are.



Athletic achievement at the very highest level requires a lot of hard work, on top of an exactly right constellation of genetic factors. Maradona would never have become the world's greatest Basketball player. We will not see a woman as the world's weight lifting championship. (But, should we develop training and food enough to swim 200 kilometers, this might see a female champion, with the male competitors dropping death along the way).

Specialised athletics is a genetic freak show.

It is cultural more than anything for football and basketball

I once saw that if your ring finger was larger than your middle finger (or perhaps index vs. middle), this meant that genetically you were a better athlete than those without such a phycial trait. I don't know however, if this had anything to do with ethnicity. I am your average athlete...soooo....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Nerd

I once saw that if your ring finger was larger than your middle finger (or perhaps index vs. middle), this meant that genetically you were a better athlete than those without such a phycial trait. I don't know however, if this had anything to do with ethnicity. I am your average athlete...soooo....

---

Yes, people with longer ring fingers than index fingers are far better athletes.


Mostly, I presume, because the former are male and the latter female. (Yes, have a look at you boy/girlfriend's hands - the fingers are of different lenght. I had never even noticed it until I had read about it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion

It is cultural more than anything for football and basketball

---

White men can't jump!

I have a higher vertical jump than anyone at my school and could dunk the end of freshman year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I have a higher vertical jump than anyone at my school and could dunk the end of freshman year

---

Way cool. Me, I've never even got close to being able to dunk.



The thing is, a small difference can make a huge difference at the very highest level. Take the two nearly identical bell curves below of 'dunking capacity', with 'litlle jump capacity' on the left, and 'Michael Jordan' on the right (the 'gifted area'). Neraly half of all reds are better than nearly half of all blues. But, because the top of the one curve is slightly more to the right than the other, in the top and bottom percentiles, and even more in the top 0,001%, the differences between the two groups are huge, even if the averages are very close indeed. This explains why specialised, 'single determining factor' athleticism at the top is so monocultural.

In the picture below, imagine that 'NBA level basketball' would require a gifted capacity of 130 or higher. It now becomes clear that even though red and blue don't differ all that much, at NBA level, blue is very dominant:

https://img88.imageshack.us/img88/945/dunk.jpg

Heresy! The gods will strike down your blasphemy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Way cool. Me, I've never even got close to being able to dunk.



The thing is, a small difference can make a huge difference at the very highest level. Take the two nearly identical bell curves below of 'dunking capacity', with 'litlle jump capacity' on the left, and 'Michael Jordan' on the right (the 'gifted area'). Neraly half of all reds are better than nearly half of all blues. But, because the top of the one curve is slightly more to the right than the other, in the top and bottom percentiles, and even more in the top 0,001%, the differences between the two groups are huge, even if the averages are very close indeed. This explains why specialised, 'single determining factor' athleticism at the top is so monocultural.

In the picture below, imagine that 'NBA level basketball' would require a gifted capacity of 130 or higher. It now becomes clear that even though red and blue don't differ all that much, at NBA level, blue is very dominant:

https://img88.imageshack.us/img88/945/dunk.jpg

---

This is by far the best explanation I have seen of the phenomenon, both for sense and clarity.

To be honest, I don't understand why there is such an aversion to admitting that people from one place are predisposed to be better at something than people from another. It's quite clear that the human species has adapted to different environments and diverged in some fairly marked ways.

Key example: Black people are much less likely to get skin cancer, and probably other cancers as well, as a knock on.

because it invariably turns into social darwinism. Race A is smarter than Race B, etc.

dont ge tme wrong im a fan of letting all facts be known but that is inevitably always what happens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

because it invariably turns into social darwinism. Race A is smarter than Race B, etc.

dont ge tme wrong im a fan of letting all facts be known but that is inevitably always what happens

---

You can't do evil, in this case supressing the truth, to prevent evil. If your moral code isn't capable of preventing social Darwinism then not performing scientific research won't stop you.

I don't disagree I'm just stating opponenets to this informations position

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You can't do evil, in this case supressing the truth, to prevent evil. If your moral code isn't capable of preventing social Darwinism then not performing scientific research won't stop you.

---

Kind of sums it up.

Very well said :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

To be honest, I don't understand why there is such an aversion to admitting that people from one place are predisposed to be better at something than people from another. It's quite clear that the human species has adapted to different environments and diverged in some fairly marked ways.

---

Well here's the kicker. It's the environmental factors that play a big part, and people sometimes fall into the trap of interpreting them as more 'inherent' differences.

Take Canada and hockey for example. Despite NHL hockey really being opened up for over 20 years in the US and Eastern Europe, the Canadians still dominate in terms of talent and depth. Team Canada's B team this Olympic year would probably be the 2nd best team. And they could roll out a C team that could easily compete with Team USA in talent. This despite the huge population difference (ditto on a smaller scale for nations like Finland vs Russia).

Another example, I remember reading about how 3rd and 4th generation Asian Americans don't do as well in their standardized tests as the first generation (indulge my sloppiness in not providing a citation, I read it a while back, you can google it). It kinda throws away any kind of genetic/biological reason for the disparity (as if the socioeconomic status of the Black and Latino minorities was not enough).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Well here's the kicker. It's the environmental factors that play a big part, and people sometimes fall into the trap of interpreting them as more 'inherent' differences.

Take Canada and hockey for example. Despite NHL hockey really being opened up for over 20 years in the US and Eastern Europe, the Canadians still dominate in terms of talent and depth. Team Canada's B team this Olympic year would probably be the 2nd best team. And they could roll out a C team that could easily compete with Team USA in talent. This despite the huge population difference (ditto on a smaller scale for nations like Finland vs Russia).

Another example, I remember reading about how 3rd and 4th generation Asian Americans don't do as well in their standardized tests as the first generation (indulge my sloppiness in not providing a citation, I read it a while back, you can google it). It kinda throws away any kind of genetic/biological reason for the disparity (as if the socioeconomic status of the Black and Latino minorities was not enough).

---

I've heard all this before, and Loius already covered the answer. Just because the environment plays a part doesn't mean race doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You can't do evil, in this case supressing the truth, to prevent evil. If your moral code isn't capable of preventing social Darwinism then not performing scientific research won't stop you.

I've heard all this before, and Loius already covered the answer. Just because the environment plays a part doesn't mean race doesn't.

---

^ two most important statements made in this debate so far, and probably the high-water mark of the debate. ^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I've heard all this before, and Loius already covered the answer. Just because the environment plays a part doesn't mean race doesn't.

---

And yet we have tons of evidence suggesting environment plays the role (it's not the Asianess of the people that is getting them to outdo everyone else on standardized tests but rather the correlation seems to be how long they have been in the country) and none for race (aside from some abstract graph and some hand waving... :juggle2:)

If the Asianess of people plays a factor, why did their scores match up with non-Asians after living a long time in the country? This suggests that environment plays the role, to the exemptions of race considerations. :yes:

If environment plays enough of a role that it covers up any racial differences, then those racial differences are insignificant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

And yet we have tons of evidence suggesting environment plays the role (it's not the Asianess of the people that is getting them to outdo everyone else on standardized tests but rather the correlation seems to be how long they have been in the country) and none for race (aside from some abstract graph and some hand waving... :juggle2:)

If the Asianess of people plays a factor, why did their scores match up with non-Asians after living a long time in the country? This suggests that environment plays the role, to the exemptions of race considerations. :yes:

---

One example, and one known to be influenced by parental expectations; it isn't widely suggestive even. On the other hand, sickle-cell is almost exclusively an African condition, for obvious reasons, to the extent that the condition in a European usually indicates African ancestry.

So Environment is not "the" factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

One example, and one known to be influenced by parental expectations; it isn't widely suggestive even. On the other hand, sickle-cell is almost exclusively an African condition, for obvious reasons, to the extent that the condition in a European usually indicates African ancestry.

So Environment is not "the" factor.

---

But PVC. One might as well say that people with African ancestry have darker skin. This is what we are talking about:

Quote:

---

Is it then so far fetched to assume that the difference doesn't stop at the physical attributes, but that there also exist cognitive differences?

---

Right? It's about assuming cognitive differences. I think it is usual to assume no difference until one is shown.

Violent sports football boxing etc are dominated by the poor oftentimes and before blacks were so dominant at such sports it was the forte of port immigrant groups like the Irish in boxing.

These kids in the ghetto grow up thinking they have to be athletic and they have t go to the pros to get UT of the Hood. Plus they spend more time outdoors playing sports than rich kids all you need is a football or basketball.

Furthermore sports like swimming and hockey are so ridiculously white dominated because they are expensive
. Hockey requires ice tint and all that gear most poor kids can't afford it and swimming you need a good pool or a team of which there are very few in low income areas.

Racial differences become negligible in comparison to cultural and environmental factors.

Good book about this is outliers by Malcolm gladwell talks exactly about the hockey situation in Canada reenk spoke about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

One example, and one known to be influenced by parental expectations; it isn't widely suggestive even. On the other hand, sickle-cell is almost exclusively an African condition, for obvious reasons, to the extent that the condition in a European usually indicates African ancestry.

So Environment is not "the" factor.

---

Yeah, in that case of course, and my very first post in the thread remarked that we should definitely continue to do studies on the genetic differences in humans for the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. These are genetic factors that we have evidence for. However, we don't in the case of things like "intelligence" which is what the OP was getting at I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Yeah, in that case of course, and my very first post in the thread remarked that we should definitely continue to do studies on the genetic differences in humans for the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. These are genetic factors that we have evidence for. However, we don't in the case of things like "intelligence" which is what the OP was getting at I think.

---

Sorry, have no time to make a proper reply.

Just wanted to say that this interpretation of my thinking was wrong to say the least. One might also question the intellectual level of said poster. Don't turn this debate into something mindless please, as some have tried to already.

Of course cognitive abilities differ between populations.


We don't need to look at cumbersome inductive evidence. We need only deduction.

If a trait is heriditable, and it is different between individuals, then it is subject to evolutionary pressure. So all we need is to show that cognitive abilities differ between individual people, and that there are heriditable aspects. I would show, but neither of these two is in much dispute.

It's all you need. Everything else is creationist obfuscation: the idea that evolution somehow stops at the human brain, which is the realm of the soul.

So Reenk said...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Yeah, in that case of course, and my very first post in the thread remarked that we should definitely continue to do studies on the genetic differences in humans for the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. These are genetic factors that we have evidence for. However, we don't in the case of things like "intelligence" which is what the OP was getting at I think.

---

To which Kadagar replied...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Sorry, have no time to make a proper reply.

Just wanted to say that this interpretation of my thinking was wrong to say the least. One might also question the intellectual level of said poster. Don't turn this debate into something mindless please, as some have tried to already.

---

But given the OP said...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV in the OP

Is it then so far fetched to assume that the difference doesn't stop at the physical attributes, but that there also exist cognitive differences? These cognitive differences might then of course depend on physical differences in the brain...

---

I think Reenk's conclusions do not seem unreasonable.

You seem determined for some reason to turn this thread into a flame war Kadagar. First of all you tell Fragony and myself we are too PC (um... rofl), then you start goding centurion over his athletic capabilities, and now you're saying Reenk is saying that you said stuff when you say you didn't, even though it seems you really did...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This is by far the best explanation I have seen of the phenomenon, both for sense and clarity.

---

Cool, innit?

There are lots of fun statistics to be had with bell curves. or example, it is possible that the peak of the red curve is to the right of the blue one, but that the blue has a larger spread. In this case, despite the reds being more talented, in the extremes, the blues are the majority.

I've always wondered whether this isn't the difference between men and women in many aspects. Women are so overwhelmingly 'normal'. Most of the imbeciles and geniuses I know are men. What's more, even more rare are female combinations of the two: the clever idiot, and the confused genius. Or, as that 70's book title read: There are no female Einsteins because there are no female Jack the rippers.

Some think that intelligence is the soul. The high and mighty, the omnipotent, know all that need be known in the world. The intellectual elect who will raise humanity to new heights, sharing what they have learned, such that the evolution of the text book bibles can form a utopia that God himself (if he existed) would be proud of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Of course cognitive abilities differ between populations.


We don't need to look at cumbersome inductive evidence. We need only deduction.

If a trait is heriditable, and it is different between individuals, then it is subject to evolutionary pressure. So all we need is to show that cognitive abilities differ between individual people, and that there are heriditable aspects. I would show, but neither of these two is in much dispute.

It's all you need. Everything else is creationist obfuscation: the idea that evolution somehow stops at the human brain, which is the realm of the soul.

---

I was about to PC-jump you with the claim that evolution is measured in hundred of thousands of years, so there has never been enough time for our minds to divert racially.

Then I thought of our bodies clearly having had time enough to divert, and the follow up question, then why not the brain?

Only studies I have found would be ill to bring up here (Goodwin and stuff). Anyone know more about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Nerd

Some think that intelligence is the soul. The high and mighty, the omnipotent, know all that need be known in the world. The intellectual elect who will raise humanity to new heights, sharing what they have learned, such that the evolution of the text book bibles can form a utopia that God himself (if he existed) would be proud of.

---

It's all fine with me but don't fly airplanes into buildings and especially DON'T KNOCK ON MY DOOR ON SUNDAY MORNING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I was about to PC-jump you with the claim that evolution is measured in hundred of thousands of years, so there has never been enough time for our minds to divert racially.

Then I thought of our bodies clearly having had time enough to divert, and the follow up question, then why not the brain?

Only studies I have found would be ill to bring up here (Goodwin and stuff). Anyone know more about this?

---

I read Cochran and Harpending's 'The 10000 Year Explosion'.


Not the best book I've read. It did have one whopping eye-opener: evoultion hasn't slowed don. Evolution accelerated the past 10.000 years. Which had never occurred to me, but which makes a lot of sense. It's been an evolutionary roller-coaster ride., what with the spread to new climates, small wandering bands, agriculture, civilisation, cities.

Consider it an anti-dote to Jared Diamond, who descibes many of these developments, but reaches an opposite conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But PVC. One might as well say that people with African ancestry have darker skin. This is what we are talking about:

---

And? As Lous says, heritable traits...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Cool, innit?

There are lots of fun statistics to be had with bell curves. or example, it is possible that the peak of the red curve is to the right of the blue one, but that the blue has a larger spread. In this case, despite the reds being more talented, in the extremes, the blues are the majority.

---

I know (pleas don't use "innit" again though, it threatens to give me a migrain).

Quote:

---

I've always wondered whether this isn't the difference between men and women in many aspects. Women are so overwhelmingly 'normal'. Most of the imbeciles and geniuses I know are men. What's more, even more rare are female combinations of the two: the clever idiot, and the confused genius. Or, as that 70's book title read: There are no female Einsteins because there are no female Jack the rippers.

---

Interesting thought, dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I read Cochran and Harpending's 'The 10000 Year Explosion'.


Not the best book I've read. It did have one whopping eye-opener: evoultion hasn't slowed don. Evolution accelerated the past 10.000 years. Which had never occurred to me, but which makes a lot of sense. It's been an evolutionary roller-coaster ride., what with the spread to new climates, small wandering bands, agriculture, civilisation, cities.

Consider it an anti-dote to Jared Diamond, who descibes many of these developments, but reaches an opposite conclusion.

---

Now THAT is interesting.