Critique this: Why blacks run faster

[NojNoj]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

There's a fair amount of specialized knowledge about how to come off the blocks and get to full sprinting speed in the most efficient way.

And somehow the U.S., Jamaican, and Nigerian teams have managed to keep this a secret?

[NojNoj]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Yes, but it's so much easier to prove our pet theories with pseudo-science than with actual science.

OK, can you see after all the information that's been cited and all the extra information about how evolution works has been given (see old "Iggy" posts) which seems to be far from common knowledge around here (people keep assuming "natural selection" is the only evolutionary mechanism), the fact that your comments don't engage with any of it in a substantive way, lessons the credibility of your posts?

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

And somehow the U.S., Jamaican, and Nigerian teams have managed to keep this a secret?

No. But why should that matter?

Big changes in cricket haven't translated to great US success in the sport, either. If a country is not particularly interested in a sport, it's not going to matter.

I'll also note that, despite the fact you can run pretty much anywhere, the Nigerian Olympic team trains in the US.

So, again, that leads back to my proposed test. By including dozens of countries, you can begin to control for those kinds of things. Is there any good reason why my cross-country comparison shouldn't be done? I'm not understanding the pushback. You can claim that a test is "good enough" but, in my line of work, "good enough" means cutting corners and getting sub-optimal answers.

[NojNoj]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

No. But why should that matter?

Because no one country has any specialized knowledge compared with another (is perhaps better wording of what I intended to say)

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

I'll also note that, despite the fact you can run pretty much anywhere, the Nigerian Olympic team trains in the US.

Civil strife might have something to do with that...[/quote]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

So, again, that leads back to my proposed test. By including dozens of countries, you can begin to control for those kinds of things.

Look forward to seeing the results...

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

And somehow the U.S., Jamaican, and Nigerian teams have managed to keep this a secret?

Similar to the way Russian and Canadian hockey coaches seem more successful than coachs from other countries?

The point is that there is a tremendous amount of specialized traing that goes on.

Why do you think times have increased so dramatically in the past few decades that there are now female sprinters beating the times put up by Jesse Owens.

For that matter, just being able to run 200 or 400 meters at a dead sprint takes a signifigant amount of training and, to a lesser extent, the same is true of the 100 meter dash.

Anyone who doesn't believe this should try to run first 200 meters and then 400 meters at a dead sprint.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

Look forward to seeing the results...

Once again, if you want to push a scientific hypothesis, you test it. You're the one claiming there's sufficient reason to believe in a genetic basis, so it's on you to produce the valid evidence. You can't merely assert based on minimal (or no) evidence. "Plausible" scenarios aren't actual scientific evidence, by the way.

And once again, I'm not averse to a genetic explanation. But before I accept it, actual evidence is required. Not correlations and "just-so" stories.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Similar to the way Russian and Canadian hockey coaches seem more successful than coachs from other countries?

The point is that there is a tremendous amount of specialized traing that goes on.

Why do you think times have increased so dramatically in the past few decades that there are now female sprinters beating the times put up by Jesse Owens.

For that matter, just being able to run 200 or 400 meters at a dead sprint takes a signifigant amount of training and, to a lesser extent, the same is true of the 100 meter dash.

Anyone who doesn't believe this should try to run first 200 meters and then 400 meters at a dead sprint.

We're talking about the purest sprint, the 100. I know you want to cloudy the waters, but still...

And again, NO ONE has expressed the opinion that to compete at the elite level takes training. PLease stop this straw manning.

[NojNoj]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

You can't merely assert based on minimal (or no) evidence. "Plausible" scenarios aren't actual scientific evidence, by the way.

And once again, I'm not averse to a genetic explanation. But before I accept it, actual evidence is required. Not correlations and "just-so" stories.

I think you're implying there needs to be some standard of evidence that is really never employed in population genetics. We can't test every athlete from every country and compare their genomes--we have to go by what data is practically available.

I think I've pointed to plenty of evidence--it just happens to be circumstantial (as any evidence would be in this case--even the results of your study). From my perspective, it's as if you're arguing OJ must be innocent because there's not firm, unequivocal, double-blind studied evidence he's a murderer. Technically true, but that he's a murderer is the only reasonable explanation for the observed facts.

Combining the findings in genetics, what's currently known about evolution (i.e., how "clusters" of alleles can be completely dominant and transmitted throughout a region), and the results of 50 years of races (tests), I think the circumstantial evidence in this case is as strong as the OJ case.

Offer one reasonable alternative hypothesis for what's been found in the 10-second barrier question, and I'd change my mind.

[NojNoj]

One study conducted in Quebec in the 1980s found that black West African students had significantly higher amounts of "fast-twitch" muscle fibers—the kind that are responsible for short, explosive bursts of action—than white French Canadians did. (So far, there is no evidence that even extensive training can turn slow-twitch muscles into fast-twitch ones, though moving in the other direction is possible.)

How is that a "just-so" story or vague correlation?

[scule]

My assertion a couple of pages back that training is the most important factor comes from my education in kinetics and sport psychology, but if you need a reference, the simplest one would probably be Outliers. This notion of needing around 10,000 hours of practice at something to be an expert has been around for a while, because I got my degree years before that book got published and it was commonly accepted by the faculty then.

Also, for some easy-to-find examples of the need for training and its importance, see here (warning - PDF), here and here.

Basically, I was a bit glib on the importance or relevance of genetics earlier, but only to illustrate my point. In a vacuum, with all things being equal, you would probably expect to see the athlete with the greater genetic advantage win (say, the protein for more fast-twitch muscles). However, all things are never equal. In fact, look at the history of sport in every category. Generally, the most successful athletes in every sport in every competition since sport has become an organized and dedicated endeavour (essentially, since the death of amateurism) have been the ones who have been the best trained, had the most money available, and the most resources dedicated to them.

So my point is that Jamaican or West Africans might be faster than everyone else (but likely only by a very small amount, like a half-second or so), but you will only be able to say that they win because of that if you can show that everything else is equal. And everything else most certainly isn’t equal. Sprinting can be taught, and is taught, and requires way more training than some seem to think, and it is that training, born of a combination of the availability of resources and the culture that makes that possible, that allows individuals with some talent to become great. Put that same level of culture and dedication and resources in Russia and watch the sprinting finalist start getting paler as they get the training. Genetics help, but training wins.

Also, as an aside, the 100m is the most glamourous sprint from a media and common culture point of view, but there are plenty in the sprinting world who consider the 200m to be the real test of speed. Look it up if you want to see some interesting points (I won't link to anything here as that is an aside).

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by NojNoj

Offer one reasonable alternative hypothesis for what's been found in the 10-second barrier question, and I'd change my mind.

People have and you haven't.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

People have and you haven't.

In terms of the 100 metres the evidence is so stark I'm astonished people waste time debating it. There is even physical evidence of differences which help to explain why people with west african ancestry dominate this event.

‘It so happens that in the architecture of the human body of West African-origin runners, the centre of gravity is significantly higher than in runners of European origin,’ which puts them at an advantage in sprints on the track, he added.

Blacks generally have longer legs than white athletes, which means their belly-buttons are three centimeters higher than whites’, said Professor Bejan.

That means the black athletes have a ‘hidden height’ that is 3 per cent greater than whites’, which gives them a significant running speed advantage.

‘Locomotion is essentially a continual process of falling forward, and mass that falls from a higher altitude, falls faster, the professor explained.

In the pool, meanwhile, whites have the advantage because they have longer torsos, making their belly-buttons lower in the general scheme of body architecture.

‘Swimming is the art of surfing the wave created by the swimmer,’ said Professor Bejan.

‘The swimmer who makes the bigger wave is the faster swimmer, and a longer torso makes a bigger wave.

‘Europeans have a 3 per cent longer torso than West Africans, which gives them a 1.5 per cent speed advantage in the pool,’ he added.

Asians have the same long torsos as Europeans, giving them the same potential to be record-breakers in the pool.

But they often lose out to whites because whites are taller, he explained.

[arc harlots Z]

Originally Posted by Chen019

In terms of the 100 metres the evidence is so stark I'm astonished people waste time debating it. There is even physical evidence of differences which help to explain why people with west african ancestry dominate this event.

Sorry, but this is inaccurate. The belly button measurements they refer to in that article is indicative of torso-to-limb ratio, which does not map out onto race, but environment (people whose ancestors lived in tropical environments tend to have longer limbs and shorter torsos). Such environments are found not only in Africa, but Eurasia, Middle East, &c. So, of course, if you happen to test Africans whose ancestors DID happen to live in such regions, and whites whose ancestors DID NOT live in such regions, you get these results. Had they tested West Africans whose ancstors were from the steppes, or some Pygmy group, against Caucasians populations from the Middle East or southern Europe, or certain Asian peoples from South Asia, they of course would have gotten opposite results, and claimed whites/Asians had higher centers of gravity than blacks or West Africans (terms which they misleadingly interchange in the article). In short, the research is nearly worthless both because it is based on sloppy science (based on what I said above, one wonders how thorough they were in selecting their subjects), as well as the fact that the results are painstakingly obvious! Of course, if you select tropical populations (mistaknly labelled in this case as "black") and compare them with non-tropical populations (mistakenly labelled "white"), then the tropical populations will be longer-limbed, their center of gravity higher, etc. Everyone knows that.

Pretty sad research, in my opinion.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by arc harlots Z

Sorry, but this is inaccurate. The belly button measurements they refer to in that article is indicative of torso-to-limb ratio, which does not map out onto race, but environment (people whose ancestors lived in tropical environments tend to have longer limbs and shorter torsos). Such environments are found not only in Africa, but Eurasia, Middle East, &c. So, of course, if you happen to test Africans whose ancestors DID happen to live in such regions, and whites whose ancestors DID NOT live in such regions, you get these results. Had they tested West Africans whose ancstors were from the steppes, or some Pygmy group, against Caucasians populations from the Middle East or southern Europe, or certain Asian peoples from South Asia, they of course would have gotten opposite results, and claimed whites/Asians had higher centers of gravity than blacks or West Africans (terms which they misleadingly interchange in the article). In short, the research is nearly worthless both because it is based on sloppy science (based on what I said above, one wonders how thorough they were in selecting their subjects), as well as the fact that the results are painstakingly obvious! Of course, if you select tropical populations (mistaknly labelled in this case as "black") and compare them with non-tropical populations (mistakenly labelled "white"), then the tropical populations will be longer-limbed, their center of gravity higher, etc. Everyone knows that.

The darker-skinned Africans are, roughly-speaking, the most heat-adapted populations on the planet. Kinky hair, lower body fat, longer limbs, and shorter torso are ALL heat adaptations, at least partially.

Speaking of, heat adaptations make them better runners in a general sense, as well. Granted, 10 seconds of sprinting doesn't build up much heat, but it does make a difference in endurance running, at least slightly.

Saying Southern Europeans are as heat-adapted as sub-Saharan Africans is a little silly.

[arc harlots Z]

I wasn't talking about heat adaptedness generally, only lanky physiques (which are particular adaptations to heat adaptedness). That being said, it is ridiculous to claim that Sub-Saharan Africans are more heat-adapted than anyone else IN THIS SENSE (lanky physiques), being that there are several Sub-Saharan African types (forest populations, for instance), which do not show prevalence of this body type, actually showing quite an opposite prevalence.

[PrettyVacant]

Given what I saw yesterday there will be one non-slave descendent in the 100m Final in three weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Lemaitre

[Chief Pedant]

Originally Posted by John Mace

The mixture of African and European genes, for one*. If there is a genetic component, it's hard to say where it comes from when you're looking at African Americans. They are a sociological ethnic group but not a genetic one.

We don't know to what extent genetics plays in this and we don't know where those genes come from. Like most complex attributes, it's likely to be a suite of genes-- not all of which must be from Africa.

*Not saying it is, just pointing out that it's important to keep an open mind until the actual cause is determined.

Here's what we do know:
1. There are two possibilities for superior average performance between groups: Nature and nurture.
2. Epigenetics is a bit of a stretch for the "nature" explanations, so it's pretty much down to genes and nurture.
3. Even though race, by definition, is a "social construct," Self-identified Race/Ethnicity correlates surprisingly well to population origin for the majority of your genes. If your SIRE group is black, the majority of your gene pool is more likely than not to be closer to a sub-saharan mix than a european mix.
4. There may be more intra-race genetic variation than between races, but you only need a given genetic trait to vary in order to achieve marked group differences. The Tall versus the Short may have a zillion intra-group variations but the thing that separates them out for that characteristic is just one gene set. Average performance difference between groups is dependent upon penetration of a handful of genes governing a particular characteristic and the amount of the general variation for all the other genes is irrelevant.
5. No amount of nurturing has come close to eliminating average differences in SIRE groups. Somehow poorly coached, crappily cultured and environmentally handicapped black SIRE groups dominate the NBA despite the over-representation in the candidate pool by a factor of 4 for caucasion SIRE groups. Either droves of whites are abandoning their NBA dreams in favor of sales jobs, or they are culturally too lazy to work as hard on their basketball skillsets.
6. The ONLY reason "it's important to keep an open mind "and to keep pretending "we just don't know...it's hard to say where any genetic component comes from...not all the data is in...it's a complex issue..."... for physical skillsets is that we don't want there to be a genetically-based average performance difference for intellect-based skillsets. The latter has much more sensitive ramifications.
7. The majority of high-performing 100 meter sprinters are going to come from black SIRE groups-- "social construct," nurturing, and Creationists be damned.

OK...I admit #7 is a bet. Want to take the opposite bet? Or are you content to just keep blustering about how we just don't know for sure if it's genes or not that drive average performances? Sure; nurturing makes a huge difference for any given individual. But that nurturing is layered upon a maximum ability that is defined by genes. And your SIRE group is a proxy for your odds of having a particular set of genes that enable higher maximum.

It's actually pretty easy to tease out "what extent genetics plays in this." Normalize the nurturing for whatever category you want to look at. While you can't do this for an individual, you can easily do it for groups. It's not that hard to show that black kids overcome incredible nurturing odds and still dominate the NBA while poverty-stricken whites outperform wealthy blacks on the SAT.

Further study for those convinced it's genes for physical performance: Jon Entine's Taboo.

Further study for those convinced we should find fancier explanations: Kenan Malik's Strange Fruit.

Further study for those who just want to decide for themselves: http://www.webwallpapers.net/wp-cont...underwall1.jpg

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

5. No amount of nurturing has come close to eliminating average differences in SIRE groups. Somehow poorly coached, crappily cultured and environmentally handicapped black SIRE groups dominate the NBA despite the over-representation in the candidate pool by a factor of 4 for caucasion SIRE groups. Either droves of whites are abandoning their NBA dreams in favor of sales jobs, or they are culturally too lazy to work as hard on their basketball skillsets.

They don't have to be lazy, just persuaded that a different course would be better for their lives.

We have already seen where Jewish kids came to dominate the NBA and then stopped doing so. We have already seen where blacks first rose up in MLB while their numbers are now receding. We have gone through different eras when first Irish, then Italian, then black kids became the best boxers across all weight classes and now see differnt groups moving in to assert dominance.

Looking at a single sport in a single era and drawing a conclusion regarding what genetic types simply must dominate it finally comes down to cherry picking and special pleading.

Whatever the value of the rest of your arguments, this one is lacking.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

They don't have to be lazy, just persuaded that a different course would be better for their lives.

We have already seen where Jewish kids came to dominate the NBA and then stopped doing so. We have already seen where blacks first rose up in MLB while their numbers are now receding. We have gone through different eras when first Irish, then Italian, then black kids became the best boxers across all weight classes and now see differnt groups moving in to assert dominance.

Looking at a single sport in a single era and drawing a conclusion regarding what genetic types simply must dominate it finally comes down to cherry picking and special pleading.

Whatever the value of the rest of your arguments, this one is lacking.

The era of Jewish basketball success is always brought up, but it's a distraction. The Jewish kids didn't have to compete with any real umbers of black kids. You can't just take a moment in time and look at who might be dominating the sport. You have to ask if at that same time all groups were competing in a serious way.

[arc harlots Z]

Originally Posted by magellan01

The era of Jewish basketball success is always brought up, but it's a distraction. The Jewish kids didn't have to compete with any real umbers of black kids. You can't just take a moment in time and look at who might be dominating the sport. You have to ask if at that same time all groups were competing in a serious way.

You could also put it the other way around: today's black kids don't have to compete with any real umbers of Jewish kids.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by arc harlots Z

You could also put it the other way around: today's black kids don't have to compete with any real umbers of Jewish kids.

That's not really true. Every Jewish kid has the opportunity to play basketball and most do at a young age. Granted, there might be some who take themselves out of the athletic pool, but It's not the same situation at all. Unless you want to claim that Black kids had access and motivation to compete in basketball 60 or 70 years ago.

[Acsenray]

Opportunity? That doesn't create a valid statistical sample.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by magellan01

The era of Jewish basketball success is always brought up, but it's a distraction. The Jewish kids didn't have to compete with any real umbers of black kids. You can't just take a moment in time and look at who might be dominating the sport. You have to ask if at that same time all groups were competing in a serious way.

I notice you dodged the other examples that I included.

It would seem that you are the one attempting a distraction.

My overall point--that picking any ethnic group's superiority in an athletic field when the duration of that superiority is of limited duration is bad logic--remains true.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

I notice you dodged the other examples that I included.

It would seem that you are the one attempting a distraction.

My overall point--that picking any ethnic group's superiority in an athletic field when the duration of that superiority is of limited duration is bad logic--remains true.

I dont' know.

Isn't the fact that most Chess Grandmasters are Russian evidence that there's a chess gene that's far more common amongst Russians than non-Russians?

[tomndebb]

Deep Blue has Russian genes?

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Deep Blue has Russian genes?

Perhaps his programmers were Russians.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

I notice you dodged the other examples that I included.

It would seem that you are the one attempting a distraction.

My overall point--that picking any ethnic group's superiority in an athletic field when the duration of that superiority is of limited duration is bad logic--remains true.

So, do you agree that Jewish success in basketball decades ago is a bad example? Is it fair to take your non-defense of that point as an admission? Just want to be sure I understand you.

As far as your overall point, no one is saying that we can look at any instance of domination in any sport and be able to claim that that group's success is due to genetics. That's a straw man fit for Burning Man. The question has to be asked, are a all races/groups represented? Do they have access? Interest? As I mentioned earlier, NO ONE here is of the opinion that the dominance of Whites on the U.S. Ski Team is an indicator that Whites have some genetic predisposition making them batter skiers. That may be true. It may not. (Which would be my guess.) We are looking at sprinting. Everyone has participated in sprinting. Every kid plays tag and basic games that involve running away from or after someone. Kids progress to see who is the fastest. This is natural play. Later, kids play organized sports. Something that Black kids and White kids do to rather equal percentages. If you look at raw numbers, WAY more White kids play sports. And, again due to the pure numbers, I'd venture to say that WAY more white kids play football in high school. If the natural talent was evenly distributed between Blacks and Whites, one would expect to see roughly percentages at each position that align with the White/Black breakout. One would then expect to see roughly the same percentages at the college level. But we don't see that. We see the percentages at at each position move toward the heavily skewed distribution you see in the NFL, as shown in the link provided earlier. And at the elite level, you then see the virtual exclusion of Whites from the speed position. When you look at 100 meter athletes, the distribution is even more glaring.

So that is why we look at football. And sprinting. There is a suggestion there that Blacks are genetically predisposed to be faster sprinters than Whites.

There is NO such suggestion in all sports. Nor dare I say, any other sport. So, it is not anyone's job to defend any dominance at any point in time by any group. People should be asked to defend the claims they've made. Not one's they have not made.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

I dont' know.

Isn't the fact that most Chess Grandmasters are Russian evidence that there's a chess gene that's far more common amongst Russians than non-Russians?

What do you think? And why?

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by magellan01

So that is why we look at football. And sprinting. There is a suggestion there that Blacks are genetically predisposed to be faster sprinters than Whites.

Define "Whites" and define "Blacks".


Thanks.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by magellan01

What do you think? And why?

I was making a joke. I thought that was obvious.

I think it would be idiotic to even entertain the notion that there was such a thing as a Russian chess gene.

[holmes]

Originally Posted by magellan01

So, do you agree that Jewish success in basketball decades ago is a bad example? Is it fair to take your non-defense of that point as an admission? Just want to be sure I understand you.

The reason why Jewish success in basketball is relevant is because of what the society at large attributed their success: innate ability.

The film also examines the anti-Semitic responses to Jewish success in basketball. New York Daily News sports editor Paul Gallico wrote in the mid 1930s that basketball "appeals to the Hebrew with his Oriental background [because] the game places a premium on an alert, scheming mind and flashy trickiness, artful dodging and general smartalecness." We see how qualities such as cunning and wiliness were posited as the keys to Jewish basketball success and how these kinds of statements were indicative of early 20th century America.

As you may know, Jews were often depicted as devious and opportunistic and this was believed to be part of their core, their 'genetic' makeup so to speak. This in many ways mirrors the constant mantra of African-American success in sports being due to their innate abilities, with little regard to society, culture and how the combination creates a top performer.

For the African-American and blacks in general, just like the Jews before them; many believe that their success comes not from hard work, but by simply doing what comes natural.

I've posted this link in the past and I think it's still relevant because it addresses many of the points in this thread.

[Chief Pedant]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

They don't have to be lazy, just persuaded that a different course would be better for their lives.

We have already seen where Jewish kids came to dominate the NBA and then stopped doing so. We have already seen where blacks first rose up in MLB while their numbers are now receding. We have gone through different eras when first Irish, then Italian, then black kids became the best boxers across all weight classes and now see differnt groups moving in to assert dominance.

Looking at a single sport in a single era and drawing a conclusion regarding what genetic types simply must dominate it finally comes down to cherry picking and special pleading.

Whatever the value of the rest of your arguments, this one is lacking.

I'm underwhelmed, and I think you know why.
This is a specious argument, advanced only by those wanting to cloud the facts.

The Jewish kids who came to dominate the NBA and then stopped did so only because the NBA became open to all and they were no longer able to compete. Not to mention that during those days it was not a multi-million dollar career which would be preferentially chosen by anyone with aptitude for it.

When the NBA was opened to all and became a job opportunity that would reasonably be chosen above all others (assuming one had a choice), THEN the cream could rise to the top out of all groups. One can now reasonably say: The NBA is now open to all. The ratio of wannabe whites to wannabe blacks is hugely in favor of whites and the nurturing opportunity favors whites. Therefore if blacks kick their basketball asses in actually securing an opportunity in the NBA, it's nature and not nurture. This is not perfectly true in any sports example anywhere, but it the NBA it's pretty much black and white, which is why I use it. Open to both groups; sought after as the first goal for both groups; clear distinction in nurturing advantage to whites; clear performance superiorty as the sole reason for dominance by blacks over whites.

If you want to argue that whites just abrograte their NBA dreams because they are too lazy to practice hard or would rather have a quiet corporate career, have at it. I'm underwhelmed, as I said.

This pretense that it was the Jews yesterday, the blacks now and might be the Inuit tomorrow is not worthy of you, because you know it's silly.

But if you insist on holding it and proclaiming it, it does make the facts of nature less painful. Creationists have been proclaiming the same for years: We're all the same, pretty much. Sure we are. In fact we all just showed up on the planet recently and we've all got the same genes.

[Chief Pedant]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Define "Whites" and define "Blacks".


Thanks.

People who Self-identify with the category White.
People who Self-identify with the category Black.

As it turns out, these SIRE groups correlate amazingly well with those who have genetic mixes of either mostly (recent) European stock or of (recent) sub-saharan stock.

They are horribly broad categories, with a large social construct that overlays them. For instance, someone with a 50% admixture of each might describe himself as "black."

But as an average rule of thumb, a self-description of Black or White assigns a greater probability for genes belonging to one pool or the other. So, for instance, if there is a gene set for sprinting that is most prevalent in blacks from West Africa, a SIRE group of black gives me a greater chance of having that gene set than a SIRE group of white.

These debates often degenerate into arguments about how finely to lump or split. But that's not the argument here. The argument is: If you do lump into these two groups for sprinting/basketball, is the performance difference genetic? It is, even if the categories are not otherwise internally related genetically.

Think of this example of grouping. The Tall, over 6 feet, and the short, under 5 feet. Possible explanations are nurture (nutrition, or stretching, or something) and nature--genes. Normalize for the nurture, and the difference is genetic.

It makes no difference if the Tall group is otherwise genetically related or if they are good groups, or if there are social constructs around who gets to call themselves Tall, or anything else.

So the argument at hand is that power sprinting sports and the NBA--two areas where there is clear inclusion at the front end of all groups, clear normalization of nurturing, and clear differences in outcomes--are strong examples that nature (gene differences) are at play.

It's not about whether or not we should categorize people as black or white. That's a social argument built for a social construct.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by magellan01

So, do you agree that Jewish success in basketball decades ago is a bad example? Is it fair to take your non-defense of that point as an admission? Just want to be sure I understand you.

NO. The Jewish example is imperfect, but it reamins an historic phenomenon. Absent the black players, are you really claiming that all the Germans, Irish, Anglo-Saxons, and others were hopelessly outclassed by the Jewish players? Are you saying that Jewish players would be the second best players in the NBA, now? Where are they?
Looking at an example of an ethnic domination of a sport for a limited period to arrive at a "genetic" explanation is simply cherry picking and that is true whether it is Jewish players in previous years or black players, today.
And I see you are still avoiding the other examples.

Originally Posted by magellan01

As far as your overall point, no one is saying that we can look at any instance of domination in any sport and be able to claim that that group's success is due to genetics. That's a straw man fit for Burning Man.

Bullshit. It is a claim made repeatedly on this board for a dozen years. Not every racialist makes the claim, but it is made often and with sufficient consistency that a claim that it is a straw man is utter balderdash.

Originally Posted by magellan01

So that is why we look at football. And sprinting. There is a suggestion there that Blacks are genetically predisposed to be faster sprinters than Whites.

And the suggestion is valid to the point where someone would actually make the effort to do a rigorous scientific examination. So far, no one has done any such thing. They have looked at a couple of countries with some suggestive testimony and drawn a conclusion without actually doing the real work to discover the truth.
As I noted earlier, it shoud not be that difficult to actually compare the DNA of top sprinters and then go back to the various points of origin to discover the actual locales where similar DNA is found and then check relative speed of people from those locales. Until someone does the science to show that, everything is speculative.

As to your insistence that anyone can and everyone does sprint and that, therefore, any perceived differences must be innate: I am sure that you believe that, but you have not actually provided a reason for anyone else to accept your belief. It may be true that sprinting requires less training than more complex sports, but it is only your belief that training cannot improve it. (I know, you said you could never improve your speed, but that is a bit anecdotal for a serious discussion. We don't even know whether you had a decent coach schooled in sprinting.)

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

I'm underwhelmed, and I think you know why.
This is a specious argument, advanced only by those wanting to cloud the facts.

You have provided no facts, and, like magellan01, you are avoiding the broader argument.

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

The Jewish kids who came to dominate the NBA and then stopped did so only because the NBA became open to all and they were no longer able to compete.

To whom was it closed previously? The NBA was really discriminating against Irish and Italians? Now whose claims are specious?

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

If you want to argue that whites just abrograte their NBA dreams because they are too lazy to practice hard or would rather have a quiet corporate career, have at it. I'm underwhelmed, as I said.

And if you want to run away after building a straw man, go ahead, but that is not what I said.

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

But if you insist on holding it and proclaiming it, it does make the facts of nature less painful. Creationists have been proclaiming the same for years: We're all the same, pretty much. Sure we are. In fact we all just showed up on the planet recently and we've all got the same genes.

More straw men? Talk about "unworthy" of a position.
I have never made any claim that all populations have the same genes. I have never made any claim that all populations have the same capacities for all efforts. That sort of "you [liberals?] just think we're all equal" argument is the sort employed by NDD and over at Stormfront. I have made no such statement. I have been pretty consistent for a very long time in making two points: 1) that if we are going to make claims about populations, we need to identify those populations accurately; 2) that when someone tries to make a population discussion into a "race" discussion, it will inevitably be used to make a broad and misleading claim about a much larger group than the population examined.
You do it here when you talk about "blacks" and "whites" even though you try to avoid that discussion at the end. Most of this discussion has at least focused on people from the west coast of sub-Saharan Africa. As soon as you use the word "blacks," you have included people from the East coast, from Madagascar and Southern Africa, and from Namibia, as well as the central regions. If you are going to use fuzzy language and make broad claims, then you are supporting the people who really do think like NDD and a few of our current racialists who spend a lot of time trying to lump together unlike people based on accidents of pigment and geography. If that bothers you, then use more precise language.
And you really should not accuse me of things I have never said when my words are still posted where we can see that I never said them.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

NO. The Jewish example is imperfect, but it reamins an historic phenomenon. Absent the black players, are you really claiming that all the Germans, Irish, Anglo-Saxons, and others were hopelessly outclassed by the Jewish players? Are you saying that Jewish players would be the second best players in the NBA, now? Where are they?

No. I'm saying that the Jewish kids did well because so few other "groups" embraced the sport the way they did. Blacks, Hispanics, and smaller ethnic groups were simply not present. Also, you go back far enough and gym shoes were a luxury that the poorest ethnic groups could not even think about.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Looking at an example of an ethnic domination of a sport for a limited period to arrive at a "genetic" explanation is simply cherry picking and that is true whether it is Jewish players in previous years or black players, today.

YES! It is cherry picking!! Of course it is!!! Because—again—NO ONE is saying that all domination by any group at any time in any sport can be explained by genetics. You keep offering up this straw man. Now, if you look at sprinting or the speed positions in today's NFL—YES, CHERRY PICKING!—you are faced with the very strong suggestion that the tastes humans share a genetic advantage.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

And I see you are still avoiding the other examples.

Sigh. Oh, all those ones that have a weak suggestion of there being a genetic component? How about instead I argue for positions I do hold? if you have a specific question you'd like to ask about a particular instance of domination in a particular sport, ask away.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Bullshit. It is a claim made repeatedly on this board for a dozen years. Not every racialist makes the claim, but it is made often and with sufficient consistency that a claim that it is a straw man is utter balderdash.

Have I made such a claim? Has anyone in this discussion made that claim? If not, why do you bring it up? If so, please point to who in this discussion did so.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

As to your insistence that anyone can and everyone does sprint and that, therefore, any perceived differences must be innate: I am sure that you believe that, but you have not actually provided a reason for anyone else to accept your belief.

First, I have not claimed that any difference is or must be innate. I have stated repeatedly that training can improve performance. That's unquestionable. My point is—and still is—that you can't take someone of average speed and turn him into a speed demon. My reason for believing so is real world observation spent playing sports. Anecdotal, yes. But it seems so obvious that the burden falls to you and others who choose to take the (apparently) ridiculous position that one can become a speed demon without the right genes present.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

It may be true that sprinting requires less training than more complex sports, but it is only your belief that training cannot improve it. (I know, you said you could never improve your speed, but that is a bit anecdotal for a serious discussion. We don't even know whether you had a decent coach schooled in sprinting.)

Again, I never said that training could not improve one's sprinting ability. I never said it because I don't believe it. Training would help anyone be faster. But faster doesn't equal FAST.

Please tell me you got a good deal on all the straw.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Please tell me you got a good deal on all the straw.

Why? I'll just use the stuff you've ripped out of the arguments you have attributed to me that I have not made. You are getting all worked up over things I have not said and it has gotten boring.

I will note:

Originally Posted by magellan01

YES! It is cherry picking!! Of course it is!!! Because—again—NO ONE is saying that all domination by any group at any time in any sport can be explained by genetics.

Originally Posted by magellan01

genetic factor is the opposite of worthless. It is the most important ingredient. If it weren't, you'd see more whites winning sprints in the Olympics and at the speed positions in the NFL

Originally Posted by NojNoj

Study after study shows that genetics means everything at the elite level, because everyone who gets there is plenty motivated (i.e,. they all train as hard) and very slight differences make all the difference.

which looks pretty much like you are mistaken in your claim, (unless you are deliberately twisting my words to claim that I am arguing against all sports on all occasions, which would be a position you have imagined and is not in my text).

The domination by specific groups on specific occasions is often attributed to genetics and when counter examples are provided for the same sports, the genetics people fall back on the aspects of opportunity and environment that they dismiss when talking abut their favorite "example" of genetics. ::: shrug ::: I will wait until the science is undertaken before I get caught up in defending specualtive stuff. So far, the science regarding actual populations has not been carried out.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Why? I'll just use the stuff you've ripped out of the arguments you have attributed to me that I have not made. You are getting all worked up over things I have not said and it has gotten boring.

I have been making claims regarding sprinting and the speed positions in the NFL. Both of those require great natural sprinting ability. Training will improve anyone's performance, but you must be born fast to begin with.

Do you agree with those positions or not?

And then you ask me to talk about Jewish basketball success, which I do NOT think is genetically based.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

I will note:
which looks pretty much like you are mistaken in your claim, (unless you are deliberately twisting my words to claim that I am arguing against all sports on all occasions, which would be a position you have imagined and is not in my text).

Note all you want. But you keep asking me to defend shit I've not said. Please stop it. My position is that I think there is strong evidence for a genetic determining factor when it comes to sprinting. Not basketball, not cricket, not curling, not hurling, not fencing, not baseball, not wrestling, not jujitsu, not gold, not skiing, not pistol shooting, not rugby, not synchronized swimming, not hockey, not archery, and not quiditch. Sprinting. Period. As it applies to track and field and the speed positions in football.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

The domination by specific groups on specific occasions is often attributed to genetics and when counter examples are provided for the same sports, the genetics people fall back on the aspects of opportunity and environment that they dismiss when talking abut their favorite "example" of genetics. ::: shrug ::: I will wait until the science is undertaken before I get caught up in defending specualtive stuff. So far, the science regarding actual populations has not been carried out.

(emphasis added)
Please restrict asking me to support positions to those positions I actually hold and have put forth.

Perhaps a large farm interest would be interested in purchasing that which you seem to have an endless supply of.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Note all you want. But you keep asking me to defend shit I've not said. Please stop it.

You first.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

You first.

Here is where the confusion began:

Originally Posted by tomndebb

I notice you dodged the other examples that I included.

It would seem that you are the one attempting a distraction.

My overall point--that picking any ethnic group's superiority in an athletic field when the duration of that superiority is of limited duration is bad logic--remains true.

So, after you offered your Jewish basketball example and I dealt with that—with no attempted defense by you—you insist in making the general statement about a general ethnic group in an (generic) athletic field. This, taken in tandem with your previous post, is asking me to defend a position I do not hold (and I don't think is held by anyone in this thread) and have specifically disavowed earlier in the thread. So, you can stop with the Argumentum ad Humongous Scarecrow.

Good? Good.

[tomndebb]

So, your position is that if you wander in to a discussion and cherry pick something with which to disagree and the person whose argument you have challenged does no more than re-assert the overall position he had actually made by noting that your challenge is limited, (and not really all that successful), without making any further claims, then he is creating a straw man?

Your "logic" is unimpressive.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

So, your position is that if you wander in to a discussion and cherry pick something with which to disagree and the person whose argument you have challenged does no more than re-assert the overall position he had actually made by noting that your challenge is limited, (and not really all that successful), without making any further claims, then he is creating a straw man?

Your "logic" is unimpressive.

Your scarecrow erecting is when you think you've discredited a particular point that was made by expecting someone to defend a point which he did not make and reflects a position he does not hold.

Let's see if you get it this time: I, nor no one else in this thread, is of the opinion that a particular group dominating a particular sport indicates that there is likely a genetic advantage at work. NO ONE. Yet, you expect people to defend that position. You do this repeatedly. We're talking about sprinting; not basketball, not boxing and not hockey. Perhaps you intended to post in some other thread on some other message board where those sports were being discussed. Look up at the thread title: there's "blacks", "running" and "fast". Really...look! Now, if your goal is to simply distract and derail the discussion, I'll give you an A+. God knows, that sort of behavior is your strong suit, so it's no real surprise. On the other hand, if you think you've actually shed any light on the actual positions being held, or moved the discussion along in any helpful way, uh, no.

[Chief Pedant]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

You have provided no facts, and, like magellan01, you are avoiding the broader argument.

To whom was it closed previously? The NBA was really discriminating against Irish and Italians? Now whose claims are specious?

Let me recommend you read Taboo more carefully to understand the history of the Hebrew league.

Like many pursuits--business and athletics--basketball and basketball leagues have a long history of being closely related to culture. Just because lawn bowling is highly popular among Sicilians doesn't mean they have a special gene for it, even if the Sicilians set up lawn bowling leagues highly popular within their culture. It's a niche activity. It is a bad example to parse out nurture and nature. And it's a specious argument to pretend that history of the Hebrew leagues has anything to do with the argument being made here about today's NBA as if the basketball world back then bears any resemblance to today's NBA culture.

You know this, but you cling to this pretense that there are simply cultural shifts with one culture superseding another as the whims of society and interests make their way through history.

Nonsense. Bullshit, even.

Today, the NBA is a pinnacle career, offering fame and fortune, not to mention an endless supply of loose women, to all who get there. It is a prize sought as the first goal by almost any young man who picks up a basketball. The culture has embraced basketball so broadly that it is not limited to a niche segment.

So now we have a good test case for looking at disproportionate outcomes when the playing field is leveled--i.e. the nurturing component is normalized. In fact, the nurturing advantage still accrues to the young white man with good aptitude: the best coaching; the most stable social and family life; the greatest adult participation in their lives; the best choice of schools and programs; the best opportunity for summer camps...you name it, and as a typical average boost, the nurturing favor is overwhelmingly in favor of the young white basketball wannabe.

The ratio of white wannabes to black wannabes is 4:1 or so, in round numbers. I don't follow basketball closely, but based on my occasional observation of who is actually playing and who is actually a key player, with the exception of a handful of tall gawky Eastern Europeans from a fairly small population group there (and yes; that's genes, too), the ratio of white to black players must be closer to 1:4--perhaps even more lopsided if you take away the tall guys and focus on ability-per-height, so to speak.

To let this obvious performance difference get packaged up as a simple cultural shift similar to the Hebrew league is beneath you.

Now if you just want to argue that "black" and "white" are stupid groupings, and that we should fine-tune our populations, I'm on board. I'm not sure the Mbuti are well represented in the NBA. Nevertheless I'm confident that the NBA is an excellent proof that there are average differences in physical performance ability between the SIRE grouping black and the SIRE grouping white.

[Chief Pedant]

I'm inclined to add that, of the young wannabes for the NBA, we lose a far greater percentage of blacks than whites to such things as the idiotic war on drugs and the generally chaotic social structure facing the young black man. From a wannabe-to-success ratio standpoint, this makes the case even more compelling for an overwhelming physical performance advantage that drives their superior outcome. Consider how many more candidate blacks than whites are lost to circumstances having nothing to do with their performance ability.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

I'm inclined to add that, of the young wannabes for the NBA, we lose a far greater percentage of blacks than whites to such things as the idiotic war on drugs and the generally chaotic social structure facing the young black man. From a wannabe-to-success ratio standpoint, this makes the case even more compelling for an overwhelming physical performance advantage that drives their superior outcome. Consider how many more candidate blacks than whites are lost to circumstances having nothing to do with their performance ability.

A solid point. I never even thought about that. We had a very talented black basketball player at my high school who just wouldn't bother to make the grades. He could have, he wasn't stupid. He just decided not to, and the racist whites running the school were all to happy to let him fail, so their favored white sons could play instead. Nobody pushed him to succeed.

[Randvek]

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

I'm inclined to add that, of the young wannabes for the NBA, we lose a far greater percentage of blacks than whites to such things as the idiotic war on drugs and the generally chaotic social structure facing the young black man. From a wannabe-to-success ratio standpoint, this makes the case even more compelling for an overwhelming physical performance advantage that drives their superior outcome. Consider how many more candidate blacks than whites are lost to circumstances having nothing to do with their performance ability.

I believe the opposite. One key difference for whites and blacks, I think, is that whites tend to believe that they can succeed if they go to school, kiss ass, get a 9-5 and work up the ladder. Blacks tend to not believe that. I believe that the result is that blacks are much more likely to try non-standard career moves: military service, athletics, drugs/crime, etc. I don't think a black all-star and a white CEO are really all that different, in that respect...

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

And it's a specious argument to pretend that history of the Hebrew leagues has anything to do with the argument being made here about today's NBA as if the basketball world back then bears any resemblance to today's NBA culture.

You know this, but you cling to this pretense that there are simply cultural shifts with one culture superseding another as the whims of society and interests make their way through history.

Nonsense. Bullshit, even.

And you join magellen01 on fixating on the issue of Jewish basketball players, (for which, despite your handwaving, you have still failed to make a case), while ignoring any other situation.

Note, I have never claimed that any group could not be genetically inclined to dominate any given sport. I simply note that the science to support such conjectures has not yet been done and that there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence and cherry picking being used to insist on a conclusion that has not been established.

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

Today, the NBA is a pinnacle career, offering fame and fortune, not to mention an endless supply of loose women, to all who get there. It is a prize sought as the first goal by almost any young man who picks up a basketball. The culture has embraced basketball so broadly that it is not limited to a niche segment.

So now we have a good test case for looking at disproportionate outcomes when the playing field is leveled--i.e. the nurturing component is normalized. In fact, the nurturing advantage still accrues to the young white man with good aptitude: the best coaching; the most stable social and family life; the greatest adult participation in their lives; the best choice of schools and programs; the best opportunity for summer camps...you name it, and as a typical average boost, the nurturing favor is overwhelmingly in favor of the young white basketball wannabe.

It is nice that you imagine the previous paragraph to be true. However, like your odd straw man that claimed that I was portraying white kids as "too lazy" to make the effort to get into the NBA, your whole premise is little more than wishful thinking.

There have been only 340 openings in the NBA in the past years. It is a long shot for anyone to get into the NBA, regardless how good they are. Despite your impressive looking "ratios," the reality is that you have presented no information regarding who does or does not actually attempt to get into the NBA. Sports has always been the "way out" for the poor, and the rich and middle class have tended to look elsewhere for careers. Given the urban association with basketball, it is hardly surprising that an urban culture would dominate it. It is all very exciting to talk about the lure of the NBA, but when even the medical profession (traditionally a very high image and good paying field) is seeing a decline in white male applicants, you have to show more than some "ratios" pulled out of the air to insist that it can only be some genetic component that has led to a majority black NBA. Other factors could include "steering." (Remember when the accepted wisdom was that blacks simply did not have the right stuff to be quarterbacks--until someone went and interviewed a lot of black former high school quarterbacks who spent their college and NFL careers in other positions, and discovered that an awful lot of them had been placed in those positions because their coaches "knew" that they would "do better" there?) It is quite possible that the same sort of thing occurs today, with a lot of white kids spending less playing time on the court because their coaches "know" that the black kid in the next locker has the "real" chance to make it big. And if someone comes up with the nonsense claim that the coaches always play the best people because they need to win, I will point to all those quarterbacks turned wide receivers and laugh. Coaches may want to win, but in the real world, they are as constrained by preconceived notions as anyone else.

It may very well be that there is a strong genetic component to the population that provides the NBA with the majority of its best players; I have no interest in denying the possibility. However, what has so far been presented in this thread remains unscientific and little more than anecdotal and I see no reason to simply accept it without evidence, either.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Let's see if you get it this time: I, nor no one else in this thread, is of the opinion that a particular group dominating a particular sport indicates that there is likely a genetic advantage at work. NO ONE.

Then just what are you proposing?

I think you are protesting too much and that this whole thread denies that claim.

Originally Posted by magellan01

Now, if your goal is to simply distract and derail the discussion, I'll give you an A+. God knows, that sort of behavior is your strong suit, so it's no real surprise. On the other hand, if you think you've actually shed any light on the actual positions being held, or moved the discussion along in any helpful way, uh, no.

You mean that you think your perennial atttacks on my person without providing any serious data are moving the thread along?

Nothing I have posted is "distracting" from the discussion. I am giving posters an opportunity to provide the scientific information that supports their beliefs, (and running into a lot of personal antipathy and anecdotes, instead). ::: shrug :::

[Chief Pedant]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

And you join magellen01 on fixating on the issue of Jewish basketball players, (for which, despite your handwaving, you have still failed to make a case), while ignoring any other situation.
<snip>
Other factors could include "steering."
<snip, above>

It may very well be that there is a strong genetic component to the population that provides the NBA with the majority of its best players; I have no interest in denying the possibility. However, what has so far been presented in this thread remains unscientific and little more than anecdotal and I see no reason to simply accept it without evidence, either.

If you have convinced yourself, have at it. The "Jewish" example you cite is irrelevant, as I've said ad nauseum. Niche cultural activities are not a good way to sort out nature v nurture.
With the NBA example (or any number of power/sprinting sports such as certain track and field events), what you see is not just the handful at the pinnacle, but domination at every level, with over-representation from grade school on of blacks. This is true in wealthy suburbs and it's true in the ghetto. It's true in church leagues and it's true in high school and colleges. It's just an obvious point of observation: on average blacks are overrepresented regardless of social situation, period.

Now perhaps you want to argue it's cultural. Blacks get steered to the NBA and whites get steered to Harvard. The evidence you want is equally a straw man, because you apparently want some un-identified allele or something. I don't have it, so enjoy your delusion. But what I do have is a very simple argument:

1. Equal desire for the same profession as the FIRST choice when it's available. The vast majority of young men with any aptitude toward basketball are going to pursue it until it is not a viable pursuit any longer. Young white men are not going to choose to go to Harvard and do sculls if they can go to Duke and be on the starting varsity basketball team. They aren't going to decline an NBA offer to pursue a corporate career.
2. A vast over-representation at the wannabe level. There are way more white kids picking up a basketball than there are black kids, just because of the population difference.
3. A vast nurturing favor towards talented whites than talented blacks, for the reasons I listed above.
4. At every level, including the NBA, a complete reversal of representation ratios to wannabe ratios.

That's evidence of a very good quality. "Anecdotal" my ass. If what you are looking for is some sort of academic paper outlining performance superiority of a given "race" based on genes, you can continue to bluster. In the academic world, such blunt assertions are tantamount to academic suicide, so I think you can rest easy for a while while the academic world dances around it.

But in the long run, science will win, and in the short run, everyone who shops for sperm and wants their babies to be athletic will look for athletic parents.

It's all in the genes, no matter how fancifully you want to dance around it. If you belong to a SIRE group with a higher prevelance for genes that convey a higher maximum performance, your group is going to be over-represented because of that higher prevalence as long as nurturing influences are normalized.

And if you are looking at broad averages for broad groups in the sports mentioned, feel free to look at the pretty pictures on the sports page and ask yourself if those superiorly-performing athletes are all the same SIRE group for the same reason the Jewish kids dominated the Hebrew leagues, while the white kids of today decided Accounting was the way to go. Will the Inuit be next on the sport pages? Stay tuned.

As I said in my first post, the ONLY reason these broad average differences in physical skillsets are fought against so vigorously is to avoid letting the door crack open for differences in other skillsets such as those related to intellect. I'm not sure anyone really gives a crap if belonging to a black SIRE group gives you better odds of making the NBA because you are more likely to possess certain genes. Good on those kids. It's still individual performance that's being measured for any given NBA player.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

Now perhaps you want to argue it's cultural.

I don't want to argue it in either direction. I want you to provide evidence that there is any validity to your claims and that someone has done some actual research into the topic.

"Blacks" dominate at every level from "grade school"? They certainly never dominated in my kids' schools and we have more than just a tiny handful of kids who are black in our neighborhoods.

So, perhaps a bit more than handwaving and grandiose declarations that we are supposed to accept on your say-so.

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

1. Equal desire for the same profession as the FIRST choice when it's available. The vast majority of young men with any aptitude toward basketball are going to pursue it until it is not a viable pursuit any longer. Young white men are not going to choose to go to Harvard and do sculls if they can go to Duke and be on the starting varsity basketball team. They aren't going to decline an NBA offer to pursue a corporate career.
2. A vast over-representation at the wannabe level. There are way more white kids picking up a basketball than there are black kids, just because of the population difference.
3. A vast nurturing favor towards talented whites than talented blacks, for the reasons I listed above.
4. At every level, including the NBA, a complete reversal of representation ratios to wannabe ratios.

And the evidence that this is not just something that you hope is true?