One might argue, for African-Americans, that increased racial hybridization gives them, as a group, a “better” genetic makeup than white Americans, as a group. Generally speaking, you are better off with as much genetic variety in your background as possible. I don’t know the accepted estimates, but one I’ve heard is that your “average” African-American has about 25% of his gentic background derived from white Americans (or you could say Europeans). And while many “white” Americans may have an African ancestor somewhere in the not too distant past, I think we can safely say that the genetic hybridazation for white Americans is much lower than for Blacks.
This is pure speculation on my part, but something to think about.
You’ve made these arguments before and they have been disposed of. Merely repeating them in a sarcastic tone adds nothing.
I’ve addressed this earlier as well.
It occurs to me that you may have merely intended this post as a face-saving exit from the thread. If so, adios.
Not much to go with here. You’re back to where you started “a couple of guys went out and found” etc. If you have a study to put up, let’s see it - claiming that there are such studies doesn’t do much.
That’s fine, but you have not exactly been relying on him a great authority. Your language here implied that since he was a source of a genetic advantage argument, anything he said could be regarded as having additional weight. That does not follow.
No, he did not - he provided exactly one example (Tony Dungy - and it appears that he merely broke his school’s record, not national collegiate records). One example - or any number, for that matter - is completely meaningless is establishing a pattern. Doug Flutie had a college career far more distinguished than Tony Dungy, and he is as white as they come, and he couldn’t get a job in the NFL. He might have been converted to some other position had he had the talent for it, but he didn’t so he had to go off and toil in the minor leagues until he eventually broke the NFL.
Scott Frost, as quarterback, led Nebraska (a far better program than Dungy’s alma mater) to an undefeated season, but was converted to special teams obscurity in the NFL. And I know that Tom Tupa, long term NFL punter, was a quarterback at Ohio State, another major NCAA team. Both of these guys are white.
In general, there is a difficulty in saying that “so-and-so was a great quarterback but was converted to another position”, in that you have to know who it is that is saying the guy is a great quarterback. Obviously not the NFL guys that didn’t draft him or converted him. Maybe the sports media. But this runs into the problem that I alluded to earlier - your study made the assumption that media attitudes are a reflection of NFL decision maker attitudes. You can’t have it both ways. I suspect that the notion that so-and-so would have made a great quarterback is merely the belief of guys who have a stake in the racial stereotyping debate. Meaningless.
The only thing that would show anything would be a study that compared stats of players at similar levels of collegiate competition, and showed a disparity in outcome. And even that would, in light of my earlier objection, have to account for talent at other positions. (IOW, a black quarterback with borderline NFL throwing skills but with legitimate NFL running ability might be converted to a starting role at another position, while another quarterback with similar borderline throwing skills but with no other abilities might hang on as a third string backup quarterback and occasionally luck into a shot at a starting role).
This is absolutely bogus. In the early 90s there were at least three different black starting quarterbacks (Randall Cunningham, Warren Moon, and Rodney Peete). Also Jeff Blake, in the mid-90s. Maybe more for all I know - these come to me off the top of my head. In the 80’s there was at least one starter (Doug Williams). Tom, your own cite says:
Which is consistent with what I said - a lot of fluctuation, with a gradual upward trend.
I understand that you may feel the need to bolster a weak position, but posting blatantly false information is not the way to go about it. Though I will allow that you probably picked up this nonsense somewhere else and posted it out of ignorance.
This is wrong on so many levels its almost hard to know where to start.
The fact that you are looking at “history” in the manner that you are makes your statistics less meaningful, not more. Essentially by looking at a longer time period you are adding more data points, giving more opportunity for variation and outliers. You can’t look at each point as an independent data point, obviously, because there will be strong correlation from year to year, as incumbents tend to keep their jobs. But over time, as new people come into the league, you can expect substantial change due to the small sample size in each year.
It is simply absurd to compare the likelihood of this variation to the likelihood of chance causing the majority of Black quarterbacks in the league being better rushers than every white quarterback in the league, even in one season. The likelihood of the latter is incredibly small. (I also think another black quarterback was #7).
Beyond this, you cannot even begin trying to dismiss a single year as being a fluctuation until you’ve at least managed to establish that it was only one season. Unsurprisingly, you have not bothered to do this. Had you looked into the matter, you might have noticed that the same situation prevailed last year as well. And similar two years ago (to a slightly lesser extent). Not completely convincing, if you insist, considering that many of the same players were playing, but there were some others (Kordell Stewart) in the mix as well. And a lot of different white guys too.
And had you looked at the records of the other Black quarterbacks that I named earlier, you would have noticed that they too were average to great runners. Of course you couldn’t have looked at their records as you deny that they existed. But by your own account, this means that the majority of Black quarterbacks that have played the game have been well into the upper levels of rushing quarterbacks. So you are still as wrong as ever.
Further, a logical error. My pointing to Black quarterbacks as being good rushers had two implications. One was to point to a disparity that is unexplainable according to your theory, and the other was to provide a non-stereotyping rationale for Black quarterbacks being shifted to other positions. Even if you could legitimately argue that my facts represent a fluke occurrence - which you can’t, as above - this would only be a dodge for the first argument. It would still not begin to support your argument about black quarterbacks being shifted. In this case, you are the one trying to prove something, and you cannot prove something by dismissing evidence in favor of alternative explanations as being flukes.
That’s fine. In the absence of data on this particular subject, all we have is gratuitous assertions, and the assertions of these sportswriters are as good as mine. I can’t prove that particular statement. My point here is that the assertions of these sportswriters do not count as evidence - we appear to agree on that, if nothing else.
You’re right on this. I got my dates confused and thought they had moved out of the starter position or retired by the 90s.
So, perhaps there have been reasons to move some kids away from quarterback.
As to the majority of kids moved away from QB, you get to win this on points, because the studies have all been in print, not on-line, and I have not kept the journals (and never owned the books where they were first published.)
I don’t have a problem with grienspace’s suggestion of how a physical discrepancy might occur, but since I am aware (though I cannot prove in this forum) that kids have been moved regardless of their QB talents, I am not persuaded that we are seeing an actual physical difference over a change in coaching emphasis.
Are you saying that the percentage of athletes that played professional sports in the past disportionately came from the lower socio-economic realms are lower than today? And the reason is that it’s because professional athletics are more lucrative today than in the past? I guess I’m confused here. Maybe if you could clarify a bit I could understand your train of thought.
Here’s my understanding - in the past, a disportionate number of people who played professional sports came from the lower socio-economic strata. The money offered, while not that much more than other fields of endeavor (save for those that required extensive education and training), was still enough of an incentive for those with the ability and talent to pursue. If one’s choices were to be a coal miner (Jerry West), steel factory worker (Johnny Unitas), or share cropper (Ty Cobb) versus becoming a professional athlete, then the decision to spend time and energy in training to become a professional athlete (the motivation) made sense.
Today, a large number of people who play professional sports still come from the lower socio-economic strata. Granted, the numbers aren’t as striking as in the past. But now the rewards are so much greater. In fact, I would conjecture that because the rewards are so great in becoming a professional athlete today that it distorts the perception of those from the lower socio-economic classes. That is, there’s less incentive in exploring alternative options. Or at least, there’s a perception that “my only ticket out of the ghetto” is profesional sports.
Growth of disparity with respect to what? With respect of the choices available to various socio-economic groups or with respect to incomes earned today in professional sports versus in the past?
Why not? In fact, Byron “Whizzer” White is a very good example of someone who had a greater range of options than the average professional athlete. He had both athletic and intellectual capabilities that allowed him to excel in both arenas. That he chose to become a lawyer just means that he felt he time would be better spent in pursuing that activity. The same case could probably not be said for Ty Cobb, Johnny Unitas, or Jerry West. A more limited range of choices. When I see a greater number of potential elite athletes who are black opt for law, medical, or engineering school (thus foregoing the rigors of training to become an elite athlete becaue of greater options available to them) coupled with a disportationate number of blacks from middle-class and upper middle class backgrounds in the professional ranks, then I’ll entertain the notion of there being a possible genetic determinant.
Ture, I am assuming that both groups have the same genetic ability. But what I stated was that out of a pool of both white and black athletes (1000 each), 100 from each have the potential to become elite athletes. From that pool of 1000 each, 10 whites and 50 blacks actually achieved that status of elite athlete. Along the way, those 90 white athletes who had the potential decided that it wasn’t worth their effort (or some other factor). Likewise, there were 50 black athletes who had the potentail but decided it wasn’t wort the effort (again, or some other factor). Both the 10 white athletes and the 50 black athletes worked just as hard to achieve their elite status. It’s just that, from the original pool of 1000 (for each), the range of options for each group were different. Why assume genetic differences from the start?
You contend that the differences between the final outcome (10 vs 50) can be accounted for by genetic differences (if I’m wrong, please correct me). I contend that it can be accounted for by socio-econimic/cultural factors. You are arguing that these non-genetic factors are unimportant (or, at least unconvincing). I, on the other hand, while not necessarily discounting a possible genetic determinant, feel that socio-economic/cultural factors are satisfactory explanations (at this time) in understanding the disparity in elite athletic performances/make-up of professional sports.
If one could do a study that took 1000 white athletes and 1000 black athletes from the same socio-economic backgrounds and afford them the same opportunities, then I would be more inclined to more closely at a genetic deteriminant if a disportionate number of those black athletes achieved elite status versus the white athletes.
This sentence seems a bit mangled. I am saying that the percentage of (white) professional athletes that came from lower socio-economic backgrounds was higher in the past than it is today.
As compared to other fields, yes. IOW, 100 years ago a shot at a career as a professional athlete did not compare favorably with a (much better) shot at a middle-class type career. But it did compare favorably with a career as a ditch-digger. So the ranks of professional athletes were filled with lower-class people. Today the rewards of professional athletics are great enough that they dwarf any reasonable middle class aspiration. So that situation no longer prevails.
The upshot of which is that the sociological reasons that produced ethnic disparities in sports 100 years ago no longer hold today. And it is specious to hold the past as a comparison for the current situation.
One example that would still be valid today would be boxing. It is probably safe to assume that relatively few middle class kids take up boxing, so the dominance of black boxers over whites could be attributed to sociological factors. (OTOH, the black/hispanic distribution, with blacks dominating the upper weight classes and Hispanics prominent at the lower ones, does not seem explainable in this manner).
Exactly. This is the point I am making.
The disparity between the rewards of a professional sports career vs. other fields of endeavor.
That’s exactly the point. Because a guy like Bill Bradley had the same range of options available to him as did White, but he did NOT forgo an athletic career. And the rewards of such a career have grown by leaps and bounds since Bradley’s time.
I have no idea what connection this might have to anything I’ve said.
I’m not quite sure what you mean here. But you seem to be oversimplifying in assuming that there is one exact level of talent common to all professional athletes, and that you either have it or you don’t. And that there is one precise amount of effort needed, and you either give it or not. In reality, there is a continuous distribution for both. Look at the two components - genetic and training - as making up the complete package of an athletes actual talent.
If two athletes practice equally hard, the guy with the better raw talent is going to be better. (Similarly, if two athletes have equal raw talent, the guy who practices harder will be better).
Now here’s the point. I am assuming that there is not a negative correlation between raw athletic ability and training effort. (It may be that in some cases people of superior talent coast. But OTOH, there is greater incentive for someone of superior ability to train harder, as the rewards are greater).
If that assumption holds, then it would follow that the higher you go up the chart in terms of athletic accomplishment, the higher scores you would get on average for measurements of both raw athletic skills and training and effort.
Now if your assumption about identical distributions of raw genetic talent holds, then the relatively few white guys, consisting as they do of a smaller elite percentage of the white population, would have a higher level of raw talent - on average - than the average black of similar accomplishment. IOW, the top .001% of whites would be better on average than the top .005% of Blacks, in raw talent. From which would follow that the average white guy of X accomplishment has trained less hard than the average black guy of similar accomplishment.
This seems pretty self-evident to me. If I’ve made an error somewhere, please point it out.
Yet by being white, they have opportunities open to them that blacks do not. sports is not seen as an escape in the poor white community (as I was a poor white boy growing up, trust me).
A black guy with a spear, that would get the cops on his butt fast. There is nowhere in the ghetto to practice javelin or shot put assuming they could even get ahold of a javelin or shot put. running costs nothing, and helps you with basketball, which there are many more places to practice that in your average city. There are football programs for little kids, but no Jr. Javelin club. In theory you could be good at frisbie as a kid then turn that into discus, but i rarely see blacks playing frisbee.
The arguement is that the countries have no money to fund other sports, so all of it goes toward running, which is supercheap and something people do naturally.
Let’s ask track people in the US. The defense calls…Tars Tarkas!!! ::gasps from the courtroom audience::
At my school, in general, more of the white athletes were lazy, since track and field wasn’t going to be their goal in life, they were mostly doing it to increase their chances to get into college or to get into shape. Many of the black athletes didn’t have money for college and were hoping for a scholarship in some sport, and track was a good place to go if you didn’t make the basketball team. Because they needed to get on by sports, they didn’t spend as much time on the academics as the white kids, who did that instead of practicing more. (yes, there were exceptions on both sides)
In the link i provided earlier from the Kenya website gives such an example. In general it is bunk, but if you are from an area that is well known for runners then it is more likely that people from there will be good runners.
Some subset, not all. And that is IF it is true, which there is no conclusive evidence for. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was, but since it is a small subset of blacks, then the theory that blacks are naturally superior still doesn’t hold, since only a few are in a few sports.
What? You are the one making hypotheses based on genetic evidence you DON’T have, why the monkey#$%@ do WE have to prove stuff? It is YOUR job to prove your hypothesis, not deflect other hypotheses without giving a shread of evidence for yours besides logical falacies and declare it case closed.
it is not, and is a likely explaination, but has little to no proof at current. Using it as fact because other theories do not suit your needs is not showing genetic evidence. It has also been mentioned (by me) of the Kalenjin tribe and their running legacy, which is one of the basis of the current version of this theory. More studies on them is needed (or at least, if i could get ahold of the abstracts of the studies i mentioned earlier to determine exactly how they were done, but i don’t have time to go fishing all over the web)
However, while the percentage of athletes that play professional sports (the big three - MLB, NBA, NFL) come from the lower socio-economic strata is lower than in the past, there’s a large number that still do. And again, one reason may be the limited options available to those from the lower socio-economic strata relative to the society as a whole. While the entry into the professional sports ranks has opened-up, it hasn’t done so in other realms. Blacks constitute about 12-13% of the US population. Yet we don’t see similar numbers with respects to blacks as lawyers, doctors, engineers, corporate managers, etc.
Why couldn’t this be attributed to other professional sports? It’s probably same to assume that BOTH middle class whites and blacks are less likely to take up boxing. Likewise for other other sports. If both white and black kids from middle-class backgrounds have other options available to them, then why make the huge effort in becoming an elite athlete? When one knows that the chance of becoming a professional athlete is slim?
But you’re comparing two people with relatively similar socio-economic/cultural backgrounds. Where’s the equivalent of a black or hispanic Bill Bradley or Byron White? One that I can think of (possibly) - Alan Page, former defensive lineman for the Minnesota Vikings who is now - I believe - a judge.
When I see a greater number of potential elite athletes who are black opt for law, medical, or engineering school (thus foregoing the rigors of training to become an elite athlete becaue of greater options available to them) coupled with a disportationate number of blacks from middle-class and upper middle class backgrounds in the professional ranks, then I’ll entertain the notion of there being a possible genetic determinant.
I’m trying to make the point that if one were to make a convincing claim (to me) of some genetic determinant, then one needs to account for socio-economic/cultural factors. That is, conduct a study that looks a group of black and white athletes from similar socio-economic/cultural backgrounds. If ceterus paribus in re the socio-economic/cultural factors, then one could look to possible genetic deteminants.
Late’s take another look at my 1000 young athletes (black and white). Let’s assume, for the sake of this discussion that out of each population base a total of 100 for each have the potential to achieve elite athletic ability. So we should end up with 10% from both groups becoming elite athletes.
OK - now let’s modify each by placing the white athletes in a different socio-economic and cultural category than the black athletes. That is, we’re going to give the white athletes a greater range of opportunities than the black athletes. For simplicity’s sake let’s say that whites have twice as many options than blacks. Stick the white kids in the suburbs and stick the black kids in the inner city projects for simplicity sake.
So we start out with our group of athletes at an relatively early age - grade school. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that 20% of our white athletes (200) decide that it isn’t in their long term interests to continue in their pursuit to become an elite athlete. They rather play video games or hang out with their friends or whatever. Likewise, since the black athletes have half the opportunity to not pursue becoming an elite athlete, then only 10% (100) fall by the wayside. That leaves a pool of 800 whites and 900 blacks to reach the 100 elite status.
OK - so now we have both whites and blacks practicing and training hard up through the middle school ranks. However, another 300 white athletes decides that becoming an elite athlete is too much trouble. Likewise, 150 black athletes fall by the wayside. So were now down to a pool of 500 white athletes and 750 black athletes.
Now, were into the high school ranks. Again, due to choices available, another 300 white athletes fall by the wayside. They’ve done enough for themselves to secure a decent eduation in college, and they’re content in pursuing other interests once their college career is over. Sure they could expend that little bit of effort to become an elite athlete, but why do so when the chances are very slim? Our black athlete population now has declined by 150 - for similar reasons. So now are numbers are 200 white athletes and 600 black athletes.
The last stage - college. Another 100 white athletes drop out. They’ve maxed out their athletic potential. No sense in training hard any more. Some may be content in pusuing a low-tier professional athletic career, but the time any energy needed to continue far outways any potential earnings that can be accrued.
Likewise, 100 black athletes reach the athletic barrier. A good portion of this group may continue to toil away as a low-paying professional, but they to, at some point, give up.
So, what’s left? 100 white athletes and 500 black athletes. We’re not going to achieve our 100 elite athletes from each group, but it’s expected that out of the reamaining numbers that 10% from each will acheive elite status. So we end up with 10 elite white players and 50 elite black players.
Both the white and black elite athletes had the same raw ability and worked hard to achieve their status. The difference in the numbers can be accounted for the opportunities afforded the white athletes versus the black athletes (and I mean opprtunities with respect to other activities, not solely based on athletic opportunities). I know I’m oversimplying some of the assumptions (that black athletes have 1/2 the opportunities than the white athletes), but I do so to illustrate the constraints faced by one group with different socio-economi/cultural factors than another group with respect to choices available.
Put both groups in the same socio-economic/cultural settings. If you STILL end up with more elite black athletes than elite white athletes, then you have a case for a genetic determinant.
Honestly, I don’t trust you on this point. It seems very unlikely to me that whites (of any degree of wealth), all turn their noses up at sports sufficiently to produce the disparity we all see at the top levels in sprinting. Besides, if what you were saying were true, we’d see the same sort of disparity in lots of events/sports besides sprinting. We don’t.
**
Oh come on. Black kids are exposed to throwing events the exact same way that white kids are - through high school track and field. And plenty of American blacks do not live in inner cities.
**
This applies equally to blacks & whites.
**
I have a question for you, and please answer honestly: Where do you suppose more resources have been put into recruiting and training sprinters - third world countries like Jamaica and Gabon, or communist countries like China or the former Soviet Union. Please answer honestly.
**
Look, do you agree or disagree that there are plenty of motivated white high school sprinters in the United States who would go to the Olympics if they had the talent? And by “plenty,” I mean more than 25% of the total number of high school sprinters in the United States.
In any event, it’s really not enough to make vague statements about “many of the black athletes” or “more of the white athletes.” See, the disparity that you are trying to explain is quite dramatic.
**
Again, this hardly explains the dramatic disparity, especially given that there is a decent number of motivated white sprinters out there.
**
Well, as I mentioned previously, I am not trying to claim that blacks are superior athletes. My suggestion is that some subset of blacks is naturally superior in one narrow area.
**
Look, do you agree or not that it’s possible to know things by indirect means? Please answer honestly.
Not all, but enough that is shows up. Odd that many of them are in sports that are readily accessable in poorer areas. (unless there are black water polo superstars i don’t know about)
what i think is irrelevant. you need hard numbers. You want to prove it is genetic by eliminate all other options. So eliminate this one. (not that it makes it genetic, but it will limit future arguements if you wipe this out)
i fail to see the point here. Everyone would go to the olympics if they had the talent. Many people just ain’t putting in the work.
please explain how me using “many” is different from you using “plenty”
They just all suck then.
you can never know for sure unless you directly test something. It can be highly likely something is possible given evidence, but unless you test it yourself you will never know for sure. Just claiming that something is genetic because three people on a message board can’t come up with explinations to the contrary that jive with what you are looking for is not indirect evidence.
Ok, let’s see if I have this straight - someone proposes a theory that’s so outlandish that you yourself won’t endorse it, and the burden is on me to disprove it? Gimme a break.
[sarcasm on]black dominance in sprinting is caused by the invisible pink unicorn. prove me wrong, dammit![/sarcasm off]
**
Ok, so you are saying that of thousands of talented white (and Asian) sprinters out there, virtually none of them is willing to put in the work?
**
Sure, and this is a key point. See, the situation is assymetric because of the dramatic dominance of blacks in short-distance running. So to win the debate, I need only show that there is some vague but not insignificant number of white sprinters who would do the work necessary to go to the olympics if they had the talent. You, on the other hand, need to show that there are virtually none. That’s why it’s ok for me to refer to plenty, but if you make vague statements about “many” it doesn’t advance your argument. Even if it were true that “many” talented whites do not pursue sprinting, it wouldn’t explain the dramatic disparity.
**
The reality is that you can never know ANYTHING for sure. But you haven’t really answered my question, only dodged. So let me ask you again - do you agree that it’s possible to know things with a reasonable degree of certainty through indirect methods?
**
I’ve seen a lot of explanations besides those presented here. Anyway, if you think there’s a decent non-genetic explanation out there, I’d love to hear it. Believe it or not, if someone presents me with a simple, powerful, predictive, non-genetic explanation for black dominance in sprinting, I’ll re-think my position.
And by the way, can I assume that you now agree that the explanations you have proposed do not explain the lack of black success in throwing events?
That’s so funny, I was about to post the exact same thing about you! Just insert “genetics” for “invisible pink unicorn.” So ironic.
You yourself can see the lunacy of trying to prove a negative (The good old “Prove me wrong!” arguement) but that’s your entire arguement. You have given ZERO evidence to support that it is in fact a genetic difference, but you continually ask for evidence that it isn’t.
Everything you’ve said in this thread basically amounts to “It’s genetics, I know it is, and I don’t need to prove it because I see it. Prove it isn’t genetic!”
Then you accuse others of the old “Prove it isn’t” argument, when in fact you are the one using it.
I’m sure that if there were any decent genetic explanations out there we’d love to hear it too.
No, no, no the reason whites of Scandanavian/European heritage are better speed skaters is the same reason American blacks are better speed athletes, selective breeding over time. You see RickJay back in the old country your typical Swedish or Norwegian farm family with a batchelor son (nicknamed “the seed corn” or “säd”) would usually choose the biggest, healthiest daughter (called the “milkmaid” or less lyrically “ungkarlsflicka” or “batchelor girl”) of another farm family and seek to marry them together to produce powerfully muscular children. This succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and today bulky and lumbering Scandanavians dominate the World’s Strongest Man competition out of all porportion to their actual population.
So, instead of pulling numbers to help eliminate an argument, you just reject it outright and insult me for suggesting you disprove it with facts. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
** sounds like you and your genetic fetish rather than my unicorn obsession
No, you are arguing it is genetic. to prove it is genetic you need…dum dum DUM Genetic Proof!
While you’re gathering these white athletes who need talent, be sure to gather up black athletes who need talent also. Then prove that they are missing the genetic component the others have.
Now you are modifying the question.
Why bother with indirect evidence (which still proves nothing) when you can directly test for the evidence? Get some people in a lab and start poking and prodding them.
Maybe there is a disease common in that area of Africa where a side effect is improved sprinting. Maybe Jesus likes black sprinters. Maybe it is genetic. Maybe Black sprinters are more likely to sell their soul to the dark lord. There is no proof for any of this, but we can prove or disprove two of them with science. However, simply declaring one the right answer is not proof, direct or indirect.
individualy, they do not explain them for you. You seem to think there is one simple explination that will solve everything, yet the proof exists only in the lack of proper other arguments.
You continuallly reject arguments that have no prove, yet hold on to anohter one with no proof that you favor. Until such time as there is proof for the genetic arguement, it is not the answer.
OK, so we agree then. It is obvious that the smaller a subgroup that plays a sport, the easier it is for that group to dominate the professional ranks without a genetic factor. So I assume that you agree that the fact that past dominance by groups at the lower ends of the socio-economic scale did not reflect genetic factors CANNOT be used to prove that a similar phenomenon is possible today.
Of course, you could independently argue that you still feel that socio-economic factors are at work (I would disagree with you, as above). But you cannot draw support from past periods when the socio-economic distribution of sports was different - again, I assume we agree on this.
Actually, it would be interesting to see a race-normalized comparison of the socio-economic backgrounds of athletes vs. the general population. It is my impression that the vast majority of white athletes are from middle-class backgrounds.
Because it just happens to be a fact that they are widely practiced by middle class whites. You can theorize all you want, but it don’t make it so.
Exactly. I am comparing two people of the same backgrounds in different eras, and thus showing how the eras have changed. (This is obvious - I suspect that we may be talking past each other).
OK, but meanwhile no one has produced such a study which shows either way. In the absence of any study, I think it is obvious that socio-economic factors cannot account for the difference - you and others disagree. Have to call it a draw.
The latter half of your post consists of a lengthy explanation of how a disparity in effort might cause a disparity in ultimate distribution. All of which is very simple and obvious. Unfortunately you did not address the issue that you were responding to - the fact that the process you describe should cause an ultimate disparity in effort as well. I’ve already noted that you’ve erred in failing to account for the distributions in talent and effort being continuous distributions. I have nothing further to add.
Sure, and let me explain why: There is a critical distinction between hypothesizing some unknown genetic factor that’s responsible for black dominance in sprinting and hypothesizing that the disparity is caused by an invisible pink unicorn. The difference is that one theory is completely outrageous, the other is not.
So we are confronted with a theory to explain black dominance in sprinting that is both reasonable and predictive, and several other theories that completely defy reason, common sense, and experience. Who has the burden of proof?
As I mentioned in my last post, the burden is not on me to disprove a ridiculous hypothesis.
**
See my response above.
**
I don’t think so. Can we agree that there are traits and conditions that are strongly believed to be genetic even though a particular allele has not been identified? How do we know such things? Because (1) the genetic explanation is reasonable and predictive; and (2) there is no other reasonable explanation.
**
I have no idea what your point is. Do you agree or disagree with the position that there exists a significant number of white sprinters with sufficient talent to compete at the elite levels if they put sufficient work in?
**
Indirect evidence can and does prove a lot. Why do you keep dodging this point?
**
If we evaluate a bunch of different theories, and one is simple, powerful, predictive, and reasonable, and the rest are complicated, unreasonable, and non-predictive, which would you take?
**
Ok, so I gather that you would reject any genetic explanation for anything in the absence of direct evidence? And please don’t dodge this question.
Yet there is no proof for the damn hypothesis, so stop trying to claim lack of proof is proof. it holds no more water than the pink unicorn theory, since neither have any proof. i reject your rejection of the pink unicorn theory since you have not proven that pink unicorns do not exist. i reject your acception of the genetic theory since you have not proven there is a genentic link. The correct answer is WE DON’T FUCKING KNOW! And not knowing is not genetic proof, since it has NO GENETIC PROOF WHERE IS YOUR GEENTIC PROOF? You are not allowed to say it is genetic unless you show something with GENETIC PROOF, otherwise all your posts will be dismissed with a wave of the hand.
translation: i don’t feel like trying to disprove the money for training issue, since i’m 100% sure it is genetic, based on my gut feelings and what my astrologist said.
you haven’t disproved many of the reasonable explinations, then somehow require me to prove them, by saying that your theory is correct because you’ve summarily rejected all other theories via argumentum ad ignorantiam or False Dilemma or some other falacy. The stuff i posted about the Kalenjin should be something you should latch on to to support your genetic theory, but you are not even using that! You use ZERO evidence to support something, even in the face of evidence i gave on both sides of the argument. This isn’t some pick and choose buffet arguement, you need the whole seven course meal if you want to be taken seriously.
i don’t know, nor frankly do i care at this point. but you claim that whites don’t have the talent. There are many blacks that don’t also. you’d have to gather them up, run genetic tests and family lines to trace tribal origins, then see if there is a disparity between the fast runners and the not fast runners. That would give you a little something known as EVIDENCE. As a lawyer, i am sure you should be familiar with that concept from law school days.
reasonable? to be reasonable, it should hold up to proof. Where’s the proof? you’ve presented NOTHING! And what is complicated about saying IPU’s make blacks faster? That is the simplist theory in the world.
i would reject it as PROOF. i wouldn’t reject it as a likely theory. but since you insist on saying it is PROOF, it is a lie and a falacy.
Well, let us put a few things to rest- there is no connection between skin color or continent of origin that selects dudes to be better at certain sports. If you think there is, where are all the Pygmy althletes? Thus, no - “african Americans” can’t be & aren’t “naturally better at sports”.
Greinspace made a good point on this. Altho there is no skin coloration or continental “racial” diference, there could be some genetic differences amoung tribes or “populations”. Clearly some tribes are genetically pre-disposed to be taller than average (Watusi vs Pygmies). In some sports- basketball for instance- height is an advantage. Thus, if we had a couple of “tribes” (there is no good word to use here. “Race” is so very non-PC, “breed” is worse, “population” is a scientific expression that doesn’t quite exactly correspond with what were are talking about, etc- so I’ll use “tribe”. Consider it always in “” even if I forget, remembering this caveat) who had a genetic diposition to be taller, then we might expect them to be over-represented in sports where tallness is an advantage. Height is also somewhat controled by culteral dietary preferences, so perhaps the difference isn’t so much with DNA, as what that “tribe” normally eats. (Dudes of asian descent here in the USA are taller that their grandparents in “the old country”. However, they still seem to be somewhat shorter, so maybe there is some genetic difference. I dunno). But diet or DNA, if one “tribe” is taller than another, they’ll excel at such sports. Thus, indeed, that “tribe” would be considered to be “naturally better”- whereas really they are just taller.
And, it is not impossible that there is a larger % of dudes in some Kenyan “tribe” who have a gene for better running. Why not? if all of a related group can look a lot alike, and be affected by certain pathogens in a different way, then certainly they could be better runners. But not because they are “african-americans”, or their skin color, or the fact they come from Africa. They would also be better than other “african americans”, other “blacks”, other Africans also. They would be better because that tribe is closely related and some gene is more commonly present. I don’t know if this is so, but there is no genetic reason why it can’t be true.
Clearly, there is something to 'cultural" selection, also. Sports, especially basketball, is perceived as one way “out of the ghetto”, and so is rap music. OTOH, it is not controling, as their are dudes in pro-basketball who come from middle class backgrounds on the “right side of the tracks”. How important of a factor this is, I don’t know, but you just can’t dismiss it as not happening.
Also, some sports are simply played more by certain nationalities, and thus someone who has a natural talent would be more likely to be discovered. If no one ever plays baseball in a certain area, it is unlikely the next home run record breaker will come from there. Just because the US cricket team is a joke , doesn’t mean Americans can’t be good at cricket. In fact, our soccer team was a joke also for decades, but now we are a World Cup contender- as we now have “soccer moms” and such. Soccer is finally being played seriously in the USA. “Times, they are a’ changin”.
So, yes, there are several factors which might make one “tribe” “better” (or “over represented”) at one sport, or one related group of sports. But there are no "races"anyway, geneticaly speaking (or if there are, they are small local “populations”, and have nothing to do with such outmoded concepts as the “Negroid race”) . And even if you use that term in a sociological way, still no “race” is overall better as athletes than another. Pointing to one sport doesn’t make it an overall truism.
It would seem to me that your most recent post - and possibly the crux of your entire argument - is seriously misleading. Possibly disingenuous.
Contrary to your final sentence, lucwarm has NOT insisted on saying that anything is proof of a genetic basis. He has used terms like “hypothesis”, “support”, and “suggest”. The only guy going on about proof here is you yourself.
And incorrectly so. In the absence of any proof of any hypothesis, one goes by the one that seems to fit the best. This is in fact what you yourself are doing, despite your indignation - you have not advanced any proof that socio-economic factors are responsible for the disparity - you merely think it is the likeliest scenario. lucwarm (& I) think it is not the likeliest scenario. We are all in the same boat as far as proof is concerned.
In sum, your demand for proof is misplaced, your assertion that anyone has said there is proof is incorrect, and your demand that others disprove ridiculous theories that you yourself don’t believe in is silly gamesmanship.
Well, I had originally written out elaborate experiments using black and white marbles and wooden pyramids with slots, but suffice to say I thought it better if I’d save it for another day. You are correct that I have falied to account for the continuous distribution of effort. My fault for not making that clearer.
Given that both talent and effort are normally distributed, then we would expect that the distribution of both black elite athletes and white elite athletes to be approximately the same (other things being equal, of course). However, I contend that it’s only talent (genetic component) that’s normally distruted in both populations. Motivation/effort has a skewed distribution towards blacks than whites. That is, black athletes work harder/are more motivated than white athletes. And why is this? It’s because the range of activities available for blacks vs. whites also has a skewed distribution. Greater range for whites (more opportunities to pursue other activities) than blacks.
I should point out that there’s not a clear-cut cause effect relationship between motivation/hard-work and options available. That is, is it because black athletes have limited options available to them in other endevors which forces them to become more motivated/work harder, or is it that those black athletes who work harder/are more motivated somehow limit their options? In other words, by spending the time necessary to become an elite athlete, does the black athlete forego any chance of pursuing other options - even if those options are smaller in number relative to white elite athletes?
But I will concede this - my position becomes weaker if one assumes both a normal distribution with respect to talent and motivation. And my position becomes harder to defend if one assumes talent, motivation, and options available (the socio-economic/cultural variables mentioned previously) for both groups are normally distributed, but we still see more elite black athletes than whites.
That’s so funny, I was about to post the exact same thing about you! Just insert “genetics” for “invisible pink unicorn.” So ironic.
, doesn’t mean Americans can’t be good at cricket. In fact, our soccer team was a joke also for decades, but now we are a World Cup contender- as we now have “soccer moms” and such. Soccer is finally being played seriously in the USA. “Times, they are a’ changin”.