# Critique this: Why blacks run faster **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 6, 2012, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414 "2012-07-06T13:42:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 39
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/761 "2012-08-09T01:22:27Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > It might be worth pointing out that as recently as 1972 the winner of the Olympic 100 meters was a Caucasian: Valery Borzov of Russia. Obviously he was an African in whiteface. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/762 "2012-08-09T01:49:49Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > I take it you’re focusing on sprinting and not distance running, then? > > The OP (and other like minded posters) also stated that, for the same or similar reasons as given for sprinting, East African distance running dominance was clearly genetic in nature. > > Maybe you’re making a different argument for why this is the case (or maybe you don’t buy that nurturing has been normalized for distance running vs sprinting), but, if so, you seem to be disagreeing with the OPs evolutionary theory, as well. > > So, to clarify my understanding of your own POV and how it fits in with the OP, I’d like to know: > > 1. whether or not you buy into the OPs theory that the descendants of slaves brought to the Western hemisphere enjoy the result of a selection process that makes them genetically better at sprinting than not only ‘white’ sprinters but other ‘black’ sprinters from western Africa whose ancestors did not get similarly selected for. > > 2. whether or not you buy into the OPs theory that western hemisphere (in particular, the US, apparently) slaveowners engaged in a centuries long selective breeding experiment to produce faster slaves. > > 3. whether or not you buy into the OPs related theory that a similar selection pressure made ‘black’ distance runners (particular those from Kenya) genetically superior to other distance athletes. And/or if you are taking a different stance and claiming that nurture hasn’t been properly normalized in this case (meaning you have a fundamentally different argument than the OP). My position about figuring out if two groups differ based on genetic potential never changes: if you normalize nurturing, what residual difference there is, is genetic. I think that, w/ respect to sprinting sports, blacks run faster (the query in the OP), because belonging to a SIRE of “black” gives you greater odds of being born with genes that support that skillset. I might add that it seems probable that belonging to a SIRE group of “West African” might increase the odds of sprinting well while belonging to a SIRE group of “East African” might increase the odds of long distance running since the populations from those two areas may well have different gene pools. I don’t think there’s any question that the Kalenjin are genetically gifted for distance running, given their overwhelming over-representation. So if belonging to “black” means you have a greater possibility of inheriting genes from that ancestral pool, and similar ancestral pools for good distance genes don’t exist in other populations more closely tied to other SIRE groups, then the average performance of the whole black SIRE group might be lifted by the subset of those with Kalenjin ancestry…I hope you get the idea of what I’m driving at. It’s tough to type in these little boxes, and try to repeat the same essay over and over. As to the OP’s theories for answering his own question–I haven’t paid much attention to them. If they are centered around some modern breeding program for black slaves, I’d question the evidence, not to mention that I’m not aware slave descendants outperform those still in their ancestral pools… I might add one other thing about the idea of genes driving differences. It’s not necessary for a given group being compared with another to be internally related for us to say genes create the outcome differences. For instance, a group of Tall and a group of Short (assuming they’ve had similar nurturing) differ for that outcome because of their genes, regardless of whether or not any given Tall is otherwise more related to another Tall than they are to any given Short. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/763 "2012-08-09T02:01:56Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > How do you know those people are of “primarily African ancestry” as opposed to primarily European ancestry with some African ancestry? Well, think of it this way. Suppose that almost all athletes successful at a given skillset have at least some sub-saharan ancestry. Suppose that the starting pools of all potential athletes for that skillset are disproportionately a pool without any recent sub-saharan ancestry. Suppose that nurturing does not favor those with sub-saharan genes. Now, when you look at the high-achievers, it’s reasonable to suppose that the thing which gave them the advantage was sub-saharan genes… I recognize each point here is a subject of some debate. That is, in fact, the debate. But it’s irrelevant what actual percent of recent sub-saharan ancestry a given black athlete has. What’s important is whether or not he has a particular gene, and the fact that sub-saharan ancestry is over-represented while nurturing favors the other group, lends credence to the view that the difference is genetic. If the European gene pool contained those same genes in the same proportion, the successful pool would be composed of all groups in proportion to the start number. For what it’s worth I’d bet nearly every European gets a reasonable chance to find out if they are any good at any given sport, while a much smaller percentage of sub-saharan kids get the same opportunity. They got other stuff to worry about, like eking out a living within their crappy political and social structures. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/764 "2012-08-09T02:02:54Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Here are the number of athletes of primarily African ancestry among the all-time top 10 hurdles times: Whooooosh! ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/766 "2012-08-09T02:11:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I suppose this might be interesting to any missionaries of your straw-man Religion of Genetic Equality- but I haven’t seen any in this thread. I have seen a few people who seem to think that a genetic explanation can be supported with zero genetic evidence- using odd metrics that are virtually impossible to measure like “normalization of nurturing”. I suppose…on the other hand, there doesn’t seem to be any dearth of accepting those same “impossible to measure” “odd metrics” when we are trying to explain underperformance of the black SIRE group in non-physical skillsets. We’re all over nurturing and how obviously easy it is to recognize and measure if we want an explanation why black Medical School candidates perform overwhelmingly poorly on the MCAT entrance exam even if they have the same antecedent college preparation (and after 4 years of medical school, the scoring differences on the licensing exams will persist as well). And so on…and we even stretch out the nurturing concept to a pretty thin argument when we try to explain why children of wealthy black families underscore children from poverty-stricken white families on the SAT. So you kind of have to be careful picking your poison, don’t you? In the end, it’s just a Religion of Genetic Equality. There aren’t any decent examples otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/767 "2012-08-09T02:22:51Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I don’t think there’s any question that the Kalenjin are genetically gifted for distance running, given their overwhelming over-representation. There are 2 problems here, which I’ve brought up in this very thread, yet haven’t really been addressed. The first is that the Kalenjin aren’t genetically isolated from nearby human population groups, yet they are the predominant running group in Kenya. It is not reasonable for a genetic predisposition to mostly limit itself to a social, rather than a biological, grouping. The second is that beyond marathon distance, they aren’t dominant. If any particular subgroup of people are, it’s the Tarahumara of Mexico, members of whom are known to run over a hundred miles at a single go. If you look at lists of ultramarathon winners, Kenyans aren’t dominating anybody. So, if there is a genetic Kalenjin predisposition for running long distances, it’s of the sort that kicks in at around a mile but kicks off past 26 miles and also kicks off when expressed outside the tribe. I suppose that’s possible, but, again, it’s the sort of thing that means the question of normalizing for nurturing isn’t settled to the degree you think it is. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/768 "2012-08-09T02:39:43Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Well, think of it this way. Suppose that almost all athletes successful at a given skillset have at least some sub-saharan ancestry. Suppose that the starting pools of all potential athletes for that skillset are disproportionately a pool without any recent sub-saharan ancestry. Suppose that nurturing does not favor those with sub-saharan genes. > > Now, when you look at the high-achievers, it’s reasonable to suppose that the thing which gave them the advantage was sub-saharan genes… > > I recognize each point here is a subject of some debate. That is, in fact, the debate. But it’s irrelevant what actual percent of recent sub-saharan ancestry a given black athlete has. What’s important is whether or not he has a particular gene, and the fact that sub-saharan ancestry is over-represented while nurturing favors the other group, lends credence to the view that the difference is genetic. If the European gene pool contained those same genes in the same proportion, the successful pool would be composed of all groups in proportion to the start number. For what it’s worth I’d bet nearly every European gets a reasonable chance to find out if they are any good at any given sport, while a much smaller percentage of sub-saharan kids get the same opportunity. They got other stuff to worry about, like eking out a living within their crappy political and social structures. Translation: there is utterly no evidence to support Colonial’s moronic claim that all of the people he listed were of “primarily African descent”. Besides, most if not all of the people mentioned were probably of European descent. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/769 "2012-08-09T04:18:57Z")
> [@Ibn Warraq](#): > > How do you know those people are of “primarily African ancestry” as opposed to primarily European ancestry with some African ancestry? I myself personally infer from appearance and self-identification. Professional geneticists can determine continental ancestry by more scientific methods. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > So, when the Soviet Bloc stopped subsidizing sports, did the genes change? No, although opportunity did. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/770 "2012-08-09T04:40:10Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > I myself personally infer from appearance and self-identification. What do you mean by “appearance and self-identification” Does that mean that since Barack Obama, Halle Berry, and Thurgood Marshall should be seen as “primarily of African descent” since all identified as black? I assume BTW that’s what you think, that Obama should be viewed as being of “primarily African descent” since he identifies himself as black even though his mother was “white”. To do otherwise would show massive intellectual inconsistency. Anyway, to me claiming that Barack Obama is if “primarily African descent” is massively illogical and frankly moronic. Please explain your reasoning behind classifying as being of “primarily African descent” or if you don’t, please explain why you consider “self-identification” important when classifying sprinters as being of “primarily African descent” but not Barack Obama? ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/771 "2012-08-09T04:50:13Z")
Mr. Antibob has isolated the 100m women’s’ hurdles results from the entire set of four hurdles events, and has proceeded to base argument for parity on that one event. That is specious because inference from one event in isolation can hardly be considered to outweigh inference from three others events. Furthermore, a debate on comparative foot speed should not be limited to the hurdles, but should include both sexes and all races. Here then is a link to each years best times going back to 1955: [Track and Field Stats](http://www.apulanta.fi/matti/yu/) (some competitors won more than one event) In 2012 _all 12_ men’s individual event best times were made by Africans or descendants of Africans: 4 Kenyans, 2 Jamaicans, 1 US, 1 Brit, 1 Domican, and 1 Ethiopian. In 2011 it was 11/12 : 4 Kenyans, 2 Jamaicans, 2 US, 1 Ethiopian and 1 Brit. Jump back to 1992 of the previous generation at it is 11/12 with 4 American, 2 Kenyans, 1 Ethiopian and 1 Brit. For women for the same years it is a still obviously over representative: 5/11 in 2012 (2 US 2 Kenya 2 Ethiopia) 5/11 In 2011 5/11 (2 US 2 Kenyan) In 1992 4/11 (1 US 1 Jamaican 1 French 1 Ethiopian) > [@Great Antibob](#): > > Then, where are the Brazilian or Nigerian or Cuban or Bahamian hurdlers? A Cuban man is the present WR holder in the 110m hurdles. Another won the 400m and 800m Olympic gold in the same year and Cubans have won Olympic 37 medals in track and field altogether. Bahamians have won 3 Olympic gold medals, 2 silver and 2 bronze in track (including relays). Elsewhere in the Americas Jamaica has an astonishing 60 track medals and Trinidad has won 11, and there are probably others in addition to the Dominican mentioned before. Also, according to [this list](http://hem.bredband.net/athletics/atb-d16.htm)a Nigerian was tied for 20th all-time in the 100m hurdles. My guess for Brazil’s underachievement is the country’s all-consuming mania for football, with occasional time-out for basketball. > [@Great Antibob](#): > > Again, American dominance in the sport keeps the question open about a purely genetic explanation. On the contrary, if a genetic category comprising ~x% of any population produces ~several x% of the fastest runners during a period of several consecutive decades, then the question is closed. > [@Great Antibob](#): > > The fact that old Soviet bloc countries did so well through training punches holes in the genetic explanation, too, even if you glossed over it. So according to your explanation, genetics matter a lot, except when there’s a ton of motivation, funding, and training to produce superior athletes from the stock you already have. Funding and motivation go away and ‘poof’, we’re back to genetics, apparently. > > This point is part of ‘normalizing nurture’ sub-debate going on. > > Apparently, culture matters a lot - as you yourself noted by bringing up the old Soviet bloc. How do we know we’ve actually normalized for those factors when discussing US athletes? **CP** thinks those factors have already largely been normalized in the US. **iiandyiii** , **tomndebb** , and others don’t see that they have been. All athletic achievement is obviously the product of both of genetics and training. However, during the Soviet era elite athletes were wards of the state, and never had to worry about income during the amateur era. They spent their entire competitive lifetimes training, and enjoyed a much higher standard of living than the national average while they were at it. Athletes from other countries had a lot more to worry about during the amateur era. > [@Great Antibob](#): > > The fact that it’s American hurdlers who dominate in particular, rather than Western Hemisphere slave descendants in general, Addressed above. > [@Great Antibob](#): > > means that there’s a fair chance we really haven’t normalized for all such factors. If your argument depends on USA dominance _per capita_ then it has been falsified. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/772 "2012-08-09T05:32:51Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > I think you’re onto something here. The high jumper dude who couldn’t find his shirt but won gold anyways is white. And gold and bronze in the women’s 400 m hurdles are Russian and Czech, respectively. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/773 "2012-08-09T06:43:53Z")
Why no threads about whites being broader and stronger? ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/774 "2012-08-09T06:59:44Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Since this is your thread, I would have thought that you were actually following it. > > The quote you supplied is the one that was already mentioned in a linked Wikipedia article and was already addressed, (three times, by different posters), who noted that the “stockmen” were used to ensure the quantity of breeding without manking any effort at the quality of breeding. > > (And, of course, you have still failed to note, or even address, that your OP was thoroughly shredded over a month ago, back in post #88.) (a) I linked the the Wiki article in response to a question about/request for anecdotal evidence (b) I don’t agree with the “stockman” interpretation - in fact, it’s bizarre to my mind (c) Would appreciate it if you eased back with the snippy style ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/775 "2012-08-09T07:02:14Z")
As a general observation, it really is a bit rubbish - and one of the oldest spoiling tactics - to broaden out a debate to try and undermine the premise. The OP - and the issue - is about (a) the 100m flat sprint and (b) the possible impact of slavery. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/776 "2012-08-09T07:06:07Z")
Cherry picking should be an Olympic sport. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/777 "2012-08-09T09:08:53Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I suppose…on the other hand, there doesn’t seem to be any dearth of accepting those same “impossible to measure” “odd metrics” when we are trying to explain underperformance of the black SIRE group in non-physical skillsets. > > We’re all over nurturing and how obviously easy it is to recognize and measure if we want an explanation why black Medical School candidates perform overwhelmingly poorly on the MCAT entrance exam even if they have the same antecedent college preparation (and after 4 years of medical school, the scoring differences on the licensing exams will persist as well). And so on…and we even stretch out the nurturing concept to a pretty thin argument when we try to explain why children of wealthy black families underscore children from poverty-stricken white families on the SAT. I have no idea why any of this is relevant to “why blacks run faster”- or to anything I’ve said. It doesn’t sound like anyone is claiming “nurturing” is “normalized” in your MCAT and SAT examples (assuming your claims are accurate). ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/778 "2012-08-09T09:59:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I have no idea why any of this is relevant to “why blacks run faster”- or to anything I’ve said. It doesn’t sound like anyone is claiming “nurturing” is “normalized” in your MCAT and SAT examples (assuming your claims are accurate). I believe your original point is that nurturing is too soft to be measured…“odd metrics” was the term you used. Yet we use disparate nurturing as an explanation for performance differences in many other black-white skillset outcomes. In other words, we make the claim that the difference in performance is due to the difference in nurturing and not genes. For disparate nurturing to be used as an explanation it must be measurable. So my point is that when blacks disproportionately outperform whites, and I claim this is due to genes because the nurturing component does not favor blacks, you complain that nurturing is too soft to be measured. But when whites disproportionately outperform blacks, and I claim that is due to genes because the nurturing component does not favor whites, you (or at least, the average can’t-be-genes advocate) suddenly find nurturing differences to be obvious (and therefore imply they are measurable). So you have to pick your poison. If you poo poo measuring nurturing in one instance you can’t drag it out as an explanation in the other. I’m still waiting for a good explanation on why Jamaicans can drive sprinting success but not STEM success. The genetic answer is that you can culturally and socially drive success where you have the right raw material. I’m not sure what the non-genetic answer is… ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/779 "2012-08-09T10:26:42Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > There are 2 problems here, which I’ve brought up in this very thread, yet haven’t really been addressed. > > The first is that the Kalenjin aren’t genetically isolated from nearby human population groups, yet they are the predominant running group in Kenya. It is not reasonable for a genetic predisposition to mostly limit itself to a social, rather than a biological, grouping. > > The second is that beyond marathon distance, they aren’t dominant. If any particular subgroup of people are, it’s the Tarahumara of Mexico, members of whom are known to run over a hundred miles at a single go. If you look at lists of ultramarathon winners, Kenyans aren’t dominating anybody. > > So, if there is a genetic Kalenjin predisposition for running long distances, it’s of the sort that kicks in at around a mile but kicks off past 26 miles and also kicks off when expressed outside the tribe. I suppose that’s possible, but, again, it’s the sort of thing that means the question of normalizing for nurturing isn’t settled to the degree you think it is. Success is always a combination of genes and nurturing. When we see an over-representation of a given group, we have to look at both factors. I believe that there is a strong running culture for the Kalenjin and marathons in particular. See [here](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/11/why_are_kenyansfast_runners.html) for example. Superimposed on a genetic gift, it’s a recipe for disproportionate success. You would not, for example, likely be as successful creating a running culture for the Inuit (although, who knows, until you try?). There may well be other pools of peoples with the right genes for distance running, currently under-represented because of nurturing (cultural inclination; opportunity; whatever). As the world becomes flatter for opportunity, it will be fun to see what other pockets of genetic gifting show up. Maybe there’s a lost tribe somewhere that is absolutely kick-ass in rocket science or high jumping, their genetic potential having been overlooked because they never got into the start pool of potential candidates for that skillset. I don’t know much about the Tarahumara but it would be interesting to find out if they are really better at long-distance running than the rest of the world, or just have a culture for it (but would not be competetive against other populations, given similar training/nurturing). As to Kenyans and ultramarathoning, I don’t know anything about ultramarathoning, either. Is there money in it, or is it just a niche hobby for people with nothing better to do? Has anyone looked to see if the Kenyan marathoners are interested in taking it up? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/780 "2012-08-09T10:30:14Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > (a) I linked the the Wiki article in response to a question about/request for anecdotal evidence > > (b) I don’t agree with the “stockman” interpretation - in fact, it’s bizarre to my mind > > (c) Would appreciate it if you eased back with the snippy style (a) you repeated a link that had been already posted and discussed on the same page just hours prior to your post, indicating that you do not seem to be paying attention. (b) It is irrelevant whether you agree or disagree with the stockman “interpretation,” since that is the actual information that has been provided in regard to the discussion–even by the link you provided. (c) I would appreciate you actually reading and participating in your thread instead of chiming in at rare intervals just to say you agree or disagree without actually addressing the points that you raised that have been refuted by facts. = = = As to claims that the thread has been “broadened” to undermine the premise: conversations drift. You have made no effort to keep the discussion focused for the last month and have not even addressed points raised against your premise. The “broadening” has occurred in discussions by participants who could be characterized as supporters of your (general) position, at least as much as by your opponents, so there was clearly no effort, in that sense, to “undermine” the discussion in which you have not chosen to participate. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414/781 "2012-08-09T11:34:23Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I believe your original point is that nurturing is too soft to be measured…“odd metrics” was the term you used. I don’t know if it is too soft to be measured- I’m saying that you have not adequately measured it. It sounds, conceivably, like it could be measured- but it sounds like it would be a monumental task. Far easier, it seems to me, would be to actually find those genes responsible. > [@](#): > > So my point is that when blacks disproportionately outperform whites, and I claim this is due to genes because the nurturing component does not favor blacks, you complain that nurturing is too soft to be measured. No, I complain that you have not even come close to demonstrating that nurturing is normalized. You’ve even made the bizarre claim that whites have a greater “nurturing” advantage when it comes to sports like basketball. Does your “nurturing” factor where the basketball courts are? How often the kids play? Where their parents are, and what the parents are encouraging them to do? While I’m saying that nurturing seems to be very difficult to measure, I’m also saying that your claims about the different levels of nurturing between “races” are ridiculous. > [@](#): > > But when whites disproportionately outperform blacks, and I claim that is due to genes because the nurturing component does not favor whites, you (or at least, the average can’t-be-genes advocate) suddenly find nurturing differences to be obvious (and therefore imply they are measurable). I don’t claim to find nurturing differences to be obvious- I’m just saying you’ve demonstrated nothing with regards to nurturing. I think the question is far from settled whether, for example, “nurturing components” do not favor whites in sports like tennis. Or is white domination of tennis genetic? I won’t make a claim either way. > [@](#): > > So you have to pick your poison. If you poo poo measuring nurturing in one instance you can’t drag it out as an explanation in the other. I’m not using it as an explanation for anything. In my view, you’ve failed to show any particular difference or similarity in “nurturing” between any populations. > [@](#): > > I’m still waiting for a good explanation on why Jamaicans can drive sprinting success but not STEM success. The genetic answer is that you can culturally and socially drive success where you have the right raw material. I’m not sure what the non-genetic answer is… The genetic answer would be that there are genes in higher (or lower) proportions among Jamaicans vice the rest of the world that benefit them in sprinting and hurt them in STEM. But there’s zero evidence for this. No one has found this gene. Until they do, it’s just a guess- a guess as valid as this one: “there’s an unstudied flower in Jamaica that puts into the air vast amounts of pollen that when inhaled induces greater ability in sprinting and lesser ability in STEM”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-this-why-blacks-run-faster/627414.md?page=40)