# If one race is faster, more athletic, stronger in sports - what's bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836 "2016-02-22T21:35:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/201 "2016-02-29T09:16:23Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > But social policy is often tethered to discussions of group characteristics. > … > When just as many black people are scoring as high on tests and getting into elite colleges as asians, then the negative perceptions of them being less intelligent on average in the back of peoples minds will dissolve away. Sure, but it’s a bit of a catch 22. Since more black\* kids belong to poor families, we would expect them to perform worse on tests on average, because factors like wealth of parents / quality of schooling are a strong factor in performance. But if we spend money disproportionately on black children, whether through AA or just helping a subset of society that’s disproportionately black, we’ll get the argument that maybe they are not doing so well because they are less bright on average. And how do they prove they are comparably bright? By scoring the same. - I had to pick a race to make this simpler to read, I could have used hispanics, or pakistanis in the UK (but not Indians) etc. > [@](#): > > Further, societal biases can stick to members of a group whether an individual from that group shares the assumed characteristics or not. > … > This is how the world works, how the brain deals with observation and expectation. Stereotypes are often based on real observations in the world, and the single greatest force for destroying negative stereotypes is to prove them wrong. Pretending it is not so won’t do the trick. However social attitudes have shifted a lot, and I see no reason to think we need to pander to the most ignorant in society to keep progressing. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/202 "2016-02-29T09:47:24Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > That is your problem. Some of it is. Not all of it, some of it. That diet/environment accounts for 0-99% of the variation is irrelevant, if only the tiniest sliver of height is influenced by genetics, then you will see differences between populations due to the portion of the genes that differ between populations and influence height. I’m not saying height isn’t influenced by genetics, it is. That’s _not the same_ as saying Dutch people are inherently taller than Japanese. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/203 "2016-02-29T11:24:09Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I’m not saying height isn’t influenced by genetics, it is. That’s _not the same_ as saying Dutch people are inherently taller than Japanese. Different statement, inherent sounds like an intrinsic property of the people as a whole. Obviously there are short dutch people and freakishly tall japanese people, we are talking about averages though and those can and are different between populations. Once we learn how to tweak and modify genes for things that contribute to height, we should be able to increase the frequency of alleles that contribute to increased height in japanese people, or increase the frequency of alleles that contribute to less height in dutch people. But allele frequency is not identical between either individuals or populations. This is why you and others ought to expect differences in the average stats between people and populations. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/204 "2016-02-29T11:56:23Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > Different statement, inherent sounds like an intrinsic property of the people as a whole. Yes, because that’s what you’re saying - “Dutch people are, on average, inherently taller than Japanese people and always will be barring genetic engineering” > [@](#): > > Obviously there are short dutch people and freakishly tall japanese people, we are talking about averages though and those can and are different between populations. And for _the same population_ at different times. > [@](#): > > Once we learn how to tweak and modify genes for things that contribute to height, we should be able to increase the frequency of alleles that contribute to increased height in japanese people, or increase the frequency of alleles that contribute to less height in dutch people. We don’t even need to do that. As recent history has shown - you just have to feed the Japanese differently. > [@](#): > > This is why you and others ought to expect differences in the average stats between people and populations. I expect the difference. I just don’t consider the height differences intrinsic to the populations under consideration, or immutable. ---
**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:** [February 29, 2016, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/205 "2016-02-29T13:20:59Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I don’t buy this. Football, like most sports, is a sport in which a player’s strengths and weaknesses are quickly exposed and become evident. If a white Caucasian player is lanky, can run a 40-yard dash in 4.4 seconds, can jump high enough to dunk a basketball, and has great coaching hands, coaches are not going to have him playing lineman. Most likely he’ll be playing WR or DB. > > If a black player can’t block, can’t catch, can’t run, but can consistently make 60-yard field goals with 90% accuracy, he’ll be a kicker. > > Culture plays almost no role. It’s almost all about merit and ability. Sports is a meritocracy at its most merciless. If a white guy can play wide receiver better than any black person, coaches bench him or play him at some other less-suitable position at their own peril. What if a player can run, catch, and perform all these other football skills very well? Is it possible that coaches might (consciously or not) maneuver a white player with such ability towards QB or TE or LB, while maneuvering a black player with such abilities towards WR or DB or RB? Is it possible that elementary and middle school Phys Ed coaches (as well as parents!) might encourage athletic black children towards basketball and football, while athletic white children are more likely to be encouraged to play tennis, hockey, or lacrosse? These seem to me to be not only possible, but likely. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/206 "2016-02-29T15:18:04Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > In some other thread discussions there were people who vehemently rejected the notion that black athletes had a genetic advantage in speed, agility, etc. when it came to explaining why wide receivers, defensive backs or other such speed positions in certain sports tended to be African-American. > > Now, whether black people have a genetic advantage in Olympic sprinting or NBA basketball, etc. isn’t the point of this thread - maybe they do, maybe they don’t. That’s a scientific discussion. But my question is - _suppose that they indeed did_, and the reason that black players dominate positions such as NFL wide receiver and cornerback is indeed because of this natural advantage - _what would be so bad about that?_ > > Why is it bad if one race does indeed have a genetic advantage in agility or speed? Would it somehow be racist for that to be the case? Or is it more that it’s racist to \*say \*that race is the reason for speed advantage - in other words, it’s more the \*speech \*that is the issue than it is the science that is the issue? Prove it’s true first, then you can decide whether it’s okay to say it. Plenty of people in history have believe in genetic advantages that turned out to be false. For instance, see the movie “Race” that is coming to theatres soon. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/207 "2016-02-29T16:43:32Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The notion that such differences are 100% cultural is the **null hypothesis**. That’s the statisticians’ term for the default assumption that any statistical claim has to be tested against. Why is that the null hypothesis? It seems to me that that is treated as the null hypothesis because that’s what we, as liberals, want to be true. In some situations it’s easy for there to be a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that there are no unicorns, prove that there are. The null hypothesis is that the election was conducted fairly, prove that it was stolen. But I don’t see why the null hypothesis would be “every genetically similar group of homo sapiens, despite having evolved in vastly different situations leading to widely varying physical characteristics, is 100% equal in every facet of intellectual aptitude”. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/208 "2016-02-29T17:01:18Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > Stereotypes are often based on real observations in the world, and the single greatest force for destroying negative stereotypes is to prove them wrong. This is clearly wrong. Just look at he definition of stereotype: > [@](#): > > a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. Note it says fixed. It says that because there is often no number of peaceful Muslims that will prevent people from thinking they are terrorists, no number of generous Jews who prevent some from thinking Jews are greedy, and no number of dumb Asian people who will prevent many from thinking they are smarter than everyone. Stereotypes are almost all irrational prejudices. Yes, sometime it conforms to reality just based on the basis of large numbers and the self-reinforcing effects of expectations, but most will not be disabused of a stereotype by new information because they came to believe something for irrational reasons. > [@Salvor](#): > > Different statement, inherent sounds like an intrinsic property of the people as a whole. Obviously there are short dutch people and freakishly tall japanese people, we are talking about averages though and those can and are different between populations. Once we learn how to tweak and modify genes for things that contribute to height, we should be able to increase the frequency of alleles that contribute to increased height in japanese people, or increase the frequency of alleles that contribute to less height in dutch people. But allele frequency is not identical between either individuals or populations. This is why you and others ought to expect differences in the average stats between people and populations. But things like intelligence and fast running speed are not “stats”. They are, by and large, acquired skills. Yes, a proclivity for the acquisition of said skills has a hand in the matter, but it is not really the decisive factor in most cases. This is true mostly because potential is squandered and destroy far more often, and far easier than it is enhanced via training and good decision making. Doubly so when we are talking about extreme outliers like professional athletes. How can we be reasonably sure of this? One obvious example of this, look at people on the extremes of success. How many self made billionaires have siblings (who have the closest set of genes and environment) who are also as independently wealthy? Almost none. Even in sports, where you see more of this, it’s usually in a second generation when the environment is more conducive of sports success. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/209 "2016-02-29T17:01:28Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > that’s the null hypothesis. It’s up to the people who are claiming to have evidence for genetic causes for these differences to show that their evidence contradicts the null hypothesis in a statistically meaningful way. > > Attempting to handwave away this unwillingness to compromise on scientific rigor by accusing scientists of being “scared of the truth” is not a valid rebuttal. The null hypothesis is what people want it to be, because every side wants to place the burden of proof on the opposing side. We don’t have referees in this debate. Someone could just as easily say, “It’s up to the people who claim that culture is the reason for these differences to show that their evidence contradicts the null hypothesis in a statistically meaningful way.” ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/210 "2016-02-29T17:05:04Z")
Out of the 200+ posts in this thread, only a handful have actually tackled the OP issue/question. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/211 "2016-02-29T17:32:06Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Yes, because that’s what you’re saying - "Dutch people are, on average, inherently taller than Japanese people and always will be barring genetic engineering"And for _the same population_ at different times.We don’t even need to do that. As recent history has shown - you just have to feed the Japanese differently.I expect the difference. I just don’t consider the height differences intrinsic to the populations under consideration, or immutable. Height is not immutable in the sense that it can’t shift by any means, but your assumption that all that is needed is proper environment and diet is wrong. You don’t seem to grasp the constraints genes place on anything. If instead of height we look at another variable trait, skin tone, this is an even clearer example that proves the point. Now you could say that skin tone is just a function of environment and being in the sun longer gives more or less of a tan, but an irish person, barring some genetic mutations, is never going to be as tan as an Indian or Iranian person (no albinos please). None of this implies that the Irish will ALWAYS be lighter than any other group of people in the universe, but the vector for making them less pale is not diet or environment, it’s differential reproductive success of people with more pigmented skin or genetic engineering such that the frequency of alleles that contribute to the more tan skinned traits are greater. You want to deny the constraints nature places on people, you say you think human traits are in part determined by nature then immediately go to a world view where the sum total of variation can be collapsed to zero if we only change the environment. This, is, wrong. Obviously wrong, as it is for athletic capability in different areas, as it is for intelligence, between both individuals, and populations at large. Remember Michael Phelps? The swimmer with 8+ gold medals? That dude looks like a manta ray, his build gives him an edge for the types of swimming he competes in. Is his body type more common among certain populations compared to others? Probably. Body types are not identical between individuals, if each person in the world lives in the same environment and eats the same diet and performs the same exercise with the same intensity and frequency, do you expect identical results? What causes the variance there if NOT a person individual genetic makeup? How many examples must be levied, how much common sense and analytical sense must be tossed out the window before people stop arguing against all reason? As I stated earlier, it seems to me this resistance to the obvious is born out of a desire to hold up an egalitarian ideal that extends not only to how nature should work, but how it DOES Work. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/212 "2016-02-29T17:49:49Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Ironic that the 100% culture camp is exclaiming “strawman!” Many in the 100% culture camp are very dishonest with the characterization of the genetics plays a role group. Oh, yeah! Another strawman! I’ll just add this one to my scene: > [@](#): > > Scientist: You know, we really are still learning how genes interact with all the non-genetic factors with regards to intelligence. And we don’t really have a good definition of intelligence yet. And we haven’t found any clear way to map genes to social constructs of race. So, we can’t make definitive statements about how genetic factors related to intelligence break down on socially constructed racial lines. > > Scientaster: Why are you claiming that everybody has the exact same traits? Why are you claiming that genes don’t influence intelligence? Why are you claiming 100% culture? > > Scientist: Um, I didn’t actually claim any of those things. > > Scientaster: Why are you claiming that everybody has the exact same traits? Why are you claiming that genes don’t influence intelligence? Why are you claiming 100% culture? > > Scientist: No, see, I didn’t claim any of those things. You just keep repeating that stuff as if I claimed it. > > Scientaster: Why are you claiming that everybody has the exact same traits? Why are you claiming that genes don’t influence intelligence? Why are you claiming 100% culture? > > Repeat ad-naseum. > > You can substitute “athletic ability” for “intelligence” in the above with the same results. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/213 "2016-02-29T18:02:14Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > Every time I’ve seen someone go into some detailed analysis of why there are differences between populations, people like you toss in uncertainty and doubt into the analysis, in an inevitable move to retreat into the null position laid out above because the “proof” offered does reach some insane standard of certainty. I presume you meant to say “does **not** reach”; if so, my reply is that we’re not talking about “some insane standard of certainty”, we’re talking about a **scientifically requisite standard of statistical significance**. No so-called “detailed analysis” of these subjects has ever yet reached such a standard. Which is not at all surprising, since as I noted, **this subject is both intrinsically massively complicated and still in the rudimentary stages of scientific study**. No reasonable well-informed person would **expect** that we could get convincing answers to questions about genetics and intelligence at the racial-category level at this stage of our knowledge. [QUOTE=Salvor] It’s like arguing against the existence of god. [/quote] It’s not in the least like arguing against the existence of god, but thanks for playing. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/214 "2016-02-29T18:07:16Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > This is clearly wrong. Just look at he definition of stereotype: > > Note it says fixed. It says that because there is often no number of peaceful Muslims that will prevent people from thinking they are terrorists, no number of generous Jews who prevent some from thinking Jews are greedy, and no number of dumb Asian people who will prevent many from thinking they are smarter than everyone. Stereotypes are almost all irrational prejudices. Yes, sometime it conforms to reality just based on the basis of large numbers and the self-reinforcing effects of expectations, but most will not be disabused of a stereotype by new information because they came to believe something for irrational reasons. I don’t consider most stereotypes people hold fixed. Perhaps there needs to be another word to describe what I am talking about if “fixed” is part of the dictionary definition, but I reject the idea that most peoples ideas about people or things are impervious to counter evidence. The existence of dumb asians or generous jews is not the metric, go to any elite college within a state with an asian population. Asians are over represented. That has not changed, dumb asians implies to people that dumb asians exist, everyone knows and expects that, but they ALSO expect that there might just be a higher % of smarter asians too based on what they observe. Same goes for terrorism that leads to murder and death (the dodge of including non violent terrorism to deflate the stats of Islamic terror is so cosmically dishonest it needs to be rebuked). The existence of peaceful muslims is not the metric or standard. I assume they are likely the majority in practice. But until I see murderous terror occur among Islamic adherants with no more frequency than buddhists or christians or atheists, I will continue to have a higher expectations that Islam is more likely to lead to such behavior. I consider that a stereotype based in reality, not fixed on my part, it is open to change, but that change in expectations needs to be altered by having my current expectations shown to be wrong repeatedly. You chose the wrong metrics for what constitutes breaking stereotypes. But if stereotypes are REQUIRED to be fixed according to the dictionary definition, then we need a new word that captures the same idea. > [@](#): > > But things like intelligence and fast running speed are not “stats”. They are, by and large, acquired skills. Yes, a proclivity for the acquisition of said skills has a hand in the matter, but it is not really the decisive factor in most cases. This is true mostly because potential is squandered and destroy far more often, and far easier than it is enhanced via training and good decision making. Doubly so when we are talking about extreme outliers like professional athletes. How can we be reasonably sure of this? One obvious example of this, look at people on the extremes of success. How many self made billionaires have siblings (who have the closest set of genes and environment) who are also as independently wealthy? Almost none. Even in sports, where you see more of this, it’s usually in a second generation when the environment is more conducive of sports success. Intelligence is not an acquired skill, knowledge is acquired, but intelligence and aptitude are more about what you are born with barring major environmental constraints. Now I’m sure we have vast untapped seas of environmental learning methods that can increase the ability to acquire knowledge for more people, but the idea the variation in raw intelligence we observe between people is mostly just something people acquire in life (once the handicaps of terrible environment is removed) is absurd. Almost every person here has been in some form of school for over a decade growing up. In your classes, there were individuals that were clearly slower than other kids, while some kids were naturally sharper and smarter than others. Large chunks if not the majority of the differences there are about nature not nurture, especially when looking at the same school and same classroom. Parents are variable as is home life, but there again you can have siblings within the same family going to the same school have wildly different performance in school. Using sports as a counter is not sufficient, it’s true that many children of professional athletes go into the same field, but… I don’t know why I need to point out the obvious here but… they are the children of successful athletes… seems like a major source of lineage direction genetic traits being transferred vertically on TOP of added experience honed over the course of decades in sports. But even in those families, there is variation between siblings, environment is not enough. Again, more and more people bending over backwards to deny the obvious as I see it. This is what athletics opens the floodgates to. But athletics are not the boogeyman, most people don’t really care if some group can run a bit faster or longer, but one group being smarter raises the specter and worry of eugenics and racists using this knowledge for ill. The latter is a perfectly reasonable worry but we should not deny reality as it is because of fears of how that knowledge will be used. If people just don’t want this discussed openly because there is nothing we currently know how to do to address it, fine, I can at least understand that. But no one is making THAT argument, they are pretending genetic iq differences are not real in the first place. Because once that happens, they think the dominoes will fall into any number of terrible consequences. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/215 "2016-02-29T18:11:45Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > but the idea the variation in raw intelligence we observe between people is mostly just something people acquire in life (once the handicaps of terrible environment is removed) is absurd. The strawman again! Let’s go back to the scene: > [@](#): > > Scientist: You know, we really are still learning how genes interact with all the non-genetic factors with regards to intelligence. And we don’t really have a good definition of intelligence yet. And we haven’t found any clear way to map genes to social constructs of race. So, we can’t make definitive statements about how genetic factors related to intelligence break down on socially constructed racial lines. > > Scientaster: Why are you claiming that everybody has the exact same traits? Why are you claiming that genes don’t influence intelligence? > > Scientist: Um, I didn’t actually claim any of those things. > > Scientaster: Why are you claiming that everybody has the exact same traits? Why are you claiming that genes don’t influence intelligence? > > Scientist: No, see, I didn’t claim any of those things. You just keep repeating that stuff as if I claimed it. > > Scientaster: Why are you claiming that everybody has the exact same traits? Why are you claiming that genes don’t influence intelligence? > > Repeat ad-naseum. > > You can substitute “athletic ability” for “intelligence” in the above with the same results. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/216 "2016-02-29T18:15:19Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I presume you meant to say “does **not** reach”; if so, my reply is that we’re not talking about “some insane standard of certainty”, we’re talking about a **scientifically requisite standard of statistical significance**. No so-called “detailed analysis” of these subjects has ever yet reached such a standard. > > Which is not at all surprising, since as I noted, **this subject is both intrinsically massively complicated and still in the rudimentary stages of scientific study**. No reasonable well-informed person would **expect** that we could get convincing answers to questions about genetics and intelligence at the racial-category level at this stage of our knowledge. > It’s not in the least like arguing against the existence of god, but thanks for playing. I think the most unreasonable position of all is to EXPECT that the variance between populations on something like intelligence (something with a CLEAR genetic component) is identical where 100% of that variance should be “assumed” to be environmental. As an expectation that is more likely, some vs none, none is vastly less likely than some. Same goes with an all expectation, it is vastly less likely that all variance in intelligence is genetic vs some. Some ought to be the natural candidate for the highest expectation, and yet you come on here presuming it is the the least likely thing imaginable. So here is a direct question that avoids null hypothesis and whatever other argumentative deceptions people engage in. Do you think intelligence is 100% environmental or do you think it is partly genetic? I do not ask for perfect knowledge, I ask for what you expect to be the case, not a scientific proof that no one has ever been (or likely ever will be) able to provide you. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/217 "2016-02-29T18:19:39Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > I think the most unreasonable position of all is to EXPECT that the variance between populations on something like intelligence (something with a CLEAR genetic component) is identical where 100% of that variance should be “assumed” to be environmental. > [@](#): > > Do you think intelligence is 100% environmental or do you think it is partly genetic? I do not ask for perfect knowledge, I ask for what you expect to be the case, not a scientific proof that no one has ever been (or likely ever will be) able to provide you. Yeah! You just keep pushing that strawman! > [@](#): > > Scientist: You know, we really are still learning how genes interact with all the non-genetic factors with regards to intelligence. And we don’t really have a good definition of intelligence yet. And we haven’t found any clear way to map genes to social constructs of race. So, we can’t make definitive statements about how genetic factors related to intelligence break down on socially constructed racial lines. > > Scientaster: Why are you claiming that everybody has the exact same traits? Why are you claiming that genes don’t influence intelligence? Why are you claiming 100% culture? > > Scientist: Um, I didn’t actually claim any of those things. > > Scientaster: Why are you claiming that everybody has the exact same traits? Why are you claiming that genes don’t influence intelligence? Why are you claiming 100% culture? > > Scientist: No, see, I didn’t claim any of those things. You just keep repeating that stuff as if I claimed it. > > Scientaster: Why are you claiming that everybody has the exact same traits? Why are you claiming that genes don’t influence intelligence? Why are you claiming 100% culture? > > Repeat ad-naseum. > > You can substitute “athletic ability” for “intelligence” in the above with the same results. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/218 "2016-02-29T18:33:14Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Yeah! You just keep pushing that strawman! The one consistently pushing a Straw Man argument in this thread is you, not him. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/219 "2016-02-29T18:33:57Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > The strawman again! Let’s go back to the scene: > [@](#): > > You know, we really are still learning how genes interact with all the non-genetic factors with regards to intelligence. And we don’t really have a good definition of intelligence yet. And we haven’t found any clear way to map genes to social constructs of race. So, we can’t make definitive statements about how genetic factors related to intelligence break down on socially constructed racial lines. I’ll raise you your own strawman + an argument made in bad faith on top of that. I don’t limit variance in intelligence to race, I think populations in general can and do vary, that includes populations within the same race. This is not specific to race as far as I’m concerned other than the fact that it is the sort of grouping many people use in daily life. The argument in bad faith comes from what you mentioned above. Because we do not know all the genetic factors that lead to intelligence or have a good working definition of intelligence or a way to map genes to race or different populations regarding intelligence, we can’t make any assertions that populations clearly differ in the phenotype of aptitude and intelligence we observe in the real world. We have tests that measure something called iq, we have proxies for higher intelligence like tests in school and professional attainment, imperfect secondary metrics all, but they are not NOTHING. The idea you and others imply is that because we can’t produce the sorts of direct observational proof of the sort we have in physics calculations, all our proxy observations that suggest some differentials between populations should be rejected as meaningless noise. A standard you hold for almost nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2016, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/220 "2016-02-29T18:34:20Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The one consistently pushing a Straw Man argument in this thread is you, not him. Lol. Right back at ya! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836.md?page=12)