# 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:** 13
**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:** [March 1, 2016, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/241 "2016-03-01T00:55:17Z")
The shape of the skull. It’s the only basis. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/242 "2016-03-01T01:00:19Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > They ask, dishonestly, for a standard of proof they’d never give Nonsense. All we’re asking for is the same standard of **statistical significance** —not proof—that any responsible statistician would require from any rigorous statistical experiment. **It’s not _our_ fault that the subject _you’ve_ chosen to make statistical claims about is intrinsically extremely complicated and difficult to study rigorously.** > [@octopus](#): > > […] even though everyone knows organisms from sexual reproduction form fuzzy sets “Fuzzy sets” aren’t your problem here. You don’t need to show that **every** member of a certain population has a particular characteristic in order to show a **statistically significant** result linking that population with that characteristic. All you need to do is this: \*\*1) Find two or more groups of sufficient sample size that differ genetically in specified ways to specified extents. 1. Control effectively for all other differences between the groups. 2. Show that the observed quantitative difference in overall results for the groups meets the appropriate quantitative criteria for statistical significance.\*\* (Note, by the way, that not **every** member of each group has to exhibit such a difference in order for the **overall** difference to be statistically significant. So having a “fuzzy set” isn’t the obstacle to a successful experiment here.) Yes, step (2) is the hard part in that procedure. It is, in fact, **incredibly fucking difficult** to control effectively for **all** possible differences between groups of actual real-life human beings that could determine a particular outcome. **But just because it’s incredibly fucking difficult doesn’t mean it’s scientifically okay not to bother with it.** Responsible scientists, when confronted with an experiment design that they’re not yet able to carry out rigorously, don’t sit around whining that they ought to be allowed to perform it non-rigorously instead, because it’s unfair and mean to expect the same standard of rigor for an **incredibly fucking difficult** experiment as for easier experiments. Look, special snowflakes, we weren’t the ones who chose this research topic for you. You chose it yourselves because you were intrigued by a bunch of remarkable-looking facts that seemed on the surface to imply a causal connection between race and some complicated physico-psychosocial outcome. Now you actually have to do the heavy lifting of examining that apparent implication with **scientific rigor**. If you want an easier task, go investigate an easier subject. But don’t come around crying because you’re not allowed to get away with skimping the proper scientific procedure on an **incredibly fucking difficult** task. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/243 "2016-03-01T01:10:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If one wants to make the argument that this disparity is explained by the genetics of African ancestry, as opposed to cultural and societal differences, then one could perform the following experiment – gather a group of self-identified black children, with similar socio-economic circumstances, and administer intelligence tests. At the same time, take blood, and using genetic analysis, estimate the proportion of African ancestry for each child. > > Then, in a group in which “nurture” factors (economics, race-identification, etc.) are about as equalized as they could possibly be, you could see if greater levels of African admixture correlates with greater or lower scores on tests. > > Interestingly enough, [such a study has been done](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/absence-of-a-relationship-between-degree-of-white-ancestry-and-intellectual-skills-within-a-black-population.pdf). It found _no correlation between African admixture and test scores_. Black kids with more African ancestry scored no differently than black kids with less. It used older, but still legitimate, methodology. > > Such a study wouldn’t be particularly hard to repeat (with modern methodology) for folks who had legitimate curiosity about the issue, but for some reason those who advocate that black people are inherently intellectually inferior, on average, due to genetics, seem to have little interest in doing actual science, and a lot more interest in promoting the supposed inferior intellect (and usually other traits, such as supposed inherent aggression and criminality) of black people. [African immigrants have the highest academic attainment in the US](http://www.atlnightspots.com/african-immigrants-have-the-highest-academic-achievement-in-the-us/) Of course, this doesn’t disprove the notion that dumb bunny genes are disproportionately represented in the “black race”. Maybe these successful immigrants are the lucky ones that don’t carry the genes. Maybe they have the genes, but it takes a couple of generations living in harsh environs of the US for genes to be expressed. But the finding should give people some pause before jumping on the “it’s gotta be genetic!” bandwagon. Especially considering what happens to the second generation: [America is the land of opportuny for black immigrants, but not their kids](http://qz.com/198512/america-still-is-the-land-of-opportunities-for-black-immigrants-but-not-their-kids/) ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/244 "2016-03-01T01:10:30Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Out of the 200+ posts in this thread, only a handful have actually tackled the OP issue/question. What’s bad is that it destroys an illusion that people find comforting. Same reason why we have billions that believe in various mythologies even when science and rational thought work so well. Comfortable childhood myths are extraordinarily difficult to overcome. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/245 "2016-03-01T01:20:26Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nonsense. All we’re asking for is the same standard of **statistical significance** —not proof—that any responsible statistician would require from any rigorous statistical experiment. > > **It’s not _our_ fault that the subject _you’ve_ chosen to make statistical claims about is intrinsically extremely complicated and difficult to study rigorously.** > “Fuzzy sets” aren’t your problem here. You don’t need to show that **every** member of a certain population has a particular characteristic in order to show a **statistically significant** result linking that population with that characteristic. > > All you need to do is this: > > \*\*1) Find two or more groups of sufficient sample size that differ genetically in specified ways to specified extents. > > 1. Control effectively for all other differences between the groups. > > 2. Show that the observed quantitative difference in overall results for the groups meets the appropriate quantitative criteria for statistical significance.\*\* (Note, by the way, that not **every** member of each group has to exhibit such a difference in order for the **overall** difference to be statistically significant. So having a “fuzzy set” isn’t the obstacle to a successful experiment here.) > Yes, step (2) is the hard part in that procedure. It is, in fact, **incredibly fucking difficult** to control effectively for **all** possible differences between groups of actual real-life human beings that could determine a particular outcome. > > **But just because it’s incredibly fucking difficult doesn’t mean it’s scientifically okay not to bother with it.** Responsible scientists, when confronted with an experiment design that they’re not yet able to carry out rigorously, don’t sit around whining that they ought to be allowed to perform it non-rigorously instead, because it’s unfair and mean to expect the same standard of rigor for an **incredibly fucking difficult** experiment as for easier experiments. > > Look, special snowflakes, we weren’t the ones who chose this research topic for you. You chose it yourselves because you were intrigued by a bunch of remarkable-looking facts that seemed on the surface to imply a causal connection between race and some complicated physico-psychosocial outcome. Now you actually have to do the heavy lifting of examining that apparent implication with **scientific rigor**. > > If you want an easier task, go investigate an easier subject. But don’t come around crying because you’re not allowed to get away with skimping the proper scientific procedure on an **incredibly fucking difficult** task. Actually, I don’t. For what you propose is ridiculous. I’d love for you to calculate precisely turbulent flow. Or weather. You’ve heard of the butterfly effect right? If so you know what you propose is preposterous and the same standards of proof could be demanded from those who deny that genetics have any impact. Prove that it’s only culture. Some in this thread have already conceded that 100% culture is a “strawman” which in my eyes is concession enough. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/246 "2016-03-01T01:21:34Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > What’s bad is that it destroys an illusion that people find comforting. Same reason why we have billions that believe in various mythologies even when science and rational thought work so well. Comfortable childhood myths are extraordinarily difficult to overcome. Science and rational thought apparently haven’t worked so well for you personally, though. Because whenever it’s pointed out to you that you have to follow the requirements of science and rational thought in order to make a statistically meaningful claim about a hypothesized causal connection, you simply pretend that your claim has somehow magically been already shown to be true. Talking to you about statistically significant evidence on race is like arguing with an anti-vaxxer. The more we explain to them that the so-called empirical evidence they’re so impressed by doesn’t actually meet scientific criteria of validity, the more they fall back on stubbornly insisting that we must just be brainwashed. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/247 "2016-03-01T01:23:24Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > the same standards of proof could be demanded from those who deny that genetics have any impact. Who has denied that genetics have any impact? Show us the poster who claimed this. You just keep repeating this strawman over and over. > [@](#): > > Prove that it’s only culture. Some in this thread have already conceded that 100% culture is a “strawman” which in my eyes is concession enough. It’s a strawman that you introduced into the thread, since nobody in this thread claimed 100% culture except you. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/248 "2016-03-01T01:28:41Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > those who deny that genetics have any impact Who are those people again? In this thread? Feel free to name names. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/249 "2016-03-01T01:46:24Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > “Inherently” is a loaded term (probably why you keep using it) How is it a loaded term? It basically means inborn or a characteristic attribute. > [@Salvor](#): > > Which is exactly how the stats line up when it comes to sat scores, iq scores, blacks in elite institutions vs asians (incidentally, the black african population is over represented in colleges based on population, why? Not a random sample of the African population). You realize the Asian population is not random sample either? > [@Salvor](#): > > Learned prejudice? Ok, call it that if that makes you feel better. Accurate observations do make me feel better. > [@Salvor](#): > > Most of the time when I am in my car and choose to pass someone driving in front of me going 10mph slower than the flow of traffic, it’s an older person and not a younger person, with the exception of when they are on their phones instead of driving. Repeated observations Yes, but you are pointing out an observation that has a clear causal link. People tend to drive slower as they age for a variety of obvious reasons. That makes perfect sense as would pointing out that people with dentures tend to be older. The things you are talking about are closer to stereotypes like Asian people being poor drivers. There is no known causal link, and observations tend to just be confirmation bias. The fact that you just notice a bad Asian driver doesn’t make the stereotype any more true. And even if it were objectively true, there is no basis to assume it’s genetic. > [@Salvor](#): > > Yes or No? In the above case, no. In general, if you are applying the same logic to a stereotype based on biases, then you are wrong. > [@Salvor](#): > > Also, less interaction among members of minority groups increases the signals and perceptions of the members of the groups one does interact with, because the averages are less ironed out and more lumpy. Here it’s true that smaller sample sizes can make observations less reliable So then you agree that these prejudices are not effectively bolstered by observations since there frequency and rigor of observations are not such that anyone can draw a conclusion about a given group? > [@Salvor](#): > > that’s not the case for stats like test scores and educational attainment over millions of people in the US, there are consistent differences that have persisted across decades of social interventions. It’s not crazy to assume some of the causes of that are innate in origin. It is when you can go back mere decades to see the complete opposite. Many people on your side try to link IQ and National GDP. However, you need only go back a few decades to see countries like Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea, etc. as economic backwaters. In the 1950’s, 78% of Korean were illiterate. How do you think their test scores would have compared to Americans? Now the obvious change has been that they, as a country, embraced education. It wasn’t genes that changed, it was the culture and environment. There is NO genetic explanation for changes like this, and example of this kind are numerous. And even if you wanted to argue that these “smarter than average” Asians were always capable of such feats, the lessons of history tell us that the expression of those intelligence genes is largely based on being in a productive environment that will foster it. > [@Salvor](#): > > Muslims are terrorists is a gross overstatement. Muslims are more likely to be terrorists (of the sort that murder others - not talking property crimes) is not an overstatement at all, it’s absolutely true and divined by tallying up the numbers of murders and filing those differential rates of terrorist activity away. You disagree? Depends on what you mean by terrorism and how far back you want to go. That said, you are soft selling the issue. When people like Trump want to ban ALL muslims from entering or leaving the country, you are not making an argument based on relative harm from a microscopic percentage of bad people. You are essentially arguing all or most of them are bad. > [@Salvor](#): > > While I think most violent acts of terror are committed by muslims, that was a case where a religious jew did the same thing. That was a counter example of my assumption that mainly muslims are the ones doing the terror that leads to violence and murder. But it’s also just ONE example, if we got a similar incidence rate for jews and christians and buddhists and atheists that we were getting from muslims, then I’d alter my view that muslims are more likely to turn radical and kill people than other religious observers. That’s what I mean by having an observational view of the world. Do you think Muslims think the same acts you think are terrorism are in fact terrorism? Do you think Israels (or Russian or US) acts of aggression are considered terrorism to them? This one reason making a bald observation that Muslims are more likely to be terrorists carries a relatively unfair and myopic judgement of what is and isn’t terrorism. > [@Salvor](#): > > Intelligence is more about ones capacity to pick things up, make connections, and learn, especially as it relates to the speed at which these things occur. A Savant that learns to read and write by age 2 is what I’d consider more intelligent than a normal kid who did the same by age 5. If you think the above, then you have no understanding of how most people use the term. The former might be considered more precocious, but plenty of really smart people don’t pick things up quickly or do things early. > [@Salvor](#): > > What you are describing is knowledge, you do not have to be hyper intelligent to be extremely knowledgeable, an above average student who reads more than a smarter student who reads less might well have acquired more skills and knowledge than the smarter kid. Yes, and most outside observers will judge the average student to be more intelligent. > [@Salvor](#): > > But that is not what intelligence is, it’s the ability to learn, not what you have learned, or how much you have learned. Hello? We judge the ability based on the process of actually learning something. No one cares if some kid is imminently _capable_ of learning; they care what he knows. Imagine for a second that Einstein was locked in a room alone until he was 25. He has no access to books or people from whom he could learn. When he leaves, would the first people he speaks to think he was intelligent? Of course not. > [@Salvor](#): > > You can reference learned skills and facts and behaviors, but those are not the actual things that makes one more or less intelligent. Again, this is what an outside assessment of intelligence is typically based on. This is why John Kerry is typically considered to be smarter than George Bush despite them having fairly similar academic records. You can make some pie in the sky argument that we are not judging “raw intelligence” or whatever, but that doesn’t really hold up to cold reality. > [@Salvor](#): > > One metric I have is how many concepts you can juggle in your mind at once. And again, you are displaying how out of your depth you are. Being able to juggle concepts is a learned skill by and large. This is why a basic demonstration of this idea (memory) can be honed with practice. > [@Salvor](#): > > Identical twins have more similar performance outcomes than regular non twin siblings. Need I say more? Twins have closer environments and experiences as well. This doesn’t speak at all to there being genes that largerly determine intelligence in broad groups like “Asian”. > [@Thick as a Brick](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thick-as-a-brick/98556/4): > > The basis of my opinions are not perfect, but they seem to me a lot more grounded in observational reality than yours. But they aren’t in reality. That is what you keep missing. You are looking at a snapshot in history and then making up a story to fit your preconceived notions. This is why yours isn’t the working theory of most experts. Because it doesn’t explain why Canadians and Russians dominate hockey or why almost all of SE Asia went from having terrible test scores and rampant illiteracy to being near the top. It doesn’t explain any trend we see; it’s just guesses based on spitball “observations”. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/250 "2016-03-01T01:49:26Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > For what you propose is ridiculous. :dubious: Not my fault that you chose to make unsupported statistical claims about a ridiculously difficult topic. [QUOTE=octopus] I’d love for you to calculate precisely turbulent flow. Or weather. You’ve heard of the butterfly effect right? If so you know what you propose is preposterous [/quote] Wait, **what**? You seriously think that a **chaotic dynamical system** whose future state **by definition** cannot be predicted, like long-term weather effects, is the **same sort of phenomenon** as population genetics? So, you realize that you’ve just claimed that your proposed hypothesis is **literally and inherently untestable**? You’re wrong, of course: average genetic effects in a population aren’t **literally unpredictable in theory** due to chaotic behavior. They’re just **incredibly complicated and difficult to measure in practice**. (Especially when we’re not even sure yet which genes we’re talking about.) [QUOTE=octopus] Prove that it’s only culture. [/quote] But I’m not **claiming** that it’s only culture. I’m not making any claims about the relationship of race and intelligence one way or the other. **Because I’m not dumb enough to make scientific claims about a phenomenon that at present is too complicated and poorly understood to do scientifically rigorous experiments on.** I’m just pointing out that you have no scientifically rigorous support for **your** repeated insistent claim that it’s **not** only culture. If you haven’t proved your claim is true, that doesn’t make it my job to prove your claim is false. In fact, **I don’t particularly care whether your claim happens to be true or false** ; I don’t think it makes much difference to human worth or success if one racial group should happen to be intrinsically somewhat smarter than another. But **I do care, quite a bit, about the proper use and justification of scientific claims.** If somebody came along pretending to have a scientifically validated claim that outcome differences between racial groups are **not at all** due to genetics, I’d be spanking them for sloppy thinking just as hard as I’ve spanked you. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/251 "2016-03-01T03:41:48Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > The basis of my opinions are not perfect, but they seem to me a lot more grounded in observational reality than yours. They could still be wrong, but I trust observation over supposition. Dude, we’re talking about science here. Your personal observations are at best, a few data points. And they aren’t even scientific data points, since they weren’t done in a controlled study. The person making suppositions and assertions here is you. When we look at the scientific data we have right now, it is conflicting and its not clear at all how genes interact with all these non-genetic factors (except possibly for very specific genes under very specific sets of factors). That’s what the data says right now. It’s not our problem if you can’t go read the literature. > [@](#): > > And your biggest mistake is the supposition that once environment is equalized for different populations, so too will be the results. This is yet again another strawman.:rolleyes: **brickbacon** is being very patient with you, and the least you can do is to stop resorting to this strawman over and over. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/252 "2016-03-01T04:51:04Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > Wait, Neanderthals were fully exterminated or submerged into Homo Sapiens, right? And Nd was basically stronger, hardier, and more brutish than HS, right? > > Brains won, I suppose. Now back to black athletes. Evidence for either of those claims, (aside from 19th century speculation). What “won” was superior breeding, the ability to procreate more surviving babies starting from a position of as larger population. And your attempt at sly racial insults does nothing to make your fallacious argument more persuasive. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/253 "2016-03-01T04:53:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > :dubious: Not my fault that you chose to make unsupported statistical claims about a ridiculously difficult topic. > Wait, **what**? You seriously think that a **chaotic dynamical system** whose future state **by definition** cannot be predicted, like long-term weather effects, is the **same sort of phenomenon** as population genetics? > > So, you realize that you’ve just claimed that your proposed hypothesis is **literally and inherently untestable**? > > You’re wrong, of course: average genetic effects in a population aren’t **literally unpredictable in theory** due to chaotic behavior. They’re just **incredibly complicated and difficult to measure in practice**. (Especially when we’re not even sure yet which genes we’re talking about.) > But I’m not **claiming** that it’s only culture. I’m not making any claims about the relationship of race and intelligence one way or the other. > > **Because I’m not dumb enough to make scientific claims about a phenomenon that at present is too complicated and poorly understood to do scientifically rigorous experiments on.** > > I’m just pointing out that you have no scientifically rigorous support for **your** repeated insistent claim that it’s **not** only culture. > > If you haven’t proved your claim is true, that doesn’t make it my job to prove your claim is false. > > In fact, **I don’t particularly care whether your claim happens to be true or false** ; I don’t think it makes much difference to human worth or success if one racial group should happen to be intrinsically somewhat smarter than another. > > But **I do care, quite a bit, about the proper use and justification of scientific claims.** If somebody came along pretending to have a scientifically validated claim that outcome differences between racial groups are **not at all** due to genetics, I’d be spanking them for sloppy thinking just as hard as I’ve spanked you. Why don’t our distant cousins the pine trees beat us in sprints? Genetics. Same concept between other groups even if much closer related. Now I’ve never said it was 100% genetic so there should be no contention. Aside from the fact that it’s politically unpalatable and since we can’t even agree what “is” is I’m not hopeful for any formal proof. And the funny thing is formal proof of exact contribution is not even possible. Which you know. Thus you are being disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/254 "2016-03-01T05:03:50Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Why don’t our distant cousins the pine trees beat us in sprints? Genetics. G’night, folks. Drive safe. ---
**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:** [March 1, 2016, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/255 "2016-03-01T05:54:18Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Evidence for either of those claims, (aside from 19th century speculation). > What “won” was superior breeding, the ability to procreate more surviving babies starting from a position of as larger population. > > And your attempt at sly racial insults does nothing to make your fallacious argument more persuasive. And why may I ask do I look like I’m making a sly racial insult? I thought the story of the Nd vs HS would be very relevant to this already dumb thread. That’s species vs species, which is probably more illustrative. I worded my assumptions as questions because I’m not sure. Maybe you have different standards for directness of statement. And the talk has been focusing on black athletes for several pages now. ---
**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:** [March 1, 2016, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/256 "2016-03-01T06:05:10Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > So what? What does that imply to you? The the average height of the japanese population, once given an optimal diet for health and growth is IDENTICAL to the average height of the dutch given the same? Given enough generations, yes. > [@](#): > > Is that really what you believe? Because if so, you basically don’t believe in any variable genetic constraints or people or populations. No. Strawman. What I believe is that in a multivariant case like height (or intelligence), there isn’t enough genetic distance between the Japanese and Dutch to create separate populations for height that would persist given equal environments. > [@](#): > > People have different genetic potentials, those potentials can be easily stunted with a bad environment, but that does not imply that removing the roadblocks means everyone/every groups potential will have the same average. It’s a ludicrous expectation, and again, why am I the only one here calling out this obvious confusion? The obvious confusion is you seeming to think because I’m making this argument for Japanese/Dutch, I’m also making it for Pygmies/Dinka, when I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/257 "2016-03-01T06:05:30Z")
> [@andros](#): > > G’night, folks. Drive safe. I would’ve gone with “The Aristocrats!,” but yours has a more classic feel to it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/258 "2016-03-01T07:03:43Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Why don’t our distant cousins the pine trees beat us in sprints? Genetics. This, for a change, is 100% indisputably true. No argument here. [QUOTE=octopus] Same concept between other groups even if much closer related. [/quote] Just because **some** observed differences between groups are genetic doesn’t mean that **all** observed differences between groups are genetic. For example, it is a biological fact that on average, French people are more closely genetically related to other French people than to Australians. It is also indisputably true that on average, French people are much better at speaking French than Australians are. Coincidence?? Yes, actually. The reason that French people on the whole outperform Australians at speaking French is not genetic, even though there are **also** some genetic differences between their overall populations. [QUOTE=octopus] Now I’ve never said it was 100% genetic so there should be no contention. [/quote] That’s not how science works. Just because you refrain from asserting a **more** extreme unsupported hypothesis doesn’t make your **less** extreme unsupported hypothesis valid. You still have to do the work of showing **with scientific rigor** that there is evidence supporting your hypothesis **in a statistically significant way**. [QUOTE=octopus] And the funny thing is formal proof of exact contribution is not even possible. [/QUOTE] For one thing, you’ve mixed up the concept of “formal proof”, which applies to mathematics rather than to empirical science, with “scientific validity”. For another, nobody’s saying that you have to be able to determine empirically the **exact** contribution of genes to observed race-based outcome differences in order to make a scientifically valid point. You just have to show **with scientific rigor** that there is **some** contribution of genes to observed race-based outcome differences, based on **statistically significant evidence**. Which neither you nor anybody else has so far managed to do. Because (and I think I may have mentioned this already) **the contribution of genes to complex human physico-psychosocial traits at the level of racial groups is an incredibly complicated and difficult subject to study with scientific rigor**. Honestly, **octopus** , you should probably stick to discussing the genetic differences in athletic ability between humans and pine trees. That is about the level of scientific sophistication that your scientific understanding is capable of handling. Literally everything else you’ve said in this post is flat-out wrong. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/259 "2016-03-01T15:56:00Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Then you have a [fundamental](http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/) misunderstanding of both the word, and people in general. > > > [@](#): > > > > Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger. > > And there are tons of other studies to back that up. [In the words of Stephen Colbert regarding facts and beliefs [speaking at the White House Correspondents Dinner]](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/30/206303/-): > [@](#): > > … my name is Stephen Colbert and tonight it’s my privilege to celebrate this President. We’re not so different, he and I. We get it. We’re not brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We’re not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut, right sir? That’s where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say “I did look it up, and that’s not true.” That’s 'cause you looked it up in a book. > > Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that’s how our nervous system works. > > … > > I’m sorry, but this reading initiative. I’m sorry, I’ve never been a fan of books. I don’t trust them. They’re all fact, no heart. I mean, they’re elitist, telling us what is or isn’t true, or what did or didn’t happen. Who’s Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914? If I want to say it was built in 1941, that’s my right as an American! I’m with the President, let history decide what did or did not happen. > > The greatest thing about this man is he’s steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man’s beliefs never will. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/260 "2016-03-01T18:22:19Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > You’re not understanding the concept of null hypothesis. What it amounts to is [nothing more than](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis) _“a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no difference among groups”_. > > In other words, **the null hypothesis is a skeptical response to a specific statistical claim about a hypothesized link between phenomena**. It says, in effect, _“Nope, probably nothing to see here, and if you think there is, then prove it”_. > > It’s the so-called “race realists” who are making such specific statistical claims, along the lines of _“This or that or the other difference in racial-group outcomes counts as valid evidence for genetic differences in intelligence”_. You’re right, I was not being clear. Let me restate my position. In an absolute vacuum, there would be no reason to think there was any connection between race and intelligence/achievement. But we do not live in a vacuum. And in the USA today, it is indisputably true that there is a strong statistical link between race and academic achievement. The question is why that is. And my position is, I don’t know. What I think is an intellectually unsupportable position is “well, we see this strong link, but there are reasons why it could be due to the environment, therefore we assume is absolutely positively due to environmental factors, and the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim otherwise”. That is, treating the “it’s all environmental” position as the default fallback position (which I was referring to as the null hypothesis, likely incorrectly), just kind of because it would be pleasant and happy. Now, I would very much _like_ that position to be true, not least because it would prove an enormous number of really awful people wrong, but we can’t just make it true by willing it to be true. Nor do I see any logical or scientific reason why it should be the assumed-to-be-true-until-proven-otherwise fallback position. (Note: there are good reasons to assume that to be true until proven otherwise, but they are social/ethical reasons, not scientific reasons. That is, a society in which we treat everyone as equals based on race is a vastly better society than the other alternative, but saying “until we are absolutely certain of the scientific truth, we assume this is true, for purposes of societal goodness” is not the same as “we assume this to be true, for the same reason that we assume unicorns don’t exist until proven differently.”) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836.md?page=14)