# 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:** 14
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/261 "2016-03-01T19:24:38Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > 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”. Who is saying this? > [@](#): > > 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.”) It makes sense that an environmental-based hypothesis would be the most parsimonious explanation. It’s a lot easier to account for, say, socioeconomic differences between groups than genetic differences. It is a whole lot easier to conceptualize how environmental factors might affect outcomes than an unknown gene or set of genes–the expression of which is heavily inluenced by the environment anyway. Identical twins raised in the same family experience different environments from the moment they are conceived, and of course we’re all familiar with how different their life outcomes can be. So why wouldn’t we try to discount environmental factors _first_ when trying to understand the source of differences between totally unrelated individuals? Seems to me that environmental factors are the lowest hanging fruit. If you haven’t plucked all of them, then you have no business reaching for the higher ones. “It’s the genes!” is a position similar to the “It’s the strings!” in physics. At this point in time, we don’t possess the technology or the research ethical standards to answer either question definitively. But we do have the ability, though twin studies and longitudinal studies, to make strong inferences about environmental factors. ---
**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, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/262 "2016-03-01T19:26:02Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > This, for a change, is 100% indisputably true. No argument here. > 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. > 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**. > 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. I don’t think so. And as a matter of fact there are tribes that apparently have dominance in some sport in part due to genetics. Not going to list the sources yet again since I’m on my phone. But Google and Kenyan long distance ought to suffice. Your problem is a political one. Your solution is to obfuscate with disingenuous standards of proof. ---
**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, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/263 "2016-03-01T19:57:59Z")
I suspect that genetic analysis of racial groups with regard to genes conferring “intelligence” would generate results that are hard to interpret anyway. I imagine we’d find something like this: Members of Race A show a higher prevalence of genes conferring rapid processing speed, but also a higher prevalence of genes associated with learning disabilities and impulse control. Members of Race B have a higher prevalence of genes conferring slow cognitive processing speed, but greater long-term memories and spatial abilities. Members of Race C have a higher prevalence of genes conferring high creativity, greater working memories, and and high aptitude in abstract learning. But in none of these groups are the “special” genes found in more than 20% of “conspecifics”. There’s also considerable overlap. For instance, the “high rapid processing speed” gene has a frequency of 15% in Race A. It has a 7% frequency in Race B and 10% frequency in Race C. Almost all the individuals possessing this allele live within 1000 miles of each other–suggesting that they are more closely related to each other than they are to their supposed conspecifics. I guess results like this would be interesting to someone, though. ---
**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, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/264 "2016-03-01T20:29:15Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Your problem is a political one. Your solution is to obfuscate with disingenuous standards of proof. Stoopid empiricism and rational thought, all obfuscatory and disingenuous! ---
**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, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/265 "2016-03-01T22:37:44Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Stoopid empiricism and rational thought, all obfuscatory and disingenuous! That’s not the argument and you know it. Some folks want to maintain an illusion for political purposes and use the facade of scientific rigor, while not applying the same rigor to their stance, to undermine the position of the opposition. It’s obviously transparent that the argument is not in good faith. Neuroscientists are doubting free will yet still debate the utility of promoting the idea of such. That’s promoting a lie for a hoped for social benefit. That’s the same thing those people who don’t deny a genetic component yet demand absolute certainty to acknowledge it are doing. And when they can’t dismiss the facts such as with the Kenyan marathon runners they impugn the character of their opposition with veiled insults such as race realist or some goofy word like sciencetaster. Eventually as genetic testing gets faster and computers get much faster the correlations will become more and more strong. And so will the intellectual dishonesty in denying them. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/266 "2016-03-02T01:11:09Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Eventually as genetic testing gets faster and computers get much faster the correlations will become more and more strong. This is true (In regard to phenotypes and genotypes). This actually a goal of genomic science (but I think racist goal justification is not why this is happening or going to be the outcome). [Here’s Eric Green (Director of NHGRI) talking about it a few days ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhD3-_5Ee-A) (warning–it’s about an hour and a half and I’m not going to be bothered at the moment to find the exact time frame, but it’s towards the end of the talk, IIRC.) > [@](#): > > And so will the intellectual dishonesty in denying them. And, then what will you say if more in depth research doesn’t support your hypothesis? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/267 "2016-03-02T01:39:06Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > That’s not the argument and you know it. Some folks want to maintain an illusion for political purposes and use the facade of scientific rigor, while not applying the same rigor to their stance, to undermine the position of the opposition. It’s obviously transparent that the argument is not in good faith. Just to be clear, then, you are saying that **Kimstu** is being intellectually dishonest and not arguing in good faith? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/268 "2016-03-02T01:40:30Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > That’s not the argument and you know it. Some folks want to maintain an illusion for political purposes and use the facade of scientific rigor, while not applying the same rigor to their stance, to undermine the position of the opposition. It’s obviously transparent that the argument is not in good faith. I did not realize that you were opposing the racialists in the way that this paragraph reads. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/269 "2016-03-02T01:57:35Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > This is true (In regard to phenotypes and genotypes). This actually a goal of genomic science (but I think racist goal justification is not why this is happening or going to be the outcome). > > [Here’s Eric Green (Director of NHGRI) talking about it a few days ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhD3-_5Ee-A) (warning–it’s about an hour and a half and I’m not going to be bothered at the moment to find the exact time frame, but it’s towards the end of the talk, IIRC.) I just want to make clear I was talking about new GWAS studies conducted with NGS, not some some racist fantasy that new technology will bear their ideology out–missed the edit window on my original post. Sorry for any confusion about my stance on the science. ---
**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 2, 2016, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/270 "2016-03-02T04:36:50Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > This is true (In regard to phenotypes and genotypes). This actually a goal of genomic science (but I think racist goal justification is not why this is happening or going to be the outcome). > > [Here’s Eric Green (Director of NHGRI) talking about it a few days ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhD3-_5Ee-A) (warning–it’s about an hour and a half and I’m not going to be bothered at the moment to find the exact time frame, but it’s towards the end of the talk, IIRC.) > > And, then what will you say if more in depth research doesn’t support your hypothesis? My hypothesis that genes play a role in outcome and that distribution of genes is such that all humans are obviously not clones? If research ever proved my hypothesis wrong I’d accept it and not be phased one way or the other. I won’t hold my breath in my hypothesis being disproved. > [@andros](#): > > Just to be clear, then, you are saying that **Kimstu** is being intellectually dishonest and not arguing in good faith? It’s abundantly clear Kimstu realizes the point of view of those who advocate the position that genetics plays a role. His standard of proof is hypocritical. Furthermore, the motivation is most likely political propaganda and not scientific knowledge. > [@tomndebb](#): > > I did not realize that you were opposing the racialists in the way that this paragraph reads. Context clues. Look, if BrightNShiny is correct in the assertion that the point of view of 100% culture is not held and is a strawman than that is a satisfactory state for me. I still find it fascinating that this is such a taboo topic. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/271 "2016-03-02T05:07:12Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Context clues. Whoooosh! > [@octopus](#): > > Look, if BrightNShiny is correct in the assertion that the point of view of 100% culture is not held and is a strawman than that is a satisfactory state for me. I still find it fascinating that this is such a taboo topic. Since the “100% culture” claim is clearly a straw man that has not been actually argued by anyone in this thread, (aside from by the towering straw people created by **Salvor** , then you may take comfort in your satisfaction. Of course, the claim that a topic with 270 posts, (in the umpteenth thread on the same subject), is “taboo” is pretty silly. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2016, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/272 "2016-03-02T05:35:42Z")
To bring this thread back on topic - here are the responses to the OP question thus far: _“If one race has an athletic advantage, what would be so bad about that?”_ Answer 1: “Nothing. There would be nothing bad about that.” Answer 2: “It could be used to further racist agendas or people with racist motives.” Answer 3: “It’s bad science, because race and genetics are still poorly defined.” Answer 4: “It causes an outcry because it could lead to another discussion, one about race and IQ.” etc. etc. ---
**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 2, 2016, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/273 "2016-03-02T05:44:06Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Some folks want to maintain an illusion for political purposes and use the facade of scientific rigor, while not applying the same rigor to their stance, to undermine the position of the opposition. Why yes, this _is_ a fairly accurate summary of the foundational texts of scientific racism. Well done. ---
**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 2, 2016, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/274 "2016-03-02T05:45:31Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Whoooosh! > > Since the “100% culture” claim is clearly a straw man that has not been actually argued by anyone in this thread, (aside from by the towering straw people created by **Salvor** , then you may take comfort in your satisfaction. > > Of course, the claim that a topic with 270 posts, (in the umpteenth thread on the same subject), is “taboo” is pretty silly. Just because this forum is surprisingly reasonable does not mean the topic in general conversation is not controversial. ---
**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 2, 2016, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/275 "2016-03-02T05:47:42Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Why yes, this _is_ a fairly accurate summary of the foundational texts of scientific racism. Well done. And that is relevant how? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/276 "2016-03-02T05:54:10Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Just because this forum is surprisingly reasonable does not mean the topic in general conversation is not controversial. Are you typically this glib at moving goalposts? You did not ask why the topic was controversial–a point that is self-evident. You asked why it was taboo. It is clearly not taboo or it would not be the topic of so many discussions. ---
**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 2, 2016, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/277 "2016-03-02T05:59:16Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Are you typically this glib at moving goalposts? > > You did not ask why the topic was controversial–a point that is self-evident. You asked why it was taboo. It is clearly not taboo or it would not be the topic of so many discussions. > **[Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports And Why We're Afraid To Talk About It:...](https://www.amazon.com/Taboo-Athletes-Dominate-Sports-Afraid/dp/158648026X)** > > Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports And Why We're Afraid To Talk About It \[Jon Entine\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports And Why We're Afraid To Talk About It You were saying? ---
**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 2, 2016, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/278 "2016-03-02T06:06:19Z")
Why’d that link change? What voodoo is at work? ---
**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 2, 2016, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/279 "2016-03-02T06:24:19Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > And that is relevant how? How is it _not_? ---
**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 2, 2016, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/280 "2016-03-02T06:33:52Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > How is it _not_? Because it’s completely off topic and only used to implicitly poison the well so to speak. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836.md?page=15)