# 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:** 2
**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:** [February 23, 2016, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/21 "2016-02-23T02:44:21Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nobody’s suggesting that it’s in any way bad that “different subsets are different”. What’s bad is **ignorant and irresponsible scientasters falsely claiming that any valid theory or evidence currently exists that succeeds in scientifically explaining observed racial-group differences in complex traits like intelligence or personality on genetic grounds.** > Nope, just a rigorous and consistent standard of proof. If that happens to be impossible to attain, at least in the current state of human neurogenetics research, that’s not our fault. **You don’t get to pretend that an unsupported speculation should be taken on trust as a valid theory just because the amount of work required to effectively assess its claim to be a valid theory would be really really really hard.** > > Not even remotely similar concept. **The fundamental chemistry and physics of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is well-established and quite well understood:** basically, atmospheric greenhouse gases trap more infrared radiation, humans have produced increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, ergo, warming is happening. Other physical phenomena also contribute to warming, but their general cyclic patterns are predictable using the same fundamental chemistry and physics, and their contributions can be at least approximately separated from the anthropogenic contribution with a high degree of confidence. The fact that it’s insanely difficult (and in some cases, not even theoretically possible) to precisely predict the specific direct climate impacts of this warming doesn’t mean that the basic principle is uncertain or poorly understood. > > **But the basic genetic dependence of human intelligence and other complex psychological traits isn’t understood worth shit.** Everybody agrees from empirical studies that intelligence is to some extent genetically heritable. But no researchers have anything even approaching a confirmed hypothesis of which genes affect intelligence and to what extent, how the relevant genes interact with one another and with the environment (which is another hugely complicated subject crawling with irreproducible results and unidentified variables), and so on. > > And that’s only talking about the study of **direct** heritability of intelligence in **genetically identical** or extremely closely related subjects. It doesn’t even address the whole new cans of worms that are opened up when attempting to detect genetic effects on intelligence at the **population** level. And trying to extrapolate from that immensely complex issue to all the additional variables involved when considering loosely-defined **racial** groups that don’t even constitute well-defined genetic populations is an entire next level of heady-splody. > > So, no, hell no, the current state of climate science isn’t in the least like the current state of neurogenetic research on genetic bases of human intelligence. That’s a matter of opinion. Most likely motivated by political considerations. Supposedly [Three-body problem - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem) is challenging. And yet in human populations 100% is required? Why? Politics. No one would argue that if a pug was raised as a greyhound that a pug would win that race. Well defined genetic population means what, precisely? What exactly is a species? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/22 "2016-02-23T04:08:34Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Supposedly [Three-body problem - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem) is challenging. And yet in human populations 100% is required? Why? Politics. What’s that comparison supposed to mean? Are you trying to make out that it’s somehow unfair to require scientific rigor in neurogenetics because solving the three-body problem in physics is hard? That makes no sense whatsoever. Plenty of very complicated biological theories are well supported scientifically (e.g., evolution). In fact, many specifically genetic theories are well supported scientifically (e.g., concerning dominant and recessive alleles in Mendelian inheritance). **But the subject of the nature and role of genetic factors in human intelligence is still very, very, very poorly understood.** That’s not a “political” assessment, that’s a scientific one. Neurogenetics researchers themselves are the first to acknowledge it. Like I said, you don’t get to pretend that an unverified speculation is a valid theory just because you’re talking about a field that’s too new and too complex to have successfully established valid theories at this stage. \*“Waaaahhh!! Mommy, why don’t I get to play with mainstream accepted theories like the kids in the Physics and Climate Science clubs do? It’s not faaaaair!! It’s just mean old politiiiiiics!!” :mad: “Now now, little **octopus** , don’t cry. The difference is that your favorite field is much younger and isn’t developed enough yet to have mainstream theories. But it will keep growing and will eventually have **lots** of interesting theories for you to play with!” 🙂 \* [QUOTE=octopus] No one would argue that if a pug was raised as a greyhound that a pug would win that race. [/quote] No, they would not, but that has jack-shit to do with comparing abilities between humans of different racial categories. See my response to **stillownedbysetters** above to understand why pet breeds aren’t analogous to human racial categories in any scientifically fruitful way. [QUOTE=octopus] Well defined genetic population means what, precisely? [/QUOTE] One of the ways a population (unlike a racial category) can be genetically well defined is when all the members of that population are more closely related to one another than they are to anybody outside that population. (Which I also explained already in my response to **stillownedbysetters**.) > [@octopus](#): > > What exactly is a species? What does that have to do with this issue? You do realize that all humans belong to the same species, right? The issue of how to determine criteria for a formal species description is not relevant to comparing traits among different members of the human species. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/23 "2016-02-23T07:10:51Z")
NM ---
**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 23, 2016, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/24 "2016-02-23T09:20:05Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 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? What’s a _scientific_ definition of “race”? One that’s consistent with our understanding of biology and the classification schemes we use in it. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/25 "2016-02-23T09:46:31Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I’ve used that very same example that Shagnasty did. You need to read more carefully. No, in fact you did not. You made a vague and incorrect, inaccurate references showing you did not understand Kimstu. > [@octopus](#): > > That’s a matter of opinion. Most likely motivated by political considerations. Supposedly [Three-body problem - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem) is challenging. And yet in human populations 100% is required? Why? Politics. Funny how these type of responses completely ignore the actual genetic information that people like Kimstu present and go to the asserting of the Politics (and the distorting, straw man claim of 100%…). It speaks directly to what is the frame of the understanding. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/26 "2016-02-23T10:39:06Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > …That makes no sense whatsoever. Politics… > [@](#): > > **But the subject of the nature and role of genetic factors in human intelligence is still very, very, very poorly understood.** That’s not a “political” assessment, that’s a scientific one. Neurogenetics researchers themselves are the first to acknowledge it. And of course it is the case that the ongoing research shows that the biological operation of the genetic expression is more and more complicated than initial simple theories had held, with the expression of genes influenced by the environmental factors and this even echoing in expression in later generations. Since the actual scientists know that it is not so simple that person X has the gene allele Y and so it has effect Z, even on the individual level, it is yet more unsupported to have the sweeping conclusion built on the false suppositions of the genetical solidarity of the incoherent 19th c superstition of the races (and even worse when it is a supposition about the mixed blacks of the Americas). > [@](#): > > No, they would not, but that has jack-shit to do with comparing abilities between humans of different racial categories. See my response to **stillownedbysetters** above to understand why pet breeds aren’t analogous to human racial categories in any scientifically fruitful way. these silly comparisons are in some way useful for showing how bad the thinking of the “race realists” is. Of course it is more like: _“this Brown dog with a long nose is fast. Therefore all the Brown dogs with noses that are not short are fast. And this means that they also are probably dumber than the white Terriers who are obviously clever.”_ And claiming it is politics to point out the brown dogs that have the not-short noses have not the morphological and not the genetic consistency to make a general conclusion around the brown dogs with the not-short noses, even though this was the theory and the tale that is popular since the 19th century… ---
**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 23, 2016, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/27 "2016-02-23T11:05:01Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > What’s a _scientific_ definition of “race”? One that’s consistent with our understanding of biology and the classification schemes we use in it. What’s a scientific definition of “gender”? What’s a scientific definition of “intelligence”? What’s a scientific definition of “sexual orientation”? What’s a scientific definition of “obesity”? What’s a scientific definition of “personality”? 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:** [February 23, 2016, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/28 "2016-02-23T11:25:59Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > What’s a scientific definition of “gender”? > What’s a scientific definition of “intelligence”? > What’s a scientific definition of “sexual orientation”? > What’s a scientific definition of “obesity”? > What’s a scientific definition of “personality”? > Etc. You first. _Your_ OP relates “race” to “science” and “scientific discussion”. _When_ I post an OP asking what’s wrong with a “scientific discussion” of “personality”, feel free to ask me to define my terms _then_. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/29 "2016-02-23T11:30:35Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > What’s a scientific definition of “gender”? That is easy, the word is used to describe the sociological or the cultural interpretation / framing of the biological sex divisions, [for example the wikipedia introduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_gender) > [@](#): > > Sociology of gender is a prominent subfield of sociology. Public discourse and the academic literature generally use the term gender for the perceived or projected (self-identified) masculinity or femininity of a person. In 1955, John Money stated: > > “The term gender role is used to signify all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself/herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. It includes, but is not restricted to, sexuality in the sense of eroticism.” > A person’s gender is complex, encompassing countless characteristics of appearance, speech, movement and other factors not solely limited to biological sex. Societies tend to have binary gender systems in which everyone is categorized as male or female. Some societies include a third gender role; for instance, the Native American Two-Spirit people and the Hijras of India. So you illustrate the naive objection you make (the same can be done for the other terms) is based on a weak and superficial understanding - it is a false response. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/30 "2016-02-23T11:39:22Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > What’s a scientific definition of “gender”? > > What’s a scientific definition of “intelligence”? > > What’s a scientific definition of “sexual orientation”? > > What’s a scientific definition of “obesity”? > > What’s a scientific definition of “personality”? > Etc. If you think that all of these questions have settled definitions in the scientific community, it would seem that we have found one of the issues that renders the question of the OP so problematic. In point of fact, several of these terms do not have a scientific definition. Intelligence is definitely among those questions that do not yet have a “scientific definition,” (or, at least, a single definition that applies in all cases to all species and all individuals), the proponents of _g_ notwithstanding. Gender, for example, is being revisited almost daily. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/31 "2016-02-23T11:41:11Z")
For several years men from northern Europe and especially Iceland dominated the “[World’s Strongest Man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Strongest_Man)” competition. And for the population size of Iceland (about 300,000), you would wonder if their was a genetic component. But I wonder if this has more to do with how the athletes are recruited for the competition. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/32 "2016-02-23T12:28:45Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Here is an unbiased NPR article on it. The article does note that even tenured college professors are reluctant to do research to find out exactly why that is so the political backlash argument is a real one even for one relatively small population that dominates a sport so thoroughly that some genetic argument is likely or at least highly plausible. > > “There are 17 American men in history who have run under 2:10 in the marathon,” Epstein says. “There were 32 Kalenjin who did it in October of 2011.” > > [How One Kenyan Tribe Produces The World's Best Runners : Parallels : NPR](http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/11/01/241895965/how-one-kenyan-tribe-produces-the-worlds-best-runners) Wow, thank you for posting this article. It blew me away. [Here’s a link to another article concerning the tenured faculty living in the shadows](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19092744&postcount=207). I noticed the analysis was quite similar to yours. And, of course, the best evidence these poor tenured faculty are under attack for allowing themselves to put together thoughts of “east africans”, “marathons”, and “genetics” at the same time is right here: [only click here if you really want to know the truth](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=east+african+marathon+genetics&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33). I only hope the SDMB can keep multiple copies of this important topic on the first page of Great Debates so that we can eventually get to the bottom of it by making the exact same arguments over and over again without any effort put into learning by the participants. On a more serious note, **Urbanredneck** , I wonder why we see the genes of East Africans failing them in ultra-marathons. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/33 "2016-02-23T13:11:20Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > …there is no reason to believe differences in athletic abilities across races means there are (or could be) differences in intelligence across races. One thing has nothing to do with the other, nor does it logically follow. Although I guess it is possible for there to be differences in intelligence across races, higher _athletic_ ability in one race over another does not prove it. Your last sentence is key. If there are differences in athletic abilities across races, there could be other differences across races. Not “there are” - there could be. That underlies all the denial that SIRE constitutes a subset, or a population, or a True Scotsman. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 23, 2016, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/34 "2016-02-23T13:29:59Z")
The thing underlying the denial is the science of biology. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/35 "2016-02-23T14:22:11Z")
No no Dibble it is only politics that we do not see the great Truth that Brown Haired Dogs are a Race and the Very Important Possibility that they all are sharing the inferior differences. It is only some “politics” that could lead to one to pay attention to the actual genetics datas or the observation that there is no science based reason in this data to presume the Brown Haired dogs share the same genetic heritages… They’re BROWN! Can you not see it? ---
**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 23, 2016, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/36 "2016-02-23T14:36:47Z")
When it comes to race and science, I’d put it this way: It’s not very useful to find that Group A is smarter than Group B, say, since it’s an average with a lot of overlap. If you’re hiring someone for a job, better to actually assess them as an individual. If you’re trying to find genetic correlates of intelligence, again, better to individually assess the candidates and sort them into groups on _that_ basis. So why do so many people want to talk about these averages so much? Well, it’s because it comes very naturally to us to generalize and be tribal. We _want_ to be able to look at people and immediately categorize them. Even if we accept that there are “outliers” day to day we want to make some mental judgement about everyone of a particular appearance. So in summary, not useful, only causes divisions in society. That’s why science tends to steer clear. Addressing the OP more specifically, I would guess that there are some advantageous genes for certain sports that certain groups have a greater prevelance of. It’s difficult to separate that out from different numbers of people participating in said sports and the level of focus they apply. And blacks as a group are extremely genetically diverse, at the least it would be something like “People of West African ancestry are on average faster sprinters”. ---
**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:** [February 23, 2016, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/37 "2016-02-23T14:57:26Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > No, in fact you did not. You made a vague and incorrect, inaccurate references showing you did not understand Kimstu. > > Funny how these type of responses completely ignore the actual genetic information that people like Kimstu present and go to the asserting of the Politics (and the distorting, straw man claim of 100%…). > > It speaks directly to what is the frame of the understanding. > [@Do African-Americans have extra energy in their muscles?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-african-americans-have-extra-energy-in-their-muscles/724906/133): > > Asking for at the moment impossible proof while asserting something even more unlikely is willful ignorance. You are in fact saying that success in sports is 100% cultural? > > But here’s more evidence you are incorrect in asserting that it’s 100% cultural. [Why Kenyans Make Such Great Runners: A Story of Genes and Cultures - The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/why-kenyans-make-such-great-runners-a-story-of-genes-and-cultures/256015/) > > Here’s a short excerpt from that article. > > With a few months training young men beat the best Western professional runners. Who have access to the best sports science, money, and food in the world. Seems likely that bus riding Kenyan’s just happen to have the ‘culture’ that disproportionately represents them in a long distance running compared to every other ethnicity or tribe in the world. Hell, it seems like the cheapest method for western runners to compete in long distance running is to take a multi-year teen sabbatical to Kenya. Screw training. > > But since we don’t have definitive proof that at least some success in sport which is dependent on body can be attributed to genes it therefore must follow that it’s more likely that it’s 100% cultural? That’s purely ideology clouding reason. > [@Do African-Americans have extra energy in their muscles?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-african-americans-have-extra-energy-in-their-muscles/724906/153): > > And you have the genes to beat a prime Mike Tyson in boxing? If you trained til you were 20 and you were fighting a Mike Tyson who trained til he was 20 he’d whip you in boxing probably 999/1000. That’s the difference in genetics. And for some populations you can say their genetics provide a definitive advantage in certain physical activities, even if medians or means are the same, at the outliers. > > The linked paper about the tribe in Kenya with regards to distance running is an excellent example that is as close to proof as you can find without being able to control for all variables in humans. > > John Mace is just being silly. Noone is obligate to provide definitive proof where it does not exist. Yet we can be fairly certain, i.e. 99.999999% that since sport relies on the physical body interacting in the physical world, and that humans are in no way supernatural and are constrained by the laws of physics that biology has an impact. > > Again, in the year 2015, there is not one starting non-black NFL cornerback. If outcome were solely based on the culture of participation we would not have that result, nor the dominance of whites as centers. We’d have equal numbers in each position since biology is obviously of no factor. Unless it’s the culture of whites all of sudden to focus primarily on being an NFL center as their means of escaping poverty. Nah, white culture says “NO!” to being a receiver or a cornerback. Such an undignified position, but center yeah. That appeals to us white guys. The 100% cultural argument fails when examining football alone. > > Regarding the Kenyan runners. Here’s another link. [How One Kenyan Tribe Produces The World's Best Runners : Parallels : NPR](http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/11/01/241895965/how-one-kenyan-tribe-produces-the-worlds-best-runners) Though NPR is probably some crazed, racist source and you might want to take it with a grain of salt. You were saying? The problem is YOUR politics cloud your mind. > [@tomndebb](#): > > If you think that all of these questions have settled definitions in the scientific community, it would seem that we have found one of the issues that renders the question of the OP so problematic. > In point of fact, several of these terms do not have a scientific definition. Intelligence is definitely among those questions that do not yet have a “scientific definition,” (or, at least, a single definition that applies in all cases to all species and all individuals), the proponents of _g_ notwithstanding. > > Gender, for example, is being revisited almost daily. How convenient. Humpty Dumpty would be pleased. > [@HumptyDumpty](#): > > "I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ " Alice said. > Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ " > “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected. > “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” > “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” > “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” > [@Urbanredneck](#): > > For several years men from northern Europe and especially Iceland dominated the “[World’s Strongest Man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Strongest_Man)” competition. And for the population size of Iceland (about 300,000), you would wonder if their was a genetic component. > > But I wonder if this has more to do with how the athletes are recruited for the competition. Genetics play some role. Culture/environment play some role. Interesting question is how much of a role does genetics play in culture? > [@Ramira](#): > > No no Dibble it is only politics that we do not see the great Truth that Brown Haired Dogs are a Race and the Very Important Possibility that they all are sharing the inferior differences. It is only some “politics” that could lead to one to pay attention to the actual genetics datas or the observation that there is no science based reason in this data to presume the Brown Haired dogs share the same genetic heritages… They’re BROWN! Can you not see it? You might want to look a bit at set theory. No one is claiming all black is X or all white is Y. The claim and evidence is that the distribution within black and white is different. Now even if black is 500 diverse ethnic sets and white is 100 diverse ethnic sets (as an example) and even if the sprinting gene (as an example) is only in 1 of those 500 it’s still more disproportionate in the black set. It’s not as precise but it’s still true. > [@Mijin](#): > > When it comes to race and science, I’d put it this way: > > It’s not very useful to find that Group A is smarter than Group B, say, since it’s an average with a lot of overlap. If you’re hiring someone for a job, better to actually assess them as an individual. If you’re trying to find genetic correlates of intelligence, again, better to individually assess the candidates and sort them into groups on _that_ basis. > > So why do so many people want to talk about these averages so much? > Well, it’s because it comes very naturally to us to generalize and be tribal. We _want_ to be able to look at people and immediately categorize them. > Even if we accept that there are “outliers” day to day we want to make some mental judgement about everyone of a particular appearance. > > So in summary, not useful, only causes divisions in society. That’s why science tends to steer clear. > > Addressing the OP more specifically, I would guess that there are some advantageous genes for certain sports that certain groups have a greater prevelance of. It’s difficult to separate that out from different numbers of people participating in said sports and the level of focus they apply. And blacks as a group are extremely genetically diverse, at the least it would be something like “People of West African ancestry are on average faster sprinters”. And yet these racist rags are reporting on how genes influence voting! > **[Study Of Twins Reveals Surprising Link Between Genes, Political Views](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/genetics-politics-beliefs-encoded-genes-video_n_4455391)** > > Study Of Twins Reveals Surprising Link Between Genes, Political Views [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/opinion/thomas-edsall-how-much-do-our-genes-influence-our-political-beliefs.html?\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/opinion/thomas-edsall-how-much-do-our-genes-influence-our-political-beliefs.html?_r=0) Where is their 100.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% with triple blind and repeatable studies? How do we know it’s not the amount of selenium in the soils these people live near? How do we know it’s not the phase of the moon they were conceived under? ---
**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 23, 2016, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/38 "2016-02-23T15:03:07Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > And yet these racist rags are reporting on how genes influence voting! > > [Genes Help Shape Our Political Views, New Research Shows (VIDEO) | HuffPost Impact](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/genetics-politics-beliefs-encoded-genes-video_n_4455391.html) > [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/opinion/thomas-edsall-how-much-do-our-genes-influence-our-political-beliefs.html?\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/opinion/thomas-edsall-how-much-do-our-genes-influence-our-political-beliefs.html?_r=0) How is this relevant to what I posted, or this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2016, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/39 "2016-02-23T15:03:36Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > You were saying? Well since you are copying posts in from some other thread I have no idea about, I keep my opinion and my statement (since I am participating in this thread, not some other one I never read). Of course you demonstrate in your posts you can not tell the difference between the idea of the “race” of “black people” and the idea of a discrete and coherent genetic population. > [@](#): > > bThe problem is YOUR politics cloud your mind. What **“Politics”** is that? I see you making political claims off of your strong American political ideological position, but I have no political claims in this. There is the science - not the strange straw man distortions you make of course but the actual science. (how the citations to an opinion article in a newspaper you percived as Left and the Huffington post make any point other than to show the politicized interpretation you have I do not understand) ---
**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:** [February 23, 2016, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/40 "2016-02-23T15:05:02Z")
And this racist organization is saying there is a genetic component to psychopathy. > **[The psycho gene](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933872/)** > > The notion of ‘the criminal gene' is now dead and buried. Yet there is growing evidence that some psychopathic behaviour is indeed grounded in our genes and has an evolutionary originWhile the idea of a ‘criminal gene' is nonsense, there ... > [@](#): > > “Psychopathy does seem to be heritable, and appears to have its basis at least in part in “biological” factors linked to basic emotional systems, so that the mature psychopath never develops a complete set of pro-social emotions like empathy, guilt, and the ability to truly care about and for others,” said Richard Wiebe, who specializes in the link between psychology and criminology at Fitchburg State College in Fitchburg, MA, USA. Wiebe added though that the heritability of underlying genetic factors had yet to be conclusively established. “In other words, we know that the dependent variable, that is psychopathy, is heritable, but not enough about its causes to say that they are heritable. Nevertheless it is useful to think of psychopathy as mainly the product of genes and sociopathy as more subject to environmental influences.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836.md?page=3)