Is it your contention that there are differences between blacks and whites that are genetic, but that the authors got wrong which specific differences account for disparate outcomes? Do you contend that there are differences but that those differences are irrelevant?
The authors describe the evidence as “massive” that “Anthropometric measurements of large populations show that systematic differences exist among blacks, whites and Asians.”
If you are willing to agree with that statement, I’d take that as a good start on the road to getting away from the notion that outcome differences between races are a cultural phenomenon. Baby steps, I like to say.
Well, most athletes are good in a variety of sports.
Exactly what does that mean?
Agreed
Well you can add Donovan Bailey, a Jaimaican born Canadian and make it 3 of the 5 fastest times. Hell, Haiti is pretty close to Jamaica so we can add Bruny Surin and make the West Indians claim 4 of the top 6 times.
Why amongst the west African diaspora Jamaica is overrepresented at the very top of sprinting is a mystery to me. Especially when you consider that several elite sprinters from Jamaica have come to Canada to train.
The under representation of West Africa in the top 10 with respect to the diaspora is simply due to culture. Lack of facilities and lack of opportunity. Its not like all their boys are introduced to track and field when they don’t even (most) get to high school.
The Flying Dutchman, I am not sure we are arguing.
What my comment means is that “West African” is not the same as “Black”; West Africans are a particular subset of the extreme diversity that is covered under the grouping “Black” - which includes population that have significant Caucasian, Asian, etc. heritage as well.
The point that is made with the fastest men alive is that genes without opportunity and training does not take people far. Thus as you point out: few elite runners call West Africa home even though West Africa is home to many who no doubt have that potential. And Jamaica?
My personal speculation (and it is only that) is that given an equal number of individuals who are given equal training and education in any measurable performance that has a strong genetic component, the sigma outliers that are the elites will tend to be found in the group labeled as “Black”, even for those items in which the mean “Black” genetic predisposition is lower than other groups’ means. The reason is simply that outrageous genetic diversity that is contained within that broad label. There are more genetic cards being shuffled in more combinations within that very loose grouping than in any other subpopulation and that genetic diversity is bound to result in more of those sigma outliers, some of which will be (given the right environment and opportunity) the elites. And some who won’t be.
Again, my point, as an “egalitarian” :), is that it may indeed be true that various subpopulations have statistically meaningful differences in genetic markers that predispose to different sorts performance success given the same effort and opportunity. And?
Sizable numbers of people in other populations also have those markers. Sizable numbers in the first one do not.
Honestly it boils down to one of several sorts of discussions:
Is it nature or nurture? And for any individual of course who they are and who they can become is a bit of both. The question is a false dichotomy.
Or trying to imply that genes are the prime cause of any and all different circumstances individuals of different races find themselves in, which is to me the clear implication of statements like this:
And that concept is the braying donkey I hear in my yard.
I contend that although there may be plenty of anatomical differences between populations, the manner in which the authors of this study reached their conclusions appears to have been speciously convoluted and logically questionable for all the reasons I’ve given. It’s like watching someone try to prove that trees lose their leaves in the fall, not by pointing to centuries worth of data testifying to this event, but by contriving a mathematical equation premised on multiple assumptions that are based on non-generalizable data. A third-rate scientist should be able to see this for what it is.
I contend that the authors failed to support their hypothesis that the reason why “more and more” elite sprinters are black is because West Africans have higher centers of gravity. Their hypothesis about an advantage to white swimmers is questionable for the same reason. Note: this is not the same thing as saying the authors are wrong.
Guess what?Blacks also have darker skin tones than whites and Asians. African Americans also have higher BMI’s, as I already pointed out. Also, denser bones, more dermal elastin, and lower propensities for UV skin damage. So really it’s not a secret that these groups that we refer to as races have differing phenotypes and dimensions. This is why its not implausible that long-limbedness among those of West African descent may confer advantage in certain sports.
But this study did a horrible job of proving that. Be honest: did you read the paper? I wouldn’t be surprised if it had been rejected by several journals before landing in the one that published it. If you read my very first post to this thread, you’ll see that I was initially quite open to its conclusions after skimming the Slate article. But after I read the journal article, it was hard to take very seriously.
It may be hard for you to believe (even after the upteenth time that I’ve had to say this), but I’ve never denied that genetics could explain differences in outcome. So it’s silly (and pathetic) for you to cheer for baby steps when my position remains unchanged.
What do you have to say in actual support of this study? Can you really not see its shortcomings?
The study is an attempt to propose a specific explanation for the obvious: the trend in sports, as sports has become increasingly open to all, has been for black athletes to dominate speed sports and white athletes to (continue to) dominate swimming. I have read it and didn’t find it particularly fantastic or particularly poor. The authors are simply advancing their hypothesis and making a case for it. That’s what you do in the academic world when you want to get published. I did not find it particularly controversial, which is not the same as saying I agree with the conclusion.
What I do agree with is the fact that the body of peer-reviewed literature showing specific and significant physiologic differences among races is “massive.”
Feel free to chime in with your own peer review.
My interest–my agenda, so to speak–is to quell what I consider the blind egalitarianism which preaches the gospel of genetic equality. I think that’s destructive, in the end. On the one hand we use disproportionate outcomes along racial lines to “prove” racism or discrimination. On the other hand we denounce examination of whether or not those same race groups actually do vary in average genetic potential as being studies which are at minimum inappropriate and at worst, “racist.” On the one hand we proclaim that “race is purely cultural” but on the other hand study after study shows that average physiologic variability exists even at the level of the category of “race,” loose though that categorization may be.
This variability has dramatic practical consequence, and well beyond the handful of record-setting elite athletes. It means that at every level of competition we might expect black athletes to outperform whites and asians (on average; always on average) and that that outperformance is not necessarily a consequence of racism, culture or any other nurturing influence. It means that, if we choose to examine outcome differences by race, we must include an examination of genetic differences by race as a contributory cause for those differences.
In the instance at hand, essentially 100% of the contributory cause for the overhwelming success of black athletes in speed sports is their superior genes.
The only path to construction of just social policy is to find out exactly where the truth lies, and to examine with rigor and openness where genes play a role. A cohort with a high prevalence of abnormal DMD genes is probably not going to be proportionally represented in the NBA, but we don’t blame society for it. If we have a cohort of children with Trisomy-21 who aren’t represented in CEO circles, we don’t cry foul. We examine ways to maximize the potential and representation of individuals with that particular genetic hand.
And (I hope) we continue to rigorously defend where inappropriate discrimination or a priori assumption of inadequacy does prevent that cohort from reaching their full potential. That genetic differences drive outcomes does not give us permission to blame all outcomes on genes and ignore nurture or ignore social overlays.
I hate pop in again and ask the same question, but is this a real journal? I’m looking at the paperhere and it’s missing important things characterize peer-review papers.
It’s missing when the manuscript was received by the publisher. I’ve read thousands of peer-reviewed papers and have never seen a paper without it.
Most of the references are not peer-reviewed and consist of technical reports from various government agencies.
There is no methods section of the paper detailing how the experiment was done.
The authors acknowledge NSF as providing funds for the research but no grant # is given. I’ve never seen this before. You always put the grant number!
No email for the corresponding author is not given. This is unusual.
The authors use anthrometric data from 1920 - 1960 (See Figure 3). This puzzles me as the authors should have measured the varied people in the study. It’s unclear how one can correlate the past and the present without taking into effect contaminating variables.
IMO, I’m not convinced this is peer-reviewed at all.
Unsophisticated statements like this will forever prevent you from being taken seriously, CP. “Essentially 100%”, eh? If you’re going to make up shit, at least put some a precision on it. I’d be more impressed if you’d said something like 98.4%.
The only reason there is such a disproportionate number of blacks excelling at sprinting sports is that there is a disproportionate prevalence of genes coding for the physiology underpinning that skillset.
Feel free to complain, but that’s the fact of it. And I don’t need for you or anyone else to take me seriously. I’m interested in understanding how the world works–the Straight Dope–so to speak. I’m not interested in political agendas.
Were humans studied like any other animal, no one would glance twice at the statement that a disproportionate prevalence of superior genes is the reason blacks are disproportionately represented in speed sports. It’s not better nurturing.
Check out Table 2 in the study at hand (as one of thousands of examples, but I think you’ll agree this particular one is not out of line). You’ll see a transition from nearly all white to nearly all black for the 100 M dash. This transition would be reflected across many similar track events, all the way down to at least a high school level. That’s what caught the attention of the authors: Why is this so?
Next consider the possible reasons for this remarkable, and remarkably consistent transition that occurred when the field of participants was opened to all: nature and nurture. Which do want to argue for? Did whites suddenly lose their motivation to win at track and field? Did they stop wanting college scholarships? Did they suddenly lose their training facilities or their coaches? What nurturing disadvantage did whites suddenly acquire that caused them to take a back seat?
What about nature, then? Is there any evidence that there are physiologic differences, and actual performance differences, between blacks and whites? The performance differences are easy to find; just look at the record books or look into track and field meets everywhere across the country/world and see who is winning at speed sports. Is there any evidence then, that there are measurable physiologic differences underpinning those performance differences? This study describes that body of evidence as “massive” and frankly, it is massive. Can you cite a single one comparing blacks and whites that shows their physiology is the same? Most of the ones I read are like this.
This is not rocket science.
But if it makes you more comfortable with the world to imply there is no evidence, enjoy your egalitarian world. It’s my observation that folks who cry “cite” are not going to be satisfied with any level of evidence.
or perhaps here if you are looking for a middle ground view that nonetheless recognizes (more or less) that populations differ because their genes differ. In effect, I think, Kenan Malik wants to admit genetic differences but get rid of the notion of race. This is effective for showing there are no differences between races (since races don’t exist) but of course it’s completely ineffective in disproving that the SIRE group of “black” outperforms the SIRE group of “white” because of genetic differences (since he admits performance differences among populations are genetic).
So this is what you got to support that contention?
A. There are differences in performance in competition between racial groups. B. There are differences in physiologic measures of the means and the variations about the means between any subpopulations of humanity, no matter how you lump and split, including along racial lines, some of which may be genetic in origin. Therefore you conclude not only that B contributes to A but that it is the only contributing reason.
Pretty much, despite your efforts to re-word into what sounds like something I thought up yesterday.
Would you do me a favor and read this article I cited just above? Don’t be afraid; while it recognizes that it’s genes which make us different from one another, and genes which drive “black” success at sprinting, it assures splitters that there’s no such thing as race, and therefore no difference between races. I’m OK with that position; I’ve said many times the question of race is lumping versus splitting.
But back to the article being debated here:
There are consistent, persistent differences in speed competition outcomes between SIRE groups. This is pervasive across all environments which are inclusive enough to open participation to all groups. Sample proof cases include 100M record holders at every level of competition from, say, high school on up, where the SIRE group of “black” is always disproportionately represented for successful outcomes.
There is a massive body of peer-reviewed literature citing consistent, persistent physiologic differences between populations, even at the SIRE level of cohort. Such differences are more profound if the comparison groups being studied are further split into more-refined sub-populations, but they have been shown to exist over and over again even at the “Self-Identified” level.
No credible evidence has been advanced for a nurturing explanation for the performance difference between races in, say, sprinting competitions. What you get are folks such as yourself speculating that culture may drive this somehow, or various essays about how people should not be lumped, but the type of “evidence-based, peer reviewed cite” being demanded from those of us advancing genetic reasons seems to be curiously absent from the Egalitarians.
Now what about this statement of mine that it’s the only contributing reason? I hold that genes are the only contributing reason for the disparity in outcomes at the group level. For any given individual, nurturing may have a tremendous contributory influence. But the overwhelming explanation for this extraordinary superiority at sprinting is that overall there exists a greater prevalence of superior genes for that skillset among “blacks.”
Excerpts from the essay I cited just above:
“Humans, we have come to believe, can be explained purely in terms of culture.
Increasingly, this antipathy to biology is wearing away. More and more, biologists, anthropologists and athletes themselves are looking to nature not nurture for an explanation of black domination.
A number of lines of research suggest that the secret of such spectacular success lies in superior biology.
According to the prestigious science journal Nature, ‘The danger that interracial comparisons will be inhibited by considerations of political correctness is less serious than that interracial studies will be wrongly used.’ ‘There are some things better left unsaid’, concluded the New York Times.
Liberals who refuse to engage in the debate about natural difference are simply leaving the terrain open to the likes of Rushton and Murray.
The real problem with the ‘blacks are born to run’ thesis is not that it is politically incorrect and hence should be ignored but that it is factually incorrect and should be challenged. The most basic difficulty is the confusion of racial and population differences. Different population groups are clearly physically distinct. The Masai in Kenya tend to be taller and longer limbed than the stocky, short-limbed Inuit in the Arctic, because the body-forms of both have been shaped by natural selection to suit their particular environments. But the fact that there are physical differences between human groups does not mean that such differences can be reduced to racial distinctions, nor that such differences need have a meaningful consequence in human endeavour, whether that be sport or IQ tests.”
In short, if you want to make an argument that it’s factually incorrect to lump races, have at it. My observation is that the problem is that races lump themselves–and in the US, at least–in a never-ending loop supported by society and the government making an effort to lift up the underprivileged.
You will get an argument from me if you take a position that the reason for superior performance in track and field sprinting is anything but genes. Underneath all the fancy linguistic twists and massages lies a simple truth: We are our genes, and the library of genes from which our autobiography is drawn is dependent upon an accident of birth–the population from which we are drawn.
I’m interested in understanding how the world works–the Straight Dope–so to speak. I’m not interested in political agendas.