I checked your cite even though it has nothing to do with athletics. To someone like me who is not equiped to determine the veracity of the data or the math involved, on the surface it sounds convincing.
He clearly has a racist agenda that is apparent to me. The following quote is what I found quite disturbing.
-bolding mine
Btw, one of my doctors is black, and it never occured to me to be concerned.
If you want to convince us of your extreme point of view (and I’m much closer to you than anyone else here on the issue of race in athletics) I suggest you choose your cites a little more carefully.
La Griffe almost never cites his writings. My favorites, though, are his “smart fraction” pieces, which he bases entirely on Lynn’s abysmal 2002 data. They’re my favorites simply based on how piss poor they are.
I don’t know why various online racialists give him such credence. Is it his tone that makes him so powerful? His data sure as hell isn’t.
That metapedia link on him is interesting- was that just a copy paste of a wikipedia article? It’s pretty harsh despite being on a WN wiki.
La Griffe possibly being Robert Gordon is also interesting. He hasn’t published any academic papers since 1997 (La Griffe began writing in 1999), he was married to noted IQ fetishist Linda Gottfredson (who has a tone of obnoxiousness to her writings I seldom encounter in most racialist academics), and he authored 2 papers arguing virtually the entire black-white crime gap could be explained by IQ- figures so absurdly high that, in spite of Herrnstein and Murray favorably citing them in the “Bell Curve”, only did so as examples and indeed couldn’t replicate his figures. And Murray’s description of griff in that newsgroup link sounds alot like Gordon.
I can’t help but wonder if those papers were mainly just big chunks of shock value.
the OP mentions “black/white athletic performance difference”. The point I was trying to make (obviously not very well…) was that IMHO the genetical differences that evolved due to terrain, lifestyle and (particularly in Kenya’s case) altitude, is the reason for the disparity in the two events, rather than the genetics that determined skin colour.
You’re saying race exists by the fact physiological differences cluster along those lines. How do either of those follow? How are said physiological differences so deep-seated?
There is indeed a genetic component to these physiological differences, but it’s not like it’s deep seated. That analysis of heritability is a proper way to view these traits.
You, however, said “race is more than skin deep” by pointing out physiological differences. They cluster along those lines, but are they causational factors?
I’ll try to get back to CP later, but his posts consist of alot of generic racialist tripe I’ve seen time and time again.
Dreen,
“a mixture of environmental and genetic reasons” is what I was alluding to. Is evolution not a result of these factors?
I fail to see what Snyderman and Rothman’s studies on IQ have to do with athletics. Although “*If everyone’s IQ changed by 20 points, with no change in IQ variation (no change in anyone’s IQ relative to that of others), heritability would remain the same. *” could apply. Jesse Owens personal bests wouldn’t get him Olympic qualification these days. However, I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume that, had he been born eighty years later and had access to modern training, diet and equipment he would be a top athlete.
*“You, however, said “race is more than skin deep” by pointing out physiological differences. They cluster along those lines, but are they causational factors?”
*
As someone who didn’t have the benefit of an American university brainwashing, I’m struggling with the jargon. Any chance of saying that in Plain english?
Obviously the differences in sports performance between people of different origins are due to heredity and genetics, which race is based on. After all, we all know that if a bell rings, and a man dies, the bell has caused the death. And the bell must obviously be attuned to the race of the dead man. I know it sounds illogical, but consider sports again. After all, everybody on earth dedicates their lives to competing in sports at the highest level, so differences in performances must have a genetic basis.
Apparently I have to note even the most blatent sarcasm in these threads, such as the preceding paragraph. Or perhaps I am missing the sarcasm in those who argue this question based on it’s ridiculous premises.
No, it is not directed at you. I hadn’t noticed anything in your posts, and the last few don’t actually have much content to object to. The OP is about fallacious reasoning and non-existent facts regarding genetics, statistics, and physics. You seem to be countering the argument, although I haven’t read all your posts. But I think these arguments are intended to draw people into trying to present a rational argument based on the irrational premises. I’ve fallen into the trap myself. I don’t need to show a counter-argument to such nonsense, I prefer sarcasm, or disdainfully pointing out the absurdity. Racing is not ‘falling forward’ any more than gravity is ‘intelligent falling’. World records in varying sports have no statistical correlation to genetics. World records are set by the insignificant percentage of people who ever try to set a world record in the first place, through years of dedication and effort, and then actually do set a world record without being impeded by the numerous random factors that would prevent it. And if you were an objective observer of the facts, you would notice the factors that make a world record holder that are common across all the presumed arbitrary genetic distinctions.
If the shot put had weight classes, maybe. But how about a jockey? Or any other sport where increasing height and weight are disadvantageous. And that doesn’t have much to do with the gene pool that he represents a random selection from. Oh yeah, if he had been born sooner, he would have been a top basketball player. He missed the point when Jews and Africans magically transposed their basketball genes.