The most depressing thing about this is that I have gone over this agian and again. Specifically, with Izzy. It is depressing to find out that one can not adequately explain a concept, although admittedly genetic trait distributions, multi-trait analysis and the confluence of environment and genetics are terribly complex.
How can one overcome the deeply entrenched fallacy of composition? I’m not sure how much more adequately I can emphasize the problematic of drawing ** biological ** conclusions based on an ephemeral dominance of one sociologically defined group.
I see the statement “West African” descended – which strikes me as a highly * deceptive * fashion of describing African Americans given their highly heterogenous descent. As many have mentioned, including myself, all African Americans have significant inputs from Europeans, Asians, Native Americans. However, because the brother has curly hair and a bit of a tint he’s “West African descended” and somehow, against all the data, this is presumed to describe a coherent distribution of traits. I remain incapable of understanding this fundamental illogic. How does John Starks somehow qualify as “West African” descended over “European” descended? – using the rather gross and fallacious skin color standard or better, proxy.
I really want to know how Izzy et al justify such sloppy thinking. It truly escapes me. (but then so does the creationists here, come to think of it. Nor does this thinking differ in style or substance from them.)
I am further astonished that scientific method and approaches are so poorly understood and internalized that such a large number of posters give credit to casual observation over hard data. No matter the ample data from psychology and other disciplines indicating the unreliability of this kind of observation, never mind the history of failure of this, its utter bankruptcy in terms of advancing knowledge.
So, Izzy wants comparability. First, let me suggest that Izzy needs to pull himself out of the little cultural cocooon of the United States and look at some other sports where “races” compete outside of the race-caste hierarchy and constraints of the United States if he wants true comparability. Even here, this proves nothing in particular as we are not ** controlling ** for any of the legion of socio-cultural biases which enter into selection of teams or their roles. But let me suggest that football (soccer), with its international distribution, the real obession which characterizes it around the world (except the USA) and its all-around athleticism (which should, given the various positions, at least, if there are “racial” physical predilictions based on genetic heritage, show significant racial breakdowns.) would be a good choice. So would Cricket.
Of course, I also find the ipso facto exclusion of non-black dominated sports (in anglo-american contexts) to be rather blinkered if not illogical. Here we are rather seeing a boot-strapping of the argument. They’re not their because they don’t compete. Why don’t they compete? Socio-economic constraints? Well, why the ** a priori ** exclusion of such considerations from selection for a sport? I await a logically argued rational beyond the statement (if not in such words) I just don’t think so.
Previously, Edwino, Gaspode, myself, Tom and others have given closely argued, on the ** genetic data ** arguments why we do not think that * racial * explanations work. Trait distributions just do not reflect the kinds of distributions which would explain a racial distribution. This is answered how? By, if I may be blunt, hand-waving arguments. We have the claim that the observation that “whites” – i.e. that part of the population not dark and curly haired enough to be called black – is "not making it in a sub-set of sports is a “significant observation” with the implication what we must attribute this to biological causes. But on what bases? What * genetic * evidence do we have?
Then there is the issue of time bounded observations, where Izzy uses one blade of the sword to cut down the observations on jews and other low-status (but not black as they are largely excluded) groups dominating, with the airy observation “sports did not have the same prestige and financial incentives as it does today. For this reason, relatively few upper-class people played these sports, leaving the field open for immigrants and lower-working class people.” Strange, I am heretofor unaware that a particularly large number of “upper-class” people are attracted to the playing (as opposed to the equally luctrative, in fact given the odds of return, more lucrative business side) side of the industry.
I may be utterly off base, but I had been led to beleive that in fact in terms of “playing” that lower income levels dominate. Izzy’s observation, given my understanding, which of course may be refuted if it is incorrect through aggregate data on the socio-economic origins of professional sport players in American Football, Basketball and what else?, indeed strongly suggests that the motivations for disfavored socio-economic groups which may percieve that their avenues of advancement in non-sports areas are limited, to invest heavily in attempting to succeed. I have never seen a quantitative sociological analysis, but multiple reports on this suggest this is true. So, if I assume that Izzy in fact does not have data, then we are at an impasse in terms of sociological observations other than the body of observations would rather support the conclusion that his observation is without strong emperical support and may be considered something of a red-herring.
So, my bottom line is until Izzy et al produce ** hard data ** based on rigorous analysis I see ** abosulely ** no logical support for his assertion, for that is what it is, that a socio-economic explanation is “blatently ridiculous” insofar as that explanation best fits the present data – above all the most objective and verifiable data – genetics.
Finally, in terms of differential areas of “excellence” of “races”, I believe that Izzy has seen refutations of his sloppy categories more than once. Indeed multiple times this has been called into question. (I can cite to problems in terms of selection bias, definition of traits in question for any given activity, lack of comparability etc. etc. etc.) The question arises then why cling to this in the face of rigorous criticism without a shred of actual objective data? No, we have only what, sloppy casual observation, upon which I am expected to abandon hard science? Or rather, why is that Izzy remains wedded, based on this kind of shit observation and data, to a racialist explanation (his caveat “which is not to say that it maps to specific races etc.” makes little sense to me. If we are talking about differences attributabe to individual level genetic differentiation plus socio-economic selection there is hardly a basis of dispute, if it is not race then what the hell is the group defined given the clear hetegeneity of black american descendance?)
Now if there is some substantive refutation of this, based on rigorous data, I am always open to it. So far I have yet to see any. Instead I see “refutations” based on ad hoc and a priori assumptions. which the “refuter” doesn’t bother to examine. Fundamentally unscientific. The same with the blithe dismissals of other explanations. I have yet to see a logically rigorous, data based and critical examination of the categories from this side. No, what I see is an emotive, knee-jerk reaction based on assumed categories and casual observation of the kind which we know is flawed and ultimately unreliable. And this is supposed to be convincing?
Finally, I am thinking of trying the following so that an item which is clearly, painfully clearly, not understood might be better understood: trait distributions between populations. I believe this may lie at the heart of the inability of a goodly number of people to grasp the observations that I, Edwino, Gaspode, Tomndeb and others have made. I confess it’s not easy and distilling this in an obvious form would not be easy but if it would be helpful I think I might like to make it a going away post. It might take me a while, and I would have to consult with others in re designing something clear, yet representative.
Well, just a thought.
