I’m not so sure. Steven Pinker’s book The Blank Slate nearly won a Pulitzer and he remains very popular.
What makes you think this isn’t exactly what’s happening with the current studies? Pioneer Fund wasn’t started by poor people.
I will have to look into the Pioneer Fund. I think these guys are really missing the boat on the current state of behavior genetics. The data is out there if they are just willing to spend about a million or 2 of their chump change to get it. Instead they just sit in their armchairs and theorize.
In a sense I agree with you here.
Race is a raw nerve, but not because people want to pretend that every group is identical. It’s because this is a subject that people have died and killed for, and it’s something constantly bubbling under the surface because, IMO, people are instinctively prejudiced: we can’t help pre-judging people based on appearances (and race is a part of our appearance that we don’t get to choose).
Studies trying to correlate average IQ to race are not going to be well-received as they stab that raw nerve, have questionable motives and aren’t actually that useful from a practical POV. (Finding the actual genes would be useful. And separating people into racial groups wouldn’t be the best way to go about this).
But sure, the research still gets published, as the examples given show.
Thanks for this. I was not aware of it and just ordered it for my library.
Quoted kingbighair because he was posting last on this subject.
What do people make of this study, which purports to show Blacks have a centre of gravity three centimetres higher than whites, giving them an advantage in sprinting? I’ve not read the study (perhaps somebody has?) and can’t comment on its reliability.
I shouldn’t comment before reading the article, but it sounds like a correlational study. If it does satisfactorally demonstrate that center of gravity explains the difference between professional European and West African runners in sprinting then it still says nothing about whether it is genes or some other factor (I would guess an aspect of maternal rearing) affecting this measure.
I’ve long noticed many black athletes with impressively long legs and arms with short torsos. I’d expect that gives an equivalent height basketball athlete with a long torso a 5 inch disadvantage along with a shorter jump mechanism in the legs.
.
The most obvious point that occurs to me is that the terminology in the storyis fuzzy and the actual data points are not published.
(This is not the fault of the study–when quoted, the authors actualy do refer to geography rather than “race”–but the idiot writer of the piece uses the terms “black” and “white” and “Asian” without identifying who should be so labeled. At a single point, the reference to sprinting notes “West African” rather than “black,” but the rest of the article uses a term that applies to Africans from the West, East,and South regions of the country indiscriminately.)
The actual study might be interesting, but the story is hoopla and muck.
Do faster sprinters have higher navels, independent of race? Seems like the authors would need to show this before drawing the conclusion that this is why West Africans are faster sprinters. But perhaps this is old news that was left out of that article (even though I’ve never heard of this before).
Well put! Why are some people so gung-ho about finding strong connections among (genes) —> (race) —> (advantageous abilities in one realm or another)?
Why don’t they put their efforts into just (genes) —> (advantageous abilities in one realm or another), and skip the “race” part? There will be plenty of time later to look at the distribution of each specific genetic quirk among humans. MAYBE at some point, some meaningful-in-some-contexts-for-limited-purposes patterns will start to emerge, and MAYBE some of those patterns will map more or less with some of the populations by which some people have defined some “race” or other at some point in the past, BUT SUCH A FINDING WOULD BE OF PERIPHERAL INTEREST. “Perpheral” NOT because it would “not be PC”, but “peripheral” logically. Mathematically. Rationally. Scientifically. Factually.
And furthermore, removing that unnecessary “race” obstacle in the middle would help expose more clearly and directly which “advantageous abilities in one realm or another” are utter crap (“IQ”, e.g.), which ones are merely vague and ill-defined, but can perhaps be resolved into scientifically meaningful components (“intelligence”, e.g.), and which ones are quite well-defined and meaningful (“Tay-Sachs”, e.g.).
With regard to the point I see brought up now and again regarding European basketball stars (ie "well if you’re saying blacks do well because of genetics, what’s so special about the genetics of all these European stars?), I notice that nobody has pointed out the difference in play between European stars and black stars born in the U.S… The stereotypical black star has explosive quickness and leaping ability. The European born white star typically is typically good sized, with deadly shooting, good passing, and decent ball handling for someone of that size.
The European players are what I would imagine the end product would be of a culture that has fallen in love with the sport – players who have the requisite physical size and are just REALLY good at the game.
I find it difficult to use this same hypothesis to explain the feats one sees performed by black stars – dunking from the foul line, jumping OVER THE HEAD of a 7’6" french player and dunking it, etc. Even if one grows up idolizing Michael Jordan rather than Vlade Divac, these are physical feats that really can’t be taught. And unless players have changed substantially since I stopped watching (following the demise of the Iverson-Webber experiment), these are feats one doesn’t see the Europeans performing.
I think what you say there JKellyMap is an excellent summary of the way the science is conducted and I hope it continues.
Why not just say the stereotypical American star vs stereotypical European star?
Because the success of “European” basketball players is brought up in response to people talking about a supposed genetic advantage possessed by “black” basketball players. Nobody talks about a gene helpful for basketball that is shared by all Americans.
Yes, but the stars you mention are American and black on the one hand and European and white on the other. Why jump to basketball genes when you can just point out that stars from Europe are trained to play basketball successfully in one manner while American basketball stars favor another style of play?
Do you think that Chinese people have special genes for Kung-fu while Japanese people have genes for Ninjutsu who do not have the Greek Boxing genes? Seem silly yet to you?
Your analogy does seem silly, but is also a poor analogy.
Getting back to the stereotypical style of play of black basketball stars…it is not simply a style of play that one can be trained in if it requires physical abilities – quickness, explosiveness, leaping ability – that occur less often in other populations. Peja Stojacovich could have trained in the style of Michael Jordan his whole life, but he would not be able to play like Jordan because he lacks certain physical attributes.
Do you think that people can just train in the “style of sprinters of west african descent” and thereby run the 100 meters in less than 10 seconds?
The physical attributes that you list can all be acquired with training. People will of course vary with respect to their ability to attain the highest levels of play in a particular style of play. There is not a bit of evidence that some particular population is blessed with the genes for a particular style of play. That doesn’t mean that I would disagree with the argument that various populations around the world engage in cultural practices that bias these populations toward achievement in particular arenas. I think some of these practices may be subtle enough so that scientists (who, thankfully, are generally disinterested in specifying who is the master race in any particular field) are not seeing the relevant variables.
What you mean to say is that one may IMPROVE their own level of quickness, speed, leaping ability, etc. through training. But clearly not everyone is blessed with the same potential.
How many sprinters that are not of west african descent have run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds? And if the explanation for that is in fact genetic, how would a population possessing a genetic potential to achieve such high levels of speed, quickness, and explosiveness NOT be better suited to play basketball in the ultra athletic style of Michael Jordan/Vince Carter/Lebron James etc. ?
Of course. And it can be hard to distinguish between these factors in many sports. I will say though, that I have yet to walk through an impoverished inner city neighborhood and see young african american youth diligently working on their crouching start to sprinting transition. Out of curiosity, how would you explain this dominance?
Why bring loaded terms such as “master race” into this?
I’m a bit confused by where this basketball example is going. I mean, there are a mix of population groups here in europe too. There are plenty of black people here.
So I don’t even get what the hypothesis is supposed to be, and why we need to compare european whites to american blacks.
But, I think it’s pretty clear that different populations may have a different average genetic potential for particular sports.
My arguments have been 1.) Not to jump to conclusions (a population being good at a sport is not, in itself, proof of anything) 2) For the good of society, it’s best that we do not attempt to divide races on the basis of mental characteristics and 3) it’s not actually useful to divide gene prevalances by race. Gene mapping is what is useful.
(the latter couple of points are off-topic for the OP, but address points made by others on this thread)
Summary of the points:
OP: How can you question innate ethnic group differences, look at how blacks dominate in basketball.
Answer that was given: that’s due to social/cultural reasons, not genetic. As evidence, look at all these white europeans tearing things up as of late. And they are even from a variety of different ethnic groups.
Rebuttal to that answer: white europeans play a different style of basketball. Blacks supposedly dominated due to superior quickness, leaping ability, etc. The fact that europeans are doing well by being tall and equally adept at passing, dribbling, and shooting threes is irrelevant to whether or not blacks (west african descent) as an ethnic group have superior speed, leaping ability, etc. If europeans were dominating in the same style stereotypically played by blacks, THEN this would suggest a social/cultural explanation rather than genetic.
I can understand why many are reluctant to explore such things as IQ differences between ethnic groups. But why not simply say they are reluctant to explore it for the variety of good reasons that one could present (opens door for discrimination, misunderstood by the masses, etc.)? Simply stating that there are absolutely no physical differences caused by genetics between various populations in the world is a hard stance to defend.