So just show the study that unquestionably supports a genetic cause for the differences populations show in sports. It shouldn’t be all that hard since you seem so convinced.
We don’t know what subtle differences there are in development that leads to populations excelling in different endeavors. An example that I can give deals with racial differences in learning to walk. There are studies that show African and Caribbean black kids tend to walk earlier than European white kids. Woah! Genetic! Stop the presses! A closer analysis showed that the African/Caribbean mothers were, on average, spending more time getting their kids to walk than the European mothers. So now what is it? Genes? Maternal effects?
The science of genetics has only recently started to learn just how overly simplistic our models are for the pathway from gene to trait. And I doubt sociology/anthropology/psychology has nailed down every aspect of variation from one culture to another. The state of information on these subjects is pathetic compared to the race answer people are looking for. At this point saying genetic or cultural or both is speculation and nothing more. It reveals more about you than it does about the data as I’ve said before. Since I am a liberal egalitarian I will bias toward culture as the answer for “Why one population seems to excel at one task versus another”.
And I use loaded terms like “master race” because I think people who are fascinated by finding the genetic cause of racial differences are no different than the scientific racists of the 1800s and all their ilk that followed; i.e. they’re racists.
Why can’t both apply ? Why does it have to be either/or. My only reason for participating in this thread is to defend the assertion that genetics is a factor to explain black(West African ancestry) dominance in sprinting, world wide and basketball in the USA. Take hockey for example and the reason Canadians dominate is because of our culture.
And I’m shocked that you present the idea that African mothers are better at nurturing their kids than Europeans. That is just like one of the most vile racist views ever advanced suggesting blacks spend less time nurturing their children, with the implication that they are more like animals.
He didn’t say African mothers are better nurturers. He said they are different. Which is hardly controversial, unless you are trying to claim that every culture behaves identically and thus must produce identical results.
But what then, is the explanation behind the europeans’ success?
Genes or culture? Either response would seem on the face of it to undermine your point.
Well, I’ve been pretty clear in this thread that that’s my position.
This isn’t to concede that group X is smarter than group Y; I don’t think this has been shown convincingly.
And I’m just saying we shouldn’t be trying too hard to find evidence of such things because it is socially sensitive and of little practical use.
Agreed.
If anyone were to assert should a thing then we could ask: do ss africans have a higher prevalance of dark skin? Or: are some east asian populations relatively short?
Obviously we have not seen such a study. If one had been done, we wouldn’t be having this debate. I obviously do not know for sure, nor do you. I simply am looking at some very unusual data and trying to make heads or tails of it. What do YOU make of the fact that only those of west african descent have run under 10 seconds? Unlike basketball, it is hard to imagine a poor black kid in the ghetto thinking to himself, "Hmmm, how can I get money, fame, and women?..I can’t be a lawyer…can’t be a doctor… Wait a minute, that’s it! I’ll be a track and field athlete!! "
Interesting. (1) I did not realize mothers made efforts to get their kids up on their feet. (2) Did the study also cover those of african descent in the US?
I think it does. It shows that some people are open minded enough to consider explanations that are quite plausible in certain situations. I mean, doesn’t the sprinting situation strike you as just a bit odd? Can you think of any other sport that is so thoroughly dominated by one group that is not some obscure sport popular only in one place on earth? It also shows that others are willing to consider ANY other explanation before they consider something that is clearly possible.
I really have no stake in the answer to this; I think it is very interesting regardless whether it turns out to have a social or genetic cause. What is so scary about considering the possibility a certain population might have a gene or two that makes world class times within reach for the elite?
Race is a vague and useless term. But I wouldn’t think someone who is interested in genetic variation between human populations is necessarily some kind of horrible Nazi. Why would you jump to that conclusion?
I think the only way to handle these threads that pop up so consistently is to make some type of betting pool. We’ll pay up when the definitive studies come out. I’ll put my 5$ on a genetic basis for the dominance of west african descended sprinters and you can put yours on African and Caribbean mothers prodding their kids into walking earlier.
I still don’t think we are understanding each other. Why would a cultural explanation for european success undermine my point? I never said a cultural explanation is impossible. Rather, I think it is undoubtably a part of the answer and I think that the european success demonstrates that. However, the fact that even in such a basketball crazy culture as one finds in parts of Europe, one doesn’t find athletes performing the physical feats seen performed by a myriad of basketball players in the US points towards genetics being part of the explanation as well.
Why do no European players play like Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, or Michael Jordan? Are they just emulating heroes from their respective parts of the world? Or is dunking from the foul line and scoring by jumping over people something that only certain types of athletes are capable of? I do think that culture plays an important role in this, but I suspect a genetic component as well.
I just don’t see the world dissolving into chaos because someone discovers that, in fact, to be an elite sprinter, it is helpful to have one or two copies of a certain allele that happens to be more common in west african populations.
In fact, I remember reading about a certain allele that researchers found present in most of the champion long jumpers. Interestingly, there were exceptions: champions who had no copies of that particular allele but were still successful. Anyone know what I’m referring to?
I think certain asian populations would do very poorly in a drinking contest. I believe it has been shown that these populations lack an enzyme that helps metabolize alcohol. That’s the best I’ve got for right now, but I think thats been pretty well established, and if you accept that, then you’re on a bit of a slippery slope. : )
But it’s interesting that european success is proof of the influence of culture, but black success is proof of a genetic factor.
I mean, you could turn the whole thing around: “White europeans obviously have better genes for shooting and passing accurately. And, though black culture is big on basketball, black players are mostly limited to just jumping around near the hoop”.
The reason the former description is far more common than the latter, is that it fits the stereotype of the naturally talented black guy and the hardworking white guy.
I don’t know.
But since there are of course plenty of black people in many of the european countries that have got players into the NBA, I would lean away from saying it’s to do with black vs white genes.
(1) Forget the european and black labels and look at the physical acts that are being described. Which is more indicative of athleticism requiring a genetic advantage – being a good three point shooter and passer or jumping from the foul line and dunking it? There are plenty of people who spend their lives playing basketball and develop phenomenal shooting, passing, and ball handling skills. Unfortunately for them, they are too short, too slow, etc. But I don’t think it is a stretch to say that these are skills (whether they ultimately have their own genetic basis or not) that can be more readily developed by a wider range of the population than dunking from the foul line or other superhuman feats.
(2) There are plenty of black players who are phenomenal shooters and passers. But how many players not of west african descent possess the explosiveness and leaping ability that we have been talking about?
(3) If we are talking about blacks from the U.S., we are talking about (for the most part) descendants of one particular region/population. Can we say that about Pao Gasol, Dirk Nowitzki, Peja Stojakovich, etc. ? If not, it is difficult to go with the genetics explanation and we must look for other answers.
I would not describe it as “black” genes or “white” genes. That is inaccurate and also sounds pretty silly. If in fact there IS a gene that is more common in those of west african descent that does aid in these type of feats, there is no reason to suppose it is also more likely in, say, Kenyans. Why would it even have anything to do with skin color other than happening to be present with more frequency in one particular population that happens to have dark skin?
(1) They don’t have a comparable pool of west african descended athletes to draw from (compared to US)
(2) I haven’t watched basketball in years, but black Europeans make it to the NBA too – ie Tony Parker.
What do you mean by European success ? They have a population of 830,000,000 people compared to America at 330,000,000. They should have at least twice as many people in the NBA than America. They should comprise 71% of the league just to be par.
On the other hand, a little black population of 30,000,000 is dominating the league to the tune of 82 % when they should be down to 3% just to be par.
And my referral to europeans "tearing up " the NBA was not meant to be taken entirely literally but was just referencing the earlier claim that european success disproved a genetic explanation for the success of american blacks. While there has been an influx of european players as of late, with some of them achieving high status, Europeans are still by far the minority in the NBA.
To be fair, I would say that statistics may be a bit misleading if they are based on Europe as a whole; there are a few hot spots with disproportionate numbers of players for the size of the area.
Also, to be fair, I didn’t realise that the proportion of black NBA players was as high as 82%.
If they were mostly from outside of the US then you could make a case for culture being potentially the reason for this over-representation.
But since they aren’t, I doubt that cultural differences could be sufficient to explain this extreme disproportionate representation.
(note: this may sound like I’m contradicting myself, but when I earlier said I would tend towards a cultural explanation, I meant as an explanation for the european phenomenon. It wasn’t meant to be my opinion about the phenomenon of black players in the NBA.)
Basketball was invented by a Canadian. Every high school and university competes just as they do in the States. Outdoor basketball courts are littered throughout the country. The NBA plays in Canada as well.
Though we have roughly the same population as blacks in the States, all we have right now is Steve Nash.
My point was that americans share a lot of culture in common. So, although it may be true that african-americans are more likely to be enthusiastic about basketball than european-americans, I doubt that such a difference could be sufficient to explain how an ethnic minority could dominate the sport to this extent.
OTOH if it were the case, hypothetically, that blacks were dominating the sport but they all came from some other part of the world, then cultural differences could be sufficient to explain the domination. Because they may have totally different training methods, upbringing, emphasis on different skills etc.
Soccer is a good example of this: different nations emphasize different parts of the game and train up-and-coming players in different ways. And these are key factors in a nation’s success.
The fact that non-AA blacks are not hugely represented in the NBA is not evidence at all for the genetic hypothesis. If anything, it’s evidence against it. If blacks are gifted in ways that give them advantage on the court, why would this giftedness only be seen in African-Americans, and not Africans or Afro-Caribbeans? I’m still not following how the absence of other black players signals to you that non-cultural factors are at play.
It seems much more likely to conclude that urban African-American culture fosters basketball in way that non-urban non-African American cultures does not. Jewish athletes dominated the game in the 1920’s and '30s not because they were Jewish, but because of their environment. Why is it that hard to believe that black dominance is working through the same mechanism? What is different?
Here’s an interesting piece about the Jewish reign in basketball. Jews in Sports