The top ranked heavyweight boxers in the world are mostly white Russians now. The gene for boxing success has somehow migrated across the Atlantic and the Urals.
You made the assertion, you defend it.
On the other hand, you haven’t presented any data showing that blacks are any more interested in developing their basketball talents then blacks in the formative years.
Is there anything physical in NASCAR racing that we can scale? Does anyone deny cultural reasons for this.
As far as MLB is concerned, a 9% representation of blacks is not under-representation. Black representation is in decline because the overall representation of Americans in MLB is in decline. If you look at minor league player under contract for the future, 45% are foreign born.
-
Blacks(WA) are 100% in Olympic gold medals for sprinting. Dozens of blacks(WA) from various cultures have broken the 10 second barrier in the 100m and no whites have. A huge worldwide sample for this scientific experiment with a rigorous simple measurement regimen. It isn’t just basketball, and speed helps in basketball. And there isn’t all that much money and fame in it.
-
82% is extremely high for a 10% minority
-
Scientific studies that show blacks (West African) tend towards a higher ratio of fast twitch compared to slow twitch muscles.
-
A scientific study that shows blacks on average have a 3 inch higher centre of gravity or that their legs are longer compared to overall height. That is very helpful in jumping and adds to that the implication they must have longer arms as well , pushing their reach even further.
-
The fact that science has isolated a distinct and distant geographic population, West Africans, not a race, as responsible for providing the genetic contribution not only for the physical parameters studied, but for the outcomes in certain sports.
It would appear you and Monstro have decided it’s mostly sterotype threat that accounts for the difference in performance levels, along with the “lazy, unmotivated and otherwise distracted whites” explanation.
I see. There’s an NBA career out there with an average salary of several million dollars, not to mention a bit of Fame. Hard-working black kids practice incessantly to obtain it; white kids are too uninterested in money and fame, are too distracted, too lazy or suffer from too little self-belief to even stay in the game long enough to figure out that they have an equivalent potential…white kids are spontaneously giving up on the biggest career cherry out there, cowed into collapse by the specter of the Awesome Negro.
Sounds like we’ll need some confidence-building programs or outright race-based AA here to get the proportions back to representative, huh? It can’t possibly be a genetic advantage for the group that is actually out-performing all others despite a level playing field for sports aspirations at the start of life. I guess whites have decided they are great spectators, but that’s it?
You can spin it however you like, but let me remind you that the Powerball lotto is
37 million dollars. Why are you posting here instead of running out to your nearest convience store and buying tickets like so many low incomepeople are doing?!!! It puzzles me why you are letting laziness, distractedness and cynicism get in the way of you becoming of multi-millionaire.
My assertion is that young black males play more hours of basketball than young white males, because the latter are far more likely to be involved in other things due to parental pressure. I’m not sure where I would go to find such information to back this up. Just like I don’t know where Chief Pedant would find any information backing his assertion that whites have better access to all routes to basketball stardom. But of course, you aren’t grilling him about this. Because you agree with it!
Did I say they did? No. Chief Pedant has been the one asserting that whites want basketball stardom just as much as blacks do, all without one iota of evidence. But that’s neither here nor there. I only challenged his presumption that whites have the better environment for nuturing basketball prowess by presenting the idea that all the family stability, best coaches, best breakfast cereals in the world can’t compete against number of hours on the court. If black kids are playing more than white kids, for whatever reason, that alone can account for their success in reaching the NBA.
And I’m wondering why is this? Why is it easy for you to concede that the predominance of whites in NASCAR is strictly cultural, while fighting the very idea for black basketball players? NASCAR requires physical endurance, eye-hand coordination, spatial skills, and other skills that I’m unable to think of because I’m not familiar with the sport. So what exactly would keep white folks from having a magical car-racing gene?
I don’t understand. How is 9% not underrepresentation? And why would the decline of American MLB players necessarily mean that black MLB players would follow the same course? You could still have a decline of American MLB players overall and still have an overrepresentation of black players, correct?
Why not just say West Africans rather than black?
It would be like me attributing qualities to whites, when really I mean Eastern Europeans. Or even more specifically, Eastern Europeans from the Balkans. I’m glad you’re admitting that blacks may be too broad of a descriptor, but by God please choose one term. Either it’s black or it’s West African. Can’t be both.
I honestly do not know how to explain why all the winning sprinters are of West African descent. Perhaps genetics does have something to do with it. But let’s suppose that a subset of West Africans are faster runners, innately. How does this translate in the NBA? Why doesn’t this translate into success in other sports, like soccer (as evident by the World Cup results)?
Then why all this talk about “blacks”, when you really mean a distinct geographic population? Is it because “blacks” is easier to say than “West African”?
I wonder if someone has analyzed NBA players (both black and white) to determine the distribution of these “West African features”. Do white NBA players have them too? Are there a considerable number of black NBA players that don’t have them? How are the presence of these features correlated with players’ stats and positions? Now that would be interesting science.
Please. I just entered this damn thread and don’t even know what you mean by “stereotype threat”. And I haven’t said anything about whites being lazy and unmotivated. Distracted, perhaps. But distracted in a way that ensures success in a wide variety of fields, rather than distracted in general. Which is a compliment towards the life strategy of a stereotypical white person rather than an insult.
I expect you’ll distort this post as well.
Plus, white folk are stubby and can fit in them cars with all the roll bars and such. 'Cept for the eastern Europeans who are still milling about under the basket.
This is a great thread. I’d probably find it more offensive if it weren’t so damn funny.
A couple of thoughts about this thread:
(1) Debating genetics vs social/cultural factors is incredibly difficult with a sport like basketball. Seems to me that there are clearly a number of social/cultural factors at work in addition to a possible genetic advantage. Plus, with basketball, there are too many ways to be good. One doesn’t have to have great speed or leaping ability. One can succeed by being a great shooter or passer or ball handler. That is why bringing up the case of Europeans and various white stars is not very useful. A better approach might be to look at the “high flyers” of the league and you may find a greater case for a genetic advantage. Take a look at the slam dunk champions of the past 20/30 years – see many non West African descendants there?
Or football (american). A couple people have brought up NFL statistics that are misleading (% of blacks/whites). Again, a speed advantage is only going to be useful at certain positions, such as wide receiver, cornerback, etc. Look at the % of West African descendants at quarterback or offensive line, where speed is not at a premium. Now look at the speed positions. See a difference? I think you will.
(2) A much better place to look for possible genetic advantages by certain populations is in sprinting. There is no way to finesse your way to success here – you must be fast. And, performance records are easily quantifiable and accessible.
I am curious to know:
(a) What are the social/cultural factor arguments for the incredible dominance by West African sprinters? The only thing I have heard mentioned so far is that west african descended parents supposedly do something to get their kids walking earlier. Anything else?
(b) Is there any other sport that is widely practiced throughout the world that is so thoroughly dominated by one population? Is there anything even close?
Why do you find it offensive at all?
I’ll get back to monstro when I have the time.
“West African” is not a race. With only a few exceptions, you will generally find that most posters will accept a claim that people with West African ancestry dominate sprinting with genetics as a probable explanation.
In the context of this thread, however, once you expand the discussion from “West African” to some arbitrarily defined “race,” you will find a lot more disagreement. (For that matter, the matter of the NBA tends to fall into the same issue, as the number of NBA players with Eastern or Southern African ancestry is vanishingly small.)
Well, if posters accept that, then what is there to debate? Doesn’t it stand to reason that if athletes of west african descent have an advantage in sprinting that they will also have an advantage in sports where quick bursts of speed are important? ie basketball and football?
I agree “west african” is not a race. Although in the US, the “black” race generally refers to those of west african descent. I suppose one could even say that if the west africans have a genetic advantage in sprinting, then the “black” race as a whole has an advantage, simply by virtue of the average being raised by the west african populations. But once one starts referring to large groups at once( ie blacks, whites, etc) , things get pretty vague and inaccurate.
His position is in response to yours. Hell, I don’t know if that is true, but if it is I don’t need it to support my position. On the other hand your assertion is neccessary to support your position.
And neither one of you can support your assertions. I 'm pretty confident of one thing. There are a lot more hours of white kids playing basketball than there are hours of black kids playing basketball. Sorry, I can’t prove it and even if I could I wouldn’t put too much significance to it.
I don’t know that much about NASCAR , but we do have stock car racing here in Canada, and only a very small minority of boys have any interest or opportunity of getting into it. I expect that it the same in the States. That doesn’t say much about whites or blacks. The same goes for golf and tennis.
It is not that far off from being par with the population ratio. The difference may be significant in a medical study, but not to draw any speculation about genetic advantage one way or another.
Sure, but the decline in black representation is symptomatic of an overall cultural phenomenon in the US with the pool of non blacks increasing.
You refer to blacks without specifying the exclusion of Aborigines or Andeman Islanders. The phenomenon we are addressing here is that black people appear to dominate NBA basketball. Black people in the States predominantly have some West African origin. I realize it is incumbant on those who believe that genetics contribute to the performance disparity be more specific, but I’ve brought up this West African origin thing many times and I expect that you especially are well aware of that.
It really helps to make fast moves in the NBA.
Well it does. If you look at the starting line team roster for the white Netherlands, 3 of 11 positions are held by blacks. Thats 27% when they only represent 5% of the population.
Hence the abundance of threads on the topic.
There is nothing in Canada like NASCAR. Li’l southern white boys would love to grow up and drive NASCAR, bless their little hearts.
If it is not clear enough why explosive bursts of speed and quickness might be somewhat helpful in the NBA, try this on for size: you can go back at least 40* years (probably longer, I got bored) and find an unbroken string of black olympic gold medalist long JUMPERS. Please don’t ask how tremendous leaping ability might translate to the NBA : )
- Except for the 1980 boycotted games.
I agree with you here.
The important take-away, is that when any two populations with reasonably equalized nurturing are compared, the difference is genetic.
Compare West Africans with Kenyans; the former will be over-represented for basketball and sprinting–better genes–and the latter (at least the Kalenjin) for marathons–better genes.
It’s the prevelance of a geneset that gives a particular population an advantage.
What about races? Well that’s just a matter of deciding if you are a lumper or a splitter. If you lump all sub-saharan Africans together, “they” are going to be better at sprinting, because “they” contain a hugely over-represented group of West Africans within the larger group of all “blacks.” If you are a splitter, you can point out it’s ridiculous to pretend the Mbuti of West Africans are on genetic par with the rest of the West African groups for the geneset underpinning basketball potential.
I am way less interested in whether one lumps or splits than I am in promoting the notion that genes are what drive these differences.
But IF you lump–and most of us self-lump into Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, THEN it’s the case that the SIRE group of “blacks” is superior at basketball because “they” have superior genes (even though those genes are confined to a specific subset of all blacks).
After all, the group of all Tall People is also superior at basketball because of genes. It’s just not a very archetypical grouping.
You’re the second person to say this, but it doesn’t actually follow statistically. West africa could have the world’s best sprinters while at the same time the average african could be a worse sprinter than the average european.
Especially since we don’t know the prevalence of “sprinters’ genes” across w africa (it is a very genetically diverse continent after all).
And…if you don’t mean averages, then why are you “lumping”? Why should an african nation of people who have terrible sprinting genes be lumped in with the good sprinters? Because they have a similar skin colour?
You are absolutely right, and it’s only the necessary shorthand of making notes here that causes me to use the term “on average” (i.e. “most often the case”) as if it were a mathematical statistic. So, for instance, “on average” the black population in the US is going to outperform the white and asian population for the skillset underpinning basketball. This difference results from genetic differences more than nurturing ones.
The key point for me is that differences are genetic and not nurture when we find these enormously disproportionate representations relative to the starting pool and can reasonably show that no group had a nurturing advantage accounting for the differences.
Your point about the genetic diversity of africans is also absolutely correct, and there’s nothing particularly wrong about a general complaint that sub-saharans are more reasonably split then lumped. We are all humans, and after that it’s purely a preference of how to lump or split. Historically, there are two very broad groups: humans who descended from groups that never left africa, and those who descended from groups who did. See here for instance.
There are lots of ways to slice and dice modern population clusters. Is it self-identification? Is it proportion of total microsatellite markers? What does it mean to be “similar” to someone else? If it’s just the total number of similar markers, some researches argue an individual may be as similar to one from a totally different “group” than he is to his own “group” and yet if we look at Self-Identification for Race/Ethnicity there is a remarkable ability to use specific markers and get a good correspondence for “race.”
It would seem that we are all very diverse and this diversity, superficially, can (and has) been used to try and render the term “race” meaningless, particularly if one assumes that all genes are about equal in importance.
But why would all genes be equal in functional significance? Suppose I take a thousand genes from two individuals and find that almost every gene is different. If they are different in minor ways without functional significance, I still have two guys that are basically the same. But if I give one guy a single gene that happens to code for much stronger muscles, all of a sudden I have two totally different humans. The fact that each individual is “genetically diverse” is of no consequence without taking into account what they are genetically diverse for.
The argument that we are all genetically diverse at the individual level (and therefore no population groupings make sense) is only persuasive if one assumes that all populations draw from the same reference library of genes and that all of those (equally available) genes are functionally the same.
In fact, what creates different populations is a different pool of genes from which that population draws, and those different pools contain genes which are functionally very significant. It doesn’t matter that all of us have different genes which vary in teeny ways as evolution chugs along and plays with our DNA. What matters is which of those variations have functional significance, and which populations have access to a library of genes containing the significant ones.
(Missed edit window)
I often make the point we won’t be seeing the Mbuti or the Kalenjin dominating the NBA even if their culture and opportunity happens to change. They don’t have the genes for it.
Again, the point is that genetic differences drive these disproportionate representations if we account for nurturing variables. The more accurately we define a population, the more precisely we can predict what a statistically average performance will be for an individual in that population. But even at the level of SIRE groups, we draw from different genetic libraries, and some of the genes are functionally quite different from one library to the next. That’s why, if we lump all self-identified US blacks into a single cohort, we’ll see more HbS than in the white SIRE group. We could be even more precise if we split out both groups into sub-populations, but again, that’s splitting versus lumping. The key point is that genetic differences for functionally signficant genes does occur even at the SIRE level because even at that level of lumping, the genetic libraries from which those two groups draw contain genes which are functionally very different.
You’re right, there is an assumption/over simplification being made that west africans are slightly faster and every other population is exactly the same, which wouldn’t likely be true.