Please synopsize the answer to "Races have xyz innate characteristics/abilities/predispositions"

[Gorsnak]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Well here’s an assertion that we can all disagree with including the author. As such, it does nothing to advance this debate.

Well, sure we all disagree with it. And yet, every last argument he’s made about basketball seems to me to be equally valid with regards to hockey.

Seriously.

Canadians comprised about 7% of the population of the traditional hockey powers, all nations where there is very significant interest in pro hockey (Canada, Russia, USA, Sweden, Czech Rep, Finland). And yet Canadians make up over half the NHL, which is far and away the best pro hockey league (regardless of what Putin might say about the KHL). As a group, Canadians are vastly overrepresented.

Any reason you can bring up to explain why Canadians are overrepresented is a reason that has been brought up to explain why blacks are overrepresented in the NBA. But none of those arguments wash, therefore Canadian hockey dominance is genetic. Q.E.D.

[you_with_the_face]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Think about those days after the colour barrier was broken in the NBA and MLB. There was an enormous pool of black talent to subsequently fill the rosters that had no reason to believe the could get there. They didn’t heven have heros until Jackie Robinson of baseball.

Blacks had been playing in the Negro league for years previous to that point; it’s not as if that talent had rose up from out of nowhere. Blacks who wanted to break into the sport had role models.

Well I grew up with those attitudes and still gave basketball my all. My peers and I never saw that as a reason to give up.

Well you and your friends are extraordinary if you commited yourself to basketball in equal measure to black kids, all the while believing yourselves to be at a disadvantage against them. Your claim lacks credibility because otherwise the concept of being psyched out wouldn’t exist. Making someone feel as if they are going up against someone much better than them is a surefire way of getting them off their game, even if they’re brilliant. It’s psychology 101.

There is no way that most white kids could go around thinking they are physically inferior to blacks with respect to baskeball and yet still pound the court with the same optimism that drives the determination of black kids. Not in the real world.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@Gorsnak

Well, sure we all disagree with it. And yet, every last argument he’s made about basketball seems to me to be equally valid with regards to hockey.

Seriously.

Canadians comprised about 7% of the population of the traditional hockey powers, all nations where there is very significant interest in pro hockey (Canada, Russia, USA, Sweden, Czech Rep, Finland). And yet Canadians make up over half the NHL, which is far and away the best pro hockey league (regardless of what Putin might say about the KHL). As a group, Canadians are vastly overrepresented.

Any reason you can bring up to explain why Canadians are overrepresented is a reason that has been brought up to explain why blacks are overrepresented in the NBA. But none of those arguments wash, therefore Canadian hockey dominance is genetic. Q.E.D.

Wow. You can even use the same dumbass rationalizations. For instance:

"There are Americans in the NHL, but I would say it’s a broad opinion that the quality of play on the part of the Americans is not on par with that of Canadians, the typical player being a large gangly soul who mucks around in the crease. "

[Chief_Pedant]

@Gorsnak

Chief Pedant’s arguments have convinced me - convinced me that Canadians are genetically superior at hockey.

I have not argued this for either curling or hockey, and the pretense that I have suggests an inability to grasp the simplest components of the argument.

The argument is that basketball represents a reasonable candidate proof case for nature v. nurture because the starting pool for putative basketball stars is much larger for the under-performing group and because potential stardom/financial success for both groups drives a basketball career as a primary goal which displaces all choices until the player is forced to abandon their NBA pathway because they have been outperformed.

I am not aware that hockey achieves such a position among American blacks, or that either point would apply to curling.

[Chief_Pedant]

@Dreen

Especially this: Resurrecting Racism: The attack on black people using phony science

Check out the maps on african medalists, especially the ones in Kenya. It’s pretty damning.

From your cite:
“Now, before I begin, one important clarification, just so that nobody becomes confused: Differences in athletic performance must result, in part, from biological differences, and some of these differences may be clustered in particular populations and regions. There is nothing controversial in this.”
I can live with that statement, although a few on this board aggressively fight the idea that different populations are differently enabled biologically for their group average maximum potential.

And this:
“But that hardly means that the American layperson’s concepts of ‘black,’ ‘white,’ and ‘yellow’ are the categories that capture such differences; they aren’t. And neither does it mean that you can cut up the human species into biological races; you can’t.”

Which is sort of true, but only if you are a splitter and not a lumper. And most human beings are themselves lumpers, Self-Identifying with Racial/Ethnic groups. And there is, in fact, perfectly good genetic reasoning behind SIRE clusters. Here, for example. The main complaint of this criticism of Entine’s book Taboo is that we shouldn’t lump “blacks.” Fair enough, but beside the point. In the first place, we do lump ourselves, and more importantly, when we lump, we accept that the group average includes the Kalenjin and the West Africans. If I’m gonna boast about my Eurasian “race,” I have to include all comers and not just the Malaysians.

But in any case, the key point is that when we see phenotypic differences at the level of large groups, and we can reasonably account for nurturing differences, those differences are genetic.

Genes underlie maximum potential. Perfect nutrition improves your maximum height. But perfect nutrition for all Mbutis will not enable them to average Tutsis in height. The splitter will find an Mbuti exception or argue that Tutsis are not narrowly-enough defined. The lumper will disagree.

[Chief_Pedant]

@astro

Talented black players see this as a life or death struggle, talented white players not so much.

In my opinion both you and YWTF are underselling black children’s cognitive ability to understand that a decent education is a better roadmap to success than basketball.

I think almost anyone can grasp the statistical concept that there are very few NBA stars out of the entire original starting pool. I think the “education is important” message does filter even into the inner city black pool. I think white and asian kids also get that message.

For the talented white kid starting down a basketball pathway, I have no doubt there is an earlier elimination of basketball as a primary place to concentrate effort once the kid is outperformed (by peers of any color). I do not agree that pathway is abandoned before being outperformed, so that the final pool still reflects a disproportionate representation that has been filtered by performance ability and not by a priori assumption of inadequacy on the part of whites.

For black kids, basketball may indeed become a “life and death” struggle for a handful who cannot otherwise perform in school at all, but I don’t buy into the notion that school is abandoned for basketball where school is a viable option. Rigorous schooling is abandoned for the same reason rigorous basketball pursuit is abandoned: you are less able to succeed in it and it seems a less viable pathway to success. In short, we focus on our best possible pathway to success, even if the chances are small, because the alternate pathways are even less likely to bring us success since we are even crummier at those skillsets.

[Mijin]

@Chief_Pedant

In my opinion both you and YWTF are underselling black children’s cognitive ability to understand that a decent education is a better roadmap to success than basketball.

I don’t think anyone was putting it that way.

I think what astro was getting at, is similar to my experience: that, rightly or wrongly, inner city black youths often don’t believe that the education route is open to them.

If you ask a group of black children whether they think they are smart enough to be doctors, very few I think would answer yes. Where do they get this belief from? It seems to happen very early and it doesn’t seem to matter if they are at the same standard as their peers.
And they don’t believe that they could afford to go to college.
And they just don’t think their family / situation / neighbourhood is stable enough that they can invest in their future in that way.

And yeah, at least part of the problem is black culture: an image that if you work hard at something, and it doesn’t make you mega rich, you’re a chump.
(So any academic route that isn’t doctor, lawyer etc looks like chump street).

[Mijin]

@Mijin

And they don’t believe that they could afford to go to college.
And they just don’t think their family / situation / neighbourhood is stable enough that they can invest in their future in that way.

(missed edit window)

I’m talking about black adolescents at this point, not the hypothetical children.

[Gorsnak]

@Chief_Pedant

I have not argued this for either curling or hockey, and the pretense that I have suggests an inability to grasp the simplest components of the argument.

The argument is that basketball represents a reasonable candidate proof case for nature v. nurture because the starting pool for putative basketball stars is much larger for the under-performing group and because potential stardom/financial success for both groups drives a basketball career as a primary goal which displaces all choices until the player is forced to abandon their NBA pathway because they have been outperformed.

I am not aware that hockey achieves such a position among American blacks, or that either point would apply to curling.

You are completely missing the point. The populations of Russia, US, Sweden, etc, underperform Canadians in spite of having equal opportunity to make it in the NHL. Opportunity having been normalized, the remaining difference must be genetic.

Of course, I am not serious about this proposition at all. Heck, a significant number of Canadians are immigrants (generally 4th generation or so) from the very countries in question. But unless you can explain how the this case is different from basketball, I really don’t see how you can dismiss it. What can you point to that explains Canadian dominance at ice hockey that you with the face has not already raised and had dismissed by you with regards to basketball?

[you_with_the_face]

@Chief_Pedant

In my opinion both you and YWTF are underselling black children’s cognitive ability to understand that a decent education is a better roadmap to success than basketball.

So let’s go back to the lottery. Why do the poor play it more often than the rich, when the money they waste on losing tickets would be better spent on college funds and SAT prep classes?

[Sampiro]

What throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the “blacks are just naturally more inclined to sports” is the fact that African Americans also have the highest obesity rates of any ethnic group. Cites from here- numbers rounded

OVERWEIGHT
72% of black men are overweight; the same statistic is true for white men
80% of black women are overweight as opposed to 58% of white women

36% of black men are obese as opposed to 32% of white men
53% of black women are obese as opposed to 32% of white women

For children and adolescents the figures are about the same: roughly the same percentage of black boys are overweight as white boys with a higher percentage of black girls being overweight than white girls.

So, black people are natural athletes save for the majority who are (like the majority of whites) overweight and the more than 1/3 of black men and more than 1/2 of black women who are obese.

I agree its ridiculous to say that genetics doesn’t play a part in black athletes but then it does in all athletes; it’s part genetics and part discipline. However, while Michael Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain and Dr. J (those are all basketball players, right?;)) all have natural abilities, NONE of them just picked up a basketball when they were 8 years old and started instantly playing at a professional level; they may have been better than most white kids but

1- They were a lot taller than most white kids
2- They also played a lot better than most black kids
3- They practiced their game constantly day in and day out

The black kid in the class who loved the game just as much but grew up to be 5’8 probably developed other skills: he either learned to love baseball or else took to the computer or to singing of, if he was also gay and from an upper middle class or better, to figure skating, speaking of which:

There are very few figure skaters, concert violinists, tennis pros, or- prior to the last couple of decades when computers became affordable- computer engineers from lower class backgrounds (though there are some). Is this because upper middle class people are naturally better at figure skating, violin, tennis and programming or be because some level of money and access and training that was beyond the reach of most struggling families? Also, a disproportionate number of male figure skaters and of male theater actors are gay- is this because something about whatever causes male homosexuality also makes them better singers and figure skaters?

I wish I could find it, but there was a pamphlet I read an excerpt from that was printed in the 1950s or so that pointed out that homosexuals were far more likely to have college educations than straight people, thus proving that college education makes some men gay. Some gay activists have used the same statistic to argue that gays are more intelligent than the average straight person, which I believe is equally implausible.
Much is noted about the gym culture of gay men, thus it would be projected that gay guys are more interested in physical fitness. However, the number of gay guys who have buns of steel and six pack abs is a minority, and while perhaps gays do work out more than straight men it probably has to do with the usual lack of children in the household.
As with straight men, a gay man is far more likely to work out a lot if he is childless and single, and for exactly the same two reasons: they have more time and they are looking to attract a mate. The fact gay sex isn’t going to result in an egg getting fertilized doesn’t make the sex drive any less powerful, just as the fact the straight guy intends to wear a condom and hook up with ladies who doesn’t want a baby immediately any more than he does. With gay men once they’re in a live-in domestic relationship they’re probably going to start hitting the gym less and less and when they do it’s probably less vanity than fitness since now being part of a couple they have less time than before and they’re not trying to attract a partner.
I mention this because I think gays and gyms are similar to blacks and athletics in several factors:

1- You’re talking about a minority of a minority in the first place: not all blacks are predisposed to athletic greatness any more than all gays are inclined to work out 5 days per week or become actors or figure skaters
2- Much has to do with what is accessible, feasible, affordable, potentially lucrative and most likely to get somebody lots of tail. For tall black kids from working class and lower backgrounds basketball is an inexpensive activity that with time can play great dividends and get you to spread around a whole lot of sperm, and for gay guys a college education and a great body offer the same.

OTOH, all neurotic straight Jewish men must become standup comedians; I think it’s in the scriptures.

[Dreen]

@Chief_Pedant

From your cite:
“Now, before I begin, one important clarification, just so that nobody becomes confused: Differences in athletic performance must result, in part, from biological differences, and some of these differences may be clustered in particular populations and regions. There is nothing controversial in this.”
I can live with that statement, although a few on this board aggressively fight the idea that different populations are differently enabled biologically for their group average maximum potential.

So can I, but there’s a difference between simply pointing out the existence of a group difference compared to positing how deep-seated it is. I’m pretty sure that’s what more people are fighting.

And this:
“But that hardly means that the American layperson’s concepts of ‘black,’ ‘white,’ and ‘yellow’ are the categories that capture such differences; they aren’t. And neither does it mean that you can cut up the human species into biological races; you can’t.”

Which is sort of true, but only if you are a splitter and not a lumper. And most human beings are themselves lumpers, Self-Identifying with Racial/Ethnic groups. And there is, in fact, perfectly good genetic reasoning behind SIRE clusters. Here, for example. The main complaint of this criticism of Entine’s book Taboo is that we shouldn’t lump “blacks.” Fair enough, but beside the point. In the first place, we do lump ourselves, and more importantly, when we lump, we accept that the group average includes the Kalenjin and the West Africans. If I’m gonna boast about my Eurasian “race,” I have to include all comers and not just the Malaysians.

But this is a far cry from positing how genetic these differences are. The existence of race in this case is irrelevant because it assumes it’s existence is a causational factor in said differences.

But in any case, the key point is that when we see phenotypic differences at the level of large groups, and we can reasonably account for nurturing differences, those differences are genetic.

And?

Genes underlie maximum potential. Perfect nutrition improves your maximum height. But perfect nutrition for all Mbutis will not enable them to average Tutsis in height. The splitter will find an Mbuti exception or argue that Tutsis are not narrowly-enough defined. The lumper will disagree.

You seem to act like environment can only improve maximization of potential. That is completely false. Did you read my example of the drastic increases in height among the danes and finns in only a few generations?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Gorsnak

You are completely missing the point. The populations of Russia, US, Sweden, etc, underperform Canadians in spite of having equal opportunity to make it in the NHL. Opportunity having been normalized, the remaining difference must be genetic.

Opportunity normalized ? Bullshit !

Canada has 2,451 indoor rinks plus 11,000 outdoor rinks to develop their hockey talent.

No other nation comes close.

The US has 1,800 indoor rinks plus 250 outdoor rinks.

canada population 34,000,000
usa population 310,000,000

canadian citizen per rink 2500
usa citizen per rink 150,000

cite

[kingbighair]

@Chief_Pedant

In my opinion both you and YWTF are underselling black children’s cognitive ability to understand that a decent education is a better roadmap to success than basketball.

I think almost anyone can grasp the statistical concept that there are very few NBA stars out of the entire original starting pool. I think the “education is important” message does filter even into the inner city black pool. I think white and asian kids also get that message.

For the talented white kid starting down a basketball pathway, I have no doubt there is an earlier elimination of basketball as a primary place to concentrate effort once the kid is outperformed (by peers of any color). I do not agree that pathway is abandoned before being outperformed, so that the final pool still reflects a disproportionate representation that has been filtered by performance ability and not by a priori assumption of inadequacy on the part of whites.

For black kids, basketball may indeed become a “life and death” struggle for a handful who cannot otherwise perform in school at all, but I don’t buy into the notion that school is abandoned for basketball where school is a viable option. Rigorous schooling is abandoned for the same reason rigorous basketball pursuit is abandoned: you are less able to succeed in it and it seems a less viable pathway to success. In short, we focus on our best possible pathway to success, even if the chances are small, because the alternate pathways are even less likely to bring us success since we are even crummier at those skillsets.

Come on, man. You are projecting your ideas of education on a community that does not share your views. You used these same tired NBA arguments in this thread and got destroyed.

Remember this cited by Kimstu?

A recent study of black youths ages 13-18 found that 70 percent expected to play in the NBA, where in 2007 the minimum salary was $427,163 and the average salary was $5.2 million. Each year, 40,000 African-American boys will play high school basketball, but only 35 will make the NBA.

You are wrong. Plain and simple.

You have admitted that you do not follow the NBA (and I believe that you live in the suburbs, though I am not sure on that one). Do you think it is possible that you do not know what you are talking about? At least you have data for your IQ arguments.

Your argument that there are more whites in absolute numbers than blacks and everyone wants to play in the NBA until they are no longer able to compete, and the resulting disproportionate number of blacks in the NBA means they have a genetic advantage sounds pretty compelling if you are a foreigner with no knowledge of the racial and cultural dynamics of this country. And that is just what it is. You, a foreigner to the culture of the NBA, make up a just-so story to fill in for your ignorance.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Dreen

Look at the danes- they tower over all other european countries, and they continue to grow, and the finns are also experiencing similar developments.

I ignored this post earlier because it was obviously so full of crap, but now you just felt the need to cite this error.

The Danes do not tower over theDutch.

The Dutch had already outgrown Scandinavians in 1980. Whereas Scandinavians’ growth has almost levelled off, the Dutch have continued growing. Researchers argue that a combination of factors–including genetics, diet, infectious diseases, and the “psychosocial climate”–affects growth.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@kingbighair

You are wrong. Plain and simple.

If you believe that 70% of black kids believe they’ll get into the NBA then you must think black kids are incredibly stupid.

As one of those young Canadian hockey players who knew full well of our domination in the NHL, very very few of us ever believed we could make it to the NHL. Does that mean Canadians are smarter than American blacks?

[Dreen]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

I ignored this post earlier because it was obviously so full of crap, but now you just felt the need to cite this error.

The Danes do not tower over theDutch.

Exactly how does this refute what I’m saying? Your post only concerns only the dutch, not the danes, in relation to other scandinavians, and explicitly says the dutch continue to outgrow scandinavians.

I wasn’t aware that the dutch were that tall, but the danes are about equally as tall, and experience the same continuing growth. For example:

Latest news & breaking headlines

And what is the point of you bolding genes? I don’t deny those play a role, I blatantly said they do- height is one of the most heritable physical traits beyond extreme ones like skin color. My point was how even traits that have very strong average heritabilities can show marked divergences among very similar populations in similar environments.

Your link isn’t working for me either. So just what the hell is the point of you claiming I’m full of crap?

[kingbighair]

Yeah, because I believe that kids want to follow in the path of their heroes in the way that is most revered and celebrated in their community, I think they are stupid. :rolleyes: But thanks for putting words into my mouth.

I think CP would answer your question in the affirmative. As for me, I would say the culture in hockey is far different from basketball. Do Canadian hockey players grow up thinking hockey is the only way to be successful? It has nothing to do with being smarter. It has everything to do with perceived opportunity.

[you_with_the_face]

Here’s a solid analysis on the subject, by Malcolm Gladwell, author of Outliers.

@Gladwell

Lots of things that seem to be genetic in origin, then, actually aren’t. Similarly, lots of things that we wouldn’t normally think might affect athletic ability actually do. Once again, the social-science literature on male and female math achievement is instructive. Psychologists argue that when it comes to subjects like math, boys tend to engage in what’s known as ability attribution. A boy who is doing well will attribute his success to the fact that he’s good at math, and if he’s doing badly he’ll blame his teacher or his own lack of motivation-anything but his ability. That makes it easy for him to bounce back from failure or disappointment, and gives him a lot of confidence in the face of a tough new challenge. After all, if you think you do well in math because you’re good at math, what’s stopping you from being good at, say, algebra, or advanced calculus? On the other hand, if you ask a girl why she is doing well in math she will say, more often than not, that she succeeds because she works hard. If she’s doing poorly, she’ll say she isn’t smart enough. This, as should be obvious, is a self-defeating attitude. Psychologists call it “learned helplessness”-the state in which failure is perceived as insurmountable. Girls who engage in effort attribution learn helplessness because in the face of a more difficult task like algebra or advanced calculus they can conceive of no solution. They’re convinced that they can’t work harder, because they think they’re working as hard as they can, and that they can’t rely on their intelligence, because they never thought they were that smart to begin with. In fact, one of the fascinating findings of attribution research is that the smarter girls are, the more likely they are to fall into this trap. High achievers are sometimes the most helpless. Here, surely, is part of the explanation for greater math variability among males. The female math whizzes, the ones who should be competing in the top one and two per cent with their male counterparts, are the ones most often paralyzed by a lack of confidence in their own aptitude. They think they belong only in the intellectual middle.
The striking thing about these descriptions of male and female stereotyping in math, though, is how similar they are to black and white stereotyping in athletics-to the unwritten rules holding that blacks achieve through natural ability and whites through effort. Here’s how Sports Illustrated described, in a recent article, the white basketball player Steve Kerr, who plays alongside Michael Jordan for the Chicago Bulls. According to the magazine, Kerr is a “hard-working overachiever,” distinguished by his “work ethic and heady play” and by a shooting style “born of a million practice shots.” Bear in mind that Kerr is one of the best shooters in basketball today, and a key player on what is arguably one of the finest basketball teams in history. Bear in mind, too, that there is no evidence that Kerr works any harder than his teammates, least of all Jordan himself, whose work habits are legendary. But you’d never guess that from the article. It concludes, “All over America, whenever quicker, stronger gym rats see Kerr in action, they must wonder, How can that guy be out there instead of me?”

[Chief_Pedant]

@kingbighair

Come on, man. You are projecting your ideas of education on a community that does not share your views. You used these same tired NBA arguments in this thread and got destroyed.

Remember this cited by Kimstu?

You are wrong. Plain and simple.

You have admitted that you do not follow the NBA (and I believe that you live in the suburbs, though I am not sure on that one). Do you think it is possible that you do not know what you are talking about? At least you have data for your IQ arguments.

Your argument that there are more whites in absolute numbers than blacks and everyone wants to play in the NBA until they are no longer able to compete, and the resulting disproportionate number of blacks in the NBA means they have a genetic advantage sounds pretty compelling if you are a foreigner with no knowledge of the racial and cultural dynamics of this country. And that is just what it is. You, a foreigner to the culture of the NBA, make up a just-so story to fill in for your ignorance.

Before you embarrass yourself again quoting Kimstu instead of actually looking up a cite, perhaps you’d like to find that study so we can take a look at exactly what was asked, who asked it, how it was asked, and what the context was.

I am personally very suspicious that 70% of black teenagers “expect to play in the NBA” but you are right that I’ve never asked and I suppose that sort of cognitive disability could, in theory, be present to that extent. I doubt it, though. Maybe it was “dreamed of” or “hoped to” or something instead of “expect.” Maybe a reporter somewhere stopped by a neighborhood court and asked a group of blowhards in front of one another if they thought they were good enough for the NBA…would you mind finding the study instead of just pretending that Kimstu is a cite?

It does make sense to me, for reasons I mentioned, that whites are more realistic than blacks about bailing out of an NBA dream. Still, even at the college level (which feeds most of the NBA, I think), whites far outnumber blacks except in the most elite programs. And of course, blacks disproportionately outnumber whites in elite programs because they are better players.

In any case it doesn’t change the core supposition of mine a whit. It’s a universal case that talented children starting on a basketball pathway are a larger pool for whites than blacks, and of those two pools, the whites have greater nurturing advantages and drop out only when they underperform. Just because they know the chances are smaller doesn’t make them give up and never try. A passion for basketball, stardom and money are not passions peculiar to blacks.