Y’know, it’s interesting: when any so-called “genetic egalitarians” try to assert that there aren’t easily identifiable genetic differences between broadly defined racial/ethnic groups in characteristics like intelligence, athletic ability, etc., the self-proclaimed “genetic realists” (or “separatists”?) get all up in their shit about the evils of stifling scientific inquiry and bowing to PC assumptions and refusing to allow independent thought. Serve 'em right, too!
But then when somebody asserts, on completely insufficient evidence, that particular genetic differences between broad racial/ethnic groups do exist, and some hard-nosed stickler for scientific accuracy points out that the evidence is insufficient and so maybe the difference in outcome isn’t actually due to genetic difference, suddenly we hear all this indignant squawking about how we should just stop resisting the truth and accept our innate differences. Nay, even love our differences.
No, sorry, the way it works is that you first have to show scientifically and conclusively exactly what genetic differences exist, and exactly what impact they have on disparate outcomes. And then we can all get to work on loving those differences.
But don’t come around expecting to get your alleged genetic differences loved, or even accepted, without being able to show convincingly that those differences actually exist. I got fooled once into loving the innate genetic Jewishness of mid-20th-century white pro basketball, and I’m not going to fall for that shit again.
(Oh, and I also loved the innate Jewish tendency to low IQ as revealed by US military testing during WWI; got fooled on that one too. Hmmm, and I also got fooled into loving the genetic overrepresentation of females in the high-IQ subset of low-IQ ethnic minority groups; that one turned out not to be real either. Gee, these “love our differences” anti-egalitarian types have really played me for a sucker, haven’t they?)
While I do not particularly disagree that care must be taken to provide evidence that two cohorts have genetically-based differences in potential, I disagree with the proposition that only a complete elucidation of the genes themselves will suffice as evidence. I observe marked and measurable disparity in outcomes between cohorts with equivalent nurturing and I observe a complete lack of success in closing that gap. Where equivalent nurturing does not ameliorate differences, the residual gap can reasonably said to be genetic even where the gene is not identified. Two populations with different average heights and similar nutrition can be concluded to have different heights because of their genes even if the gene has not been specified.
I also assert a marked bias against any formal studies which would clarify a difference, despite the fact that if the differences between racial cohorts were only nurture, such studies would prove the nurturing hypothesis. We are more comfortable, instead, with simply attacking any studies which do exist and criticizing mercilessly any suggestion that genes may play a major role in outcome. Certainly the whole topic is so fraught with an overlay of anxiety the sort of which is reflected in your tone in any number of replies to me that it is highly unlikely any more studies will be done to ascertain–at a formal level–any differences between (for instance) self-described race cohorts.
To date, all such historic studies have shown differences, disparate outcomes have persisted, and all efforts to ameliorate those differences have failed. Arguments by nurture proponents have fallen along two lines:
1, Nurture cannot be normalized, and
2. Cohorts are not a genetic family within the cohort, so the construct of grouping itself fails.
I have given some examples of what I consider to be reasonably normalized nurture, and if you do not find them persuasive, so be it. If you find it persuasive that Jews at one time owned the NBA; blacks may own it now and perhaps down the road the Bambuti or the Inuit will take their turn, fine. I consider that grasping at straws but you are entitled to your opinion. I see the NBA currently open to all, sought as the highest good by all, and in the feeder chain I see over-privileged whites vastly outnumber less-privileged blacks who nevertheless overcome that nurturing disadvantage. If you want to assert that it’s more reasonable to conclude that there is some reason other than a genetic advantage for blacks to be so disproportionately represented, that is your prerogative. I maintain that if I were breeding animals for traits I would not look to the less successful group for my stock, and I maintain it is only the human social overlay which precipitates a discoloration of the obvious: there is a greater difference in innate potential than there is in nurture.
To the point of whether or not any given cohort needs to be genetically related to itself in order to find evidence of genes over nurture, I remain confused why this argument is advanced. It is irrelevant. The cohort of all men over 6 feet tall has a genetic reason for being taller than all men under 5 feet tall, regardless of whether those two cohorts otherwise form a genetically-based group; regardless of which group is otherwise more genetically diverse.
When the world of higher education, which has led the fight to promote the notion that we are all genetically equal and has left no stone unturned equalizing opportunity, is successful in producing equal representation in all fields you will have an easier time arguing your point. As long as disparate outcomes persist permanently into graduate and post-graduate exams; as long as PhD candidates proportionately lag in engineering, math and sciences; as long as colleges produce far more black NBA players than white–as long as disparities persist despite all effort at normalizing opportunity–your case is the one that needs to be made and not the other way around.
And to the point of the OP: the looming crisis is that the current point behind which you hide–genetic differences cannot be elaborated–is about to go away.
What then? If we base our social policy on bad science and our philosophic constructs on false premises, we do far more damage, in my opinion. The feel-good religion of genetic egalitarianism is not reflected in any other species. It’s unlikely we’ll be lucky enough as humans to find–when the genome is elaborated–that all our various population cohorts have equivalent gene pools. If we do, fabulous. But if we don’t, we’ll have a crisis where none needed to exist.
If we are to get past the racial boundaries which divide us, we need to accept whatever cards nature has dealt us. If we persist in promoting the notion that all inequities are inequities of opportunity and not innate differences, we do no less damage than the hate-mongerers among us.
Seems I can only count 20 with any significant tie to the NBA. That’s all time, including Red Auerbach. You should check out the list of notable chess champions though. Now that’s impressive.
Genetics are not the be-all, end-all of development.
Remember that cat that was cloned eight years ago? The donor cat was a calico. The cloned cat was a tabby. Exactly the same genotype, and yet a different phenotype, because of slightly different chemicals in the surrogate mother’s womb.
Why be so quick to assume differences are genetic in nature, and not epigenetic, for example, or something else?
It seems that you think sports that are dominated by blacks are “open to all”, but those that happen to be dominated by whites or other ethnic/racial groups automatically are not. Sounds like coincidence that is mighty convenient.
According to this cite, major league baseball players are only 10.2% African American, with 39.6% latino and 61% white. Why is the racial makeup of baseball so different than basketball? Is baseball less “open to all” than basketball? If your answer is yes, then what is your reasoning? Both basketball and baseball are popular American sports that don’t require expensive equipment or training requirements. Both are sports commonly played in high school and college. And why are Latinos so overrepresented? Do you think there is a genetic explanation for the large Latino presence, or is it easy for you to think of cultural explanations to explain this observation?
Your fixation on basketball is strange, to say the least. Out of all the sports that are played in this country and around the world, we’re supposed to swallow that basketball is the exceptional one by being pursued with equal fervor across all racial and socioeconomic strata? The idea is ridiculous on its face. Here’s a though experiment: How about we poll some elementary-school students and find out who is more likely say they want to be basketball players when they grow up. Anyone really believe that the proportion of whites saying yes will come anywhere close to the proportion of blacks? This should give us an inclining as to whom is more likely to pursue the sport with any kind of dedication necessary to acheive professional status.
Outside of the US, Eastern Europeans are the superstars of basketball. Why aren’t Africans? Perhaps those guys are just too busy competing in running contests to be worrying about basketball, eh? But this answer should logically lead one to consider that the reason (American) whites don’t excel in basketball is because they are investing their energy in other things. Like volleyball, hockey, golf, tennis, wrestling, ultimate fighting, baseball, gymnastics, biking, mountain climbing, fencing, soccer, studying for the SATs, selling cars, watching anime, and arguing on message boards.
Except, wikipedia doesn’t mention anyone from the (pre-NBA) 20s, 30s, 40s, such as Dutch Garfinkel, Inky Lautman, Doc Lou Sugerman. Precisely the times being mentioned here. It mentions Larry Brown as a coach, but somehow neglects that he won Olympic gold as a player.
“The reason, I suspect, that basketball appeals to the Hebrew with his Oriental background, is that the game places a premium on an alert, scheming mind, flashy trickiness, artful dodging and general smart aleckness.” Paul Gallico, sports editor of the New York Daily News
I do not say there are no cultural influences nor do I say that other sports are not open to all.
It’s a question of absolute numbers in the feeder systems; not proportions. While the proportion of whites who want to play basketball may be smaller, it is not 75%smaller, and the absolute number of white kids playing basketball from an early age and being groomed for potential success is certainly higher than it is for blacks. For one analysis of why there are fewer blacks in the the baseball feeder system see here, for instance: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/mariners/2002454324_blacksinbaseball28.html
There is no question that cultural influences affect the numbers of candidates from a given cohort. To assess disproportionate representation (and therefore an inference of genetic potential over nurture) one needs to take into account the relative number of individuals at the start line who have as their primary goal success at that skillset and then examine relative advantages in nurturing.
There’s no question subpopulations may have a particular gift–and cultural overlay–pushing them toward certain outcomes. See, for example, Jon Entine’s discussion about Latinos in baseball and the relatively small–and genetically connected–subpopulation which accounts for much of it.
I use NBA basketball for a simple reason: it’s easy to show that the start-line population (the feeder chain) is much bigger for US whites, who outnumber US blacks by 4:1; it’s easy to show that whites are better nurtured; and it’s easy to show that for both groups the primary goal is success at basketball and all other career outcomes are secondary choices. It’s a nice example where every non-genetic factor is skewed toward whites being at least equally represented, and yet they are not.
I’m a little underwhelmed by the anti-nature argument that the Jews owned the NBA in the 30’s and it just happens to be someone else’s turn now…
It’s farcical to pretend that the NBA was as sought-after a career across as broad a population, that it was as open to all comers as it is now and that the level of play then and now is similar, with only a change in the color of the faces…it wouldn’t take much of a review of old films to decide which cohort is an order of magnitude in absolute superiority.
Any evidence for any of this? Anything at all? Because your whole argument hinges on this, and without any evidence to support it, there’s no reason for us to find what you’re saying to be persuasive.
You also have to consider the possibility that, even if a given sport is equally accessible to all groups in theory, high achievers in one group are not necessarily going to be attracted to the same sport as another group.
I’ve seen this with my own eyes when I was in high school: white boys who would make good basketball players typically gravitated to more “surburban” sports like soccer and cross country. These were sports that blacks did not gravitate towards due to lack of motivation.
At a high school that is 50:50 white-black, would you expect soccer players to be mostly black, mostly white, or 50:50? At my 50:50 school, almost all the soccer players were white. Why weren’t they almost all black, if blacks are dominant athletes?
To assume that all racial groups are equal with respect to basketball desirability is to commit the very same crime that you’re ascribing to your opponents. That is, to argue from a premise that we are all the same. The thing is, we already know that we are not all the same. Culture influences just about everything we do: sex, religion, the food we eat, our attitudes towards sports, our attitudes towards education, our attitudes towards other racial groups. There is absolutely no reason why basketball would be the singular exception to a rule that applies to just about every other thing imaginable.
If baseball and most other sports have disparities in “feeder chains”, it is more reasonable to assume that basketball does too than to assert (without evidence) that it does not.
You’re asserted plenty of stuff, but you’ve demonstrated nothing.
What made Jewish people so special that they became so overrepresented in the sport to begin with? Were they genetically superior to their white gentile counterparts?
I went googling and found my old high school’s website.
This page illustrates what I was talking about pretty starkly. Judging by the pic the boy’s basketball team looks to be about 80% black (assuming the two pale kids are white and not light-skinned black boys). But right beside it is the wrestling team which looks to be about 40% black.
Students at the school have equal access to these sports, so if black kids are quicker and more powerful than whites, why is the wrestling team full of so many white people? Inquiring minds want to know.
Here is a pic of the girls’ soccer team. Predominately white, despite a study body makeup that approaches 50:50 white and black (which can be at least somewhat appreciated by browsing the yearbook pictures).
How can you reconcile these observations with your theory about basketball and black athletic dominance? I don’t think you can.
I only quote the above to indicate I concur with it.
I’ll add this as well: There are known differenes between blacks and whites that might explain these differences. I can think of three off the top of my head. One, that black children walk at an earlier age than white and asian children. Two, blacks have more bone density than whites and asians. In theory, this should make blacks less prone to fractures and bone breaks though I admittedly don’t have the statistics to back that up. However, post-menopausal osteoporosis is more common white and asian females than blacks. Could higher bone mineral density be correlated with a propensity to play high-impact sports like basketball, boxing, football? Lastly, blacks are less susceptible to UV-related skin carcinomas which is a direct result darker pigments reflecting UV light. Does all of this make blacks physically superior to whites or asians?
Duh! Because in prehistoric times, people of African descent lived in the savanna, where there were only a few trees. Because trees were so scarce, there was fierce competition for the birds and small game that lived in these trees. Black people evolved to develop unusual speed and accuracy when dealing with targets at great heights.
In Northern regions, the ice age made it so that ground cover was one of the few sources of nutrition during famine periods. As people scoured the frozen ground looking for the few scraps of plants surviving, they came into competition with one another. This led to ground-level brawls. Because the men who could succeed at these brawls had better nutrition and a better choice of mates, the genes for wrestling were passed down in white populations, and it is still used today as a way of proving virility to potential mates.
No one is saying black kids are quicker or more powerful. You obviously aren’t listening which is also why you brought up this stupid question regarding wrestling.
Well, then, what traits are blacks genetically superior at that gives them an edge at basketball, but not at other sports? Bouncing things? Putting round objects through hoops? What evolutionary pressures led to Africans having a genetic edge in those specific activities?
It is my opinion that at the high school level any perceived edge or lack of edge in sports by blacks is predominantly due to cultural influences with expectations playing a large part.
Forgive me, as I do not have any scientific evidence to back up the previous statement.
There is a reason that expectations for black high school players are so high. Just look at the NBA.
Basketball is a running and jumping sport. If you have a higher level of fast twitch muscles combined with high short calves for jumping you’ll have an advantage. Top level sprinters , mostly black possess these characteristics. This has been studied. Rigorous testing through Olympic trials/races have consistently proven that the best sprinters are black, (specifically tied to origin in West Africa) and come from various cultural backgrounds.
Its quite simple really. Once the elite athlete has cashed in every nurturing advantage, all he has left is his physical genetics to give him an edge. Really, there aren’t that many blacks that are faster than the fastest white, But there is enough of them to reasonably ascribe some genetic commonality amongst the elite black athletes to explain the West African dominance.