I’m not sure that anyone would choose to “concede” anything, since there seems to be no genuine point to your prediction. Given that the current crop of amateur sprinters is heavily loaded with “‘black’ by North American popular standards” runners, I suppose that one could make some bet on that issue that would heavily favor your position.
Given that your position means nothing, the bet would be as meaningless as your observation.
Would you like to bet on the exact ethnic heritage of the winner? (And can you even figure out what that means?)
Go look at all the posts claiming that the only recent winners were of “West African descent”. Who do you think is currently training for the next event? Do you think those guys run one time and quit?
Sensitivity rules! Sorry that many of you cannot seperate your emotions from your intelligence.
Accepting that race and intelligence are apparently relative terms in most of your eyes; why not accept that Americans view each other in terms of culture and call it race. So the obvious question is then which is the smartest culture?
Empirical evidence will tell you that asians score higher on standardized tests of IQ, college entrancy and general apptitude than any other culture. (Now, the idea that race factors into anything is completely ludicrious!) Asians, being a different "race" than anyone white, black or native american have shown that they are more intelligent than anyone else.
We all know blacks who are smart, we all know asians who are not so intelligent, but the reality is that there are elements of all demographics that represent themselves like fools.
In the 2004 Olympic Games, the top three finishers in the men’s 100 meter dash who are not “recent winners” will be “‘black’ by North American popular standards.”
So, are you claiming that “Asian” is a single “culture”? That there is no substantial difference between (to start with) the Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Malaysian and Korean cultures? I’d like to see some evidence for that, please.
I’ll have to double check this, but I do believe a white male won the 200 meters in 2000. While it is twice the distance of the 100, it is most certainly a sprint.
And this has relevance to…what? You seem to be implying that there is some meaningful correlation between an individual’s outward physical appearance and their ability to run very fast. Disregarding the strong likelyhood that the predicted three top finishers (“black” by North American standards) most likely have had genetic contributions from other populations (European, etc.). Disregarding social, cultural, economic, and political factors that may be more plausible in establishing the basis for your prediction.
To say that the top three finishers in the 100 meter dash for the 2004 Olympics will be black by North American popular standards is about as meaningful as saying the top three finishers in the 100 meter dash will have two legs.
Well, I’d say that there are differences between the races. I mean there obviously are. Asians seem to be on average a lot smarter than whites or blacks. They also work really really hard. Difference doesn’t mean inequality I will remind you.
So I take it you concede that we can predict with a high degree of confidence that the top finishers in the men’s 100 meter dash in the 2004 Olympics will be “black by North American popular standards”?
Obviously, kgriffey? My experience with “Asians” (I’m assuming this definition to be of people who are descended from areas of Asia outside of the Indian subcontinent) in my occupation (computer programmer) has been that they hold lots of credentials, a well-below-average willingness to work, and a poor comprehension of what it takes to write a useful program.
I don’t prejudge on the basis of this past experience, given the ridiculously small sample I’m working from and the fact that every time I assume something I find out I’m wrong every time. I merely cite it to point out that your stereotype is not accurate. People are people, wherever they might come from.
I think you’re missing my point. Yes, “we” can predict with a high degree of confidence that the top three finishers in the men’s 100 meter dash in the 2004 Olympics will be “black” by North American popular standards. But, so what? I’m not trying to be rude, but I fail to see what can be gained by making such a prediction.
Again, you seem to be implying that there is some MEANINGFUL correlation between outward physical appearance and one’s ability to run very fast. Just because the two correlate (outward physical appearance and running fast) doesn’t NECESSARILY mean that there is a meaningful relationship between the two (that is, a causal relationship - one that helps explain or understand why the two go together).
For your prediction to have any meaning, it would imply that a person’s outward physical appearance DOES have some bearing on a person’s ability to run very fast. But as other have pointed out in this thread and countless others, it doesn’t. Other factors need to be considered. So your prediction is meaningless.
So we can expect a goodly proportion of the Olympic medalists to be flabby guys with poor muscle tone and short legs ? Of course there are MEANINGFUL correlations between outward physical appearance and one’s ability to run very fast. Or is “meaning” one of those things that loses it’s meaning when it serves to make distinctions that make people uncomfortable ?
Extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice
-Barry Goldwater
delibertly being obtuse, are we? Yes, strong muscles, well toned body are necessary for runners. Can you please explain for all of us, what quality the color of skin would impart onto their prowess? Does hair color matter? eye color? left handed ness? blood type?
No, just pointing out that a bogus argument does nothing to advance the cause; even if that cause is right.
Handedness, eye color, blood type and even hair color could very well matter in the 100 meter dash.
Since the start signal is given either to the left side or right side of the track, those who favor the left will be in a different position relative to their optimal position than those who favor the right. Eye color might affect visual acuity under sub-optimal conditions, and could thus affect a persons responses to changing track conditions. Blood type, depending on how deeply one wishes to examine what that means, could alter the efficiency with which oxygen is delivered to muscles. Different colors of hair absorb different amounts of heat from the sun, and this can affect how much of a bodies resources are devoted to cooling, as opposed to running.
With the exception differences in the efficiency of hemoglobins, these are probably all small differences, but denying that such things exist is about as valid as claiming that electrons don’t exist because they make up too small a percentage of the mass of an atom to really matter.
So we can expect a goodly proportion of the Olympic medalists to be flabby guys with poor muscle tone and short legs ? Of course there are MEANINGFUL correlations between outward physical appearance and one’s ability to run very fast. Or is “meaning” one of those things that loses it’s meaning when it serves to make distinctions that make people uncomfortable ?
[/QUOTE]
My quote above - outward physical appearance as it pertains to surface features (hair color/texture, skin color, etc.). I guess I wasn’t clear enough - sorry.
Meaningful in the context that superficial surface features of human beings have any significant bearing on their ability to run very fast. That’s what is being implied in AWC’s prediction - the top three finishers in the men’s 100 meter dash in the 2004 Olympics will be “black by common North American standards”. “Black” by common North American standards pertains to outward surface features.
If you can explain to me how a person’s skin color, hair color, etc. has any bearing on their ability to run very fast (and not bringing in any other plausible factors), I’ll be happy to reconsider my earlier statement that AWC’s prediction is meaningless.
Konstantinos Kenteris (Greek white male) won the Sydney 200 meters. A Greek woman took second in the 100m (Ekaterini Thanou). Also, a Sri Lankan woman finished 3rd in the 200m (Susanthika Jayasinghe). Of course, Cathy Freeman (Henry Kissinger is more black than her) won the 400m.
