I agree that a prediction is not very helpful if everyone believes in it.
But it begs another question:
Exactly why are you so confident that the top finishers in the men’s 100 meter dash in the 2004 Olympics will be “black by North American popular standards”?
As other posters have pointed out, similar races - such as the women’s 100m and the men’s 200m have had non-black finalists in the past, and it would surprise nobody if those races had non-black finalists in the future. What’s so special about the men’s 100 meter dash?
I think I’ve seen a first here on the Straightdope Message Board…an individual debating themselves. Or am I completely off base? The second post may be referring to another poster (tomndebb, perhaps?), but I’m not certain.
Sorry, AWC, you’ve completely lost me. If you’re intention was “Can’t dazzle 'em with brilliance? Baffle 'em with bulls**t!” you’ve succeeded wonderfully.
I’m not surprised that you are confused, but the question is very simple.
You expressed a “high degree of confidence” that the top three finishers in the mens 100 meter dash at the 2004 Olympics would be “black by North American popular standards.”
Why are you so highly confident? (And I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be highly confident.)
[/quote]
I’m not surprised that you are confused, but the question is very simple.
You expressed a “high degree of confidence” that the top three finishers in the mens 100 meter dash at the 2004 Olympics would be “black by North American popular standards.”
Why are you so highly confident? (And I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be highly confident.)
[/quote]
I made no such statement. YOU may the original prediction. I merely followed up by commenting that your prediction is meaningless. Originally posted by Autumn Wind Chick
Do you deny that you make this statement? At the very least, you should clarify what you meant. Otherwise, you’re just trolling.
Oh really? Then perhaps somebody stole your password:
Again, why are you so confident that the top three finishers in the men’s 100 meter dash in the 2004 Olympics will be “‘black’ by North American popular standards”?
Still nit-picking, and ignoring the implied assertion of the OP. :rolleyes:
How does one get off the e-mail list for this freakin’ thread, anyway?
Peace,
mangeorge
Sorry, AWC, but we seem to be talking past one another. Maybe it’s due to communicating via a message board rather than face to face. I apologize if I’m not understanding you or making myself sufficiently clear.
*Originally posted by Autumn Wind Chick *
Originally posted by eponymous
Do you see how the statements differ? The first (yours) implies that I made a statement to the effect that I have a high degree of confidence (belief) that the top three finisihers will be black by North American standards.
“high degree of confidence” in my statement, on the other hand, is meant in a statistical sense - equivalent to “high degree of probability”. I think that’s where the problem lies, and why I said “I made no such statement.” I’m just misinterpreting you.
My statement (above) was based on the following
originally posted by tomndebb
If tomndebb’s statement (above) is true (and let’s say it is for the sake of the argument), then we CAN predict with a high degree of confidence/probability (statistically speaking) that the top three finishers in the men’s 100 meter dash will be black by North American standards. It’s just simply numbers - nothing more.
You think there’s a high probability that the top finishers in the men’s 100 meter dash will be black, but you don’t believe it will happen with a high degree of confidence.
And the only reason you assess the probability as high is because there’s a good chance that the top finishers in 2000 (who were black) will finish at the top in 2004.
But you aren’t really sure that the top finishers in 2000 were black - it’s only an assumption “for the sake of argument.” Despite this doubt in your premises, you are still confident of your conclusion (even though you don’t believe it.)
P.S. Of course, when I used the term “black” above, I meant “‘black’ by North American popular standards.”
I’m only confident in my ability to predict what the outcome will be (or maybe “should be” is the more appropriate wording). We can say, for example “There is an 80% chance (probability) that the top three finishers will be black/should be black”. Again, strictly by the numbers. Wouldn’t you agree that “there is an 80% chance that the top three finshers will be black” is roughly equivalent to “we can predict with a high degree of confidence that the top three finishers will be black”?
But while I may be confident in my ability to predict what the outcome will be, I may not necessarily think that that’s what will actually occur - after the fact, so to speak.
For example - run thousands of 100-meter dashes. After studying all the data, you find that in 80% of the races, the top three finishers are black. In the other 20% of the races, one, two, or all three top finishers are non-black.
Now, given what you know from the data accumulated from the races, you can predict with a “high degree of confidence that the top three finishers will be black” (it occured 80% of the time). But you may not necessarily believe (be highly confident) that in the next race the top three will be black (because in 20% of the other races a non-black runner finished in the top three). There’s a chance that your prediction can be wrong.
I hope I’ve clarified my position somewhat - if not, I apologize.
Ok, define a “rookie sprinter” as someone who has never been a top finisher in the Olympics before.
I predict that in the men’s 100 meter dash at the 2004 Olympics, the top three “rookie sprinters,” as measured by their best times (in either qualifying heats or finals) will be “‘black’ by North American popular standards.”
Well, this wouldn’t be too difficult to predict out of the pool of total sprinters (all those runners who are vying to win a medel in the Olympics) if a large percentage are “black by North American standards”.
By “all those runners who are vying to win a med[a]l in the Olympics” do you mean every entrant in every 2004 Olympic trial for the men’s 100 meter dash?
First, native ability means quite simply your actual ability versus perhaps your desire or will to understand.
Now further, much of my comments refuting your racialist ‘hypothesis’ does not in fact depend on a deep knowledge of genetics. Only logic and clear and open-minded analysis. If you review the comments you should see that. Even those parts which do depend on genetics should be understandable. I’m sorry that you refuse to accept and/or engage that data. This rather renders your arguments surreal insofar as you simply repeat, with the same naive credulity, pseudo-facts I have already addressed in a substantive manner time and time again.
Moreover, returning to this “overwhelming” ‘black’ superiority in the 100 meter sprint, which your characterize as having participation by over 100 nations “most of which are not black.” And further you add,
The first observation is a bit disingenuous or simply muddled to begin with as regardless of the number of nations participating, I expect we find serious differences in the resources devoted to the sport. Further, I expect that one will find a statistically significant correlation between economic resources devoted to the sport and representation in ‘upper reaches’ of the sport. To be clear, North America and above all America is dominant with significant economic reasons behind this, including a more or less fully “liberal” or free-market infrastructure for sport in comparison with Europe, for example. The skin color comparison, then, is far less striking then your sports journalist thought, insofar as that author did think.
Let me take the second quotation. Let me first mention that you badly mischaracterize the counter argument to your naive observations. It is not a question of “culture” as if I were speaking of some airy and transient habits but of documentable culture and socio-economic/environmental differences between what are in the end sociologically rather than biologically coherent groups. A rather larger framework of influence. Further, it is quite untrue that I allow for no other explanation other than ‘culture’ (or taking my actual argument, complex of cultural and socio-economic circumstances), I have always explicitly noted such items as possible environmentally conditioned advantages such as lankiness. I have only and persistently attacked fallacious racial explanations. Persisting in thinking of this as argument as “culture” in the implicitly reduced terms that you use rather distorts the argument.
Examining the following, “You allow for no other alternative but a cultural explanation but anyone who has ever pushed themselves in sports knows that at some point you reach the end of improvement and the limitation is physical” I can only say this is not a terribly logical construction. A non-sequitur par excellence. If I can break out the logic, such as it is, f your argument, you seem to be saying culture (in fact the argument is as noted above) can not be an explanation of observed differences because individuals have absolute physical performance limits, ergo differences between groups must depend on absolute physical performance differences. I think we can all see the break in the chain of logic here.
To attack each step in the train of logic, I note firstly, of course, individual limits say nothing in particular about aggregate group abilities. One can not make that leap. Secondly, taking the first step, based on both discussions on this board and from personal experience I rather disagree with the implicit point you are attempting to make, that is athletes reaching a performance limit in re their personal improvement are necessarily reaching the absolute frontier of the native performance envelope. Training regimes, motivation all play important roles, and I hazard the opinion that it would be fallaciously reductionist. Further, (b) your conclusion that because your statement (a) is sometimes true, i.e. one does reach a wall at some point, ergo performance differences you note in international competition are ipso facto (i) reflecting absolute physical capacity differences (ii) that based on skin color you can draw group based conclusions about absolute performance capacity which is in turn linked to (iii) underlying genetic differences by groups, as defined by skin color.
This is what I mean by analytical rigor, breaking out the assumptions to be examined.
In regards to (a) based on prior discussions, e.g. the research in re differential training results, and indeed personal experience as a serious amateur cyclist and past fencer and soccer player I see no reason to reach this conclusion per se and don’t see the relevance to the discussion in the end. In re (b) I can only say that none of the points, (i)-(iii) logically follow.
Let me add the rest of the phrase: “Sure culture is a factor, but among hundreds of cultures are identifiable group which participates in many different cultures predominates and the only thing they have in common is the colour of their skin.” Of course you are quite right, although not in the sense you thought. Here you repeat precisely the same fallacy of composition that I have taken apart time and time again, the assumption that skin color is ipso facto marking genetic commonality.
Now, I believe that we all have seen the data which indicates that skin color tells us very little indeed about the overall genetic makeup of the individual or group in question. However what it does indicate with much greater certitude and to a vastly greater degree, above all for ‘New World’ populations is a common socio-economic profile (largely disadvantaged, still suffering exclusion from full participation in the marketplace etc.) That is an actually sustainable commonality. Otherwise, as I pointed out above in prior messages, a myopic focus on North Americans leads one astray when trying to make generalized human-level conclusions. Now, as I will point out in a moment in advancing a model hypothesis, one can make skin color a viable
First, the ‘black’ and ‘tropical caucasians’ populations would probably present, as suggested, a larger pool of postulants with this advantageous morphology I have hypothesized (which might extend beyond to limb-trunk ratio to others, but should be recalled is likely to be an advantage at the margin rather than absolute) than say Northern European populations who I am hypothesize have some higher % representation of stubbier limb-body ratios due to different environmental selection. Of course it is important to keep in mind that within all of our mega-groups cited above we are likely to find substantial variation, e.g. forest zone Africans to my recollection actually are kinda stubby in terms of body ratio, compared with other groups. So sweeping conclusions are best not jumped to at this point.
Then we might consider what percent of our potential postulant pool will actually present themselves in competition. Multiple factors could intervene. Higher success rates might encourage ‘physically advantaged’ sub-groups to propose themselves at higher rates. But other issues intervene, such as other choices, above all cultural (interest in sport, in the sport in particular etc) and economic (in part related to cultural/social, conception of choices but also real choices presented). These later two choices can radically effect the size and character of the postulant pool. Questions to ask and answer in as rigorous manner as possible are: does a group/society sanction or not certain activities? To what extent is motivation directed towards presenting/preparing for an activity versus another? Is this measurable?
Let’s take myself for an example. I am, to be modest, a moderately decent cyclist. (I could choose football/soccer for an example but afraid to say foot/eye coordination never got beyond mediocre) One might imagine a world where cycling was as remunerative as basketball or at least as popular as track and field is (obviously it would be a better world, but I try not to be too demanding). Now this would make the obvious choices I made rather starker, but they might remain the same. Trade-offs between cycling or studies. The decision depends not only on actual dollars but also on the degree to which my socio-economic background sanctioned, or not, the pursuit of the sport. On an individual level this is not a clear question, but in the aggregate it will certainly effect the pursuit, the quality and the absolute numbers of participants.
Taking Squink’s observations in regards to the skin color issue, on one hand I agree to an extent, insofar as he is proposing a framework which we can intelligently examine the performance question and does not depend on counter-factual ur-african genetic unity. On the other hand I think squink’s response is a bit excessive insofar as eponymous and others were not responding to coherent and intelligently formulated hypotheses, but rather inchoate racial propositions. AWC’s prediction doesn’t give us very much and in the context of her generally bordering on racist propositions, I see no problem in calling her on it.
But squink has at least given a clear proposition, and one which on the face of it makes some degree of sense, above all since it does not depend on false racial groups but simply on some well known and at least testable physiological features (shared to be certain among tropical/sub-tropical populations). While I rather doubt, as does Squink apparently, the factors cited would have a real impact, they might and this could be tested. That’s what I have been trying to hammer home.
In the end, I find that your belief is non-refutable on a rational basis.
Other observations:
In re differences by group between Asians and Blacks in various modes of intelligence testing, etc. Of course we register aggregate differences in test scores. No question about that. The issue is what meaning such aggregate differences have and from what do they arise. It’s unclear to me what jamesblan was attempting to indicate. As usual I think we have some confusion in regards to this. Do we assume that the aggregate difference between black and white and asian in American data ipso facto means fundamental group genetic differences? Evidently not as our genetics data previously cited in prior conversations does not support such an idea. So, we have to look to socio-economic/environmental explanations. This is not a matter of ‘sensitivity’ or other such rot, its a matter of intellectual rigor and adherence to what the best data tells us.
Finally in regards to the “dialogue” between AWC and eponymous, I do believe eponymous’ points have rather gone over the head of our dear OP insofar as she simply repeats the same fetishistic mantra without engaging the critique. As one says in the Middle East, masha’allah.
[/QUOTE]
By “all those runners who are vying to win a medal in the Olympics” do you mean every entrant in every 2004 Olympic trial for the men’s 100 meter dash?
[/quote]
Sure…but I don’t really see where you are going with this (well, I have a hunch, but I could be wrong).
Since many people in this discussion are confused by AWC’s bet, perhaps she might want to rephrase the bet. Considering the last time a white Caucasian male win the 100 meters in the Olympics was 1960, and he did it in 10.2 seconds, and hundreds of athletes have broken the 10 second barrier, none that would claim to be solely of European ancestry, What are the odds that a white man of sole European ancestry (over the past 600 years) would win the next 100 meter Olympic sprint?
Furthermore, since I believe this discussion regarding blacks in sport has posed many ridiculous arguments of denial, and since I believe that none of the deniers in this discussion are black males, I am led to believe that perhaps we might have evidence that blacks are more intelligent as a whole.
The people who broke this barrier are just as Caucasian as anyone of “European” decent. I.E. Your argument assumes that “caucasian” and “white” are not meaningless terms. Since those terms have no meaning, you’re not saying anything.
Thanks greeny, but I assure you, given what I have seen so far, you are not a person from whom I would take advice on matters of usage.
Here Greeny, I would have let your message alone but for this untruth. I addressed this claim before. Apparently in greeny language ‘you have presented no data’ may be parsed as * you have presented no data which I am willing and/or capable of understanding or addressing, ergo I will simply pretend it doesn’t exist and has never been presented.’ * Of course I, * and others more learned than I * have in past discussions presented a mass of data on population genetics and race. This has been amply referenced in the past. I see no reason to waste time repeating what is the ** sole objective, scientific data ** in this entire mess, given your propensity to willfully ignore it.
Twisted logic? Could you be so good as to demonstrate where my argumentation is twisted, where it departs from known science? Otherwise I have to put this little turn of phrase down to ad hominem argumentation, or again in other words, if I can’t rebut an argument I’ll just insult it. (Again greeny willful assertion of something again and again does not a fact make. One needs evidence)
Greeny, greeny, greeny. First, your claim that Entine’s piece of shit analysis is not publicly challenged is ** FALSE ** as you should well recall from past discussions in which Entine’s work was discussed. The fact that population geneticists are not out writing rebuttals to a * sport journalist’s * confused claims regarding race can quite simply be put down to time and better things to do. My own brief analysis of the book, which I posted some months back gets to the meat but other articles pointing out the non-existence of any “methodology” etc. were linked.
Second, Entine’s shit is not data, its a bunch of poorly conceived, poorly theorized journalistic mumblings wherein he is unable to maintain any clear standard of evidence.
Peer review not available? Good lord. Sure it is, my position sadly is derivative of the published materials in genetics. As for your bet and “news,” yeah, so the leading contenders aren’t northern European dominant descent. So what? I have posited an adequate explanatory hypothesis in accord with known objective facts and attempted at the same time to point out the logical and factual failings in your naive ‘hypothesis.’ You simply use ad hominem argument, appeals to authority (and a poor authority, Entine) without engaging the data or argument. I call this bullshit argumentation. I assume that you have the * native ability * to do better.
Now, in response to my pointing out your response set up a straw man you respond
Blacks from the Americas dominate certain professional sports. Given what I have noted, this doesn’t seem particularly surprising, and I note you continue to reject my argument without any substantial rebuttal - over-representation is not an argument against my argument ** hypothesizing ** a mechanism for explaining such over-representation. Really you do need some remedial logic. That is, your inchoate ‘feeling’ that somehow my hypothesis is inadequate is not a rebuttal, it’s mere hand waving. In order to make, presuming you so desire, a rational rebuttal you should attempt to show in a * substantive * manner that the hypothesis sketched out above does not adequately engage the known data and fails to explain something. Feeling doesn’t cut it, except in IMHO, but you know that greeny, yes?
Further in regards to me
Greeny, greeny, breaking out your argument is not mis-representing it. Your logic remains precisely as I have described it, or so it appears to me. Unless you have some refutation of why my analysis of your logical train of thought is wrong, although it strikes me that you have trouble following through with the implications of your own argumentation.
They do not share identical cultures nor environments, as argued in previous threads. One can point quite easily to clear cultural and socio-economic differences between large portions of the ‘white’ and ‘black’ communities in North America. Clearly of course there are communities which converge and we tread dangerously on over simplification here. Your naivete in regards to this subject (I refer you to your ignorance in re the importance of new world black - american indian ties) is sometimes saddening and generally disappointing.
Argument by * assertion * greeny, argument by assertion. You do know this is a fallacy, yes? I have ** repeatedly ** questioned this assertion. In a rational, logical argument, it is incumbent upon you to attempt to show ** why ** you * feel * the hypothesis advanced (and in particular I would like to stress my fuller hypothesis sketched out previously attempting to incorporate hypothetical environmentally linked morphological advantages) in a * factual * and * logical * manner consistent with the body of objective, scientific evidence. Simply ignoring evidence you don’t like doesn’t cut it. So, you can impeach the evidence or grapple with it.
Fine and dandy. I’ll accept the claim without further verification. What does this tell me about a larger population? Nothing. I need to know what kind of selection biases went into the pools of applicants, etc. to draw conclusions. Given my general knowledge of track and field, I see no rebuttal of a socio-economic/cultural explanation tied to a consideration of possible generalized sub-tropical/tropical morphology advantages in re running and the like.
I also note that given the preponderance of Americas derived runners that few if any can claim exclusive or perhaps even preponderant West African ancestry so dear to your naive hypothesis. I leave aside for the moment my sustained and as of yet unrebutted objection in re the incoherence of this so called category.
Greeny, you have heard of circular logic, have you not? You derive through ad hoc observation of an uncontrolled group whose sole common factor is being just dark enough and curly haired enough not to be white a ‘group’ theory, then back apply it to a large, equally poorly defined group, the ‘proof’ being in a small subset of individual records.
Sigh, again Greeny, to break out your logic and lay it bare is not to distort it. (The points you attempt to make versus those you actually make are tied to your faulty logic) Your argument above, if we can call it that, contains precisely this presumption. Laying aside the grandiloquence of mightiest nations and blah blah, what we have is problem of you assuming a category which is to be proved. Clearly to drive the final nail in the coffin I am going to have to collate the data, which is unfortunately not possible right now. None the less, in the context of, for example, the cited article on the impact of training differences and so forth, I do not see a great basis for your hyperbole.
Woo hoo. Color me impressed. Now then, go back and reread my comments in re trait distribution and heterogeneity, above in re this vast area, western africa.
Apparently you understood not one whit of the evidence that I and others, including those more learned than I am in this domain, have presented in regards to the genetic evidence on population trait distribution. All I can say that the inherent assumption that skin color, the whole wide range of it, is somehow describing a coherent package of traits is without good foundation.
Step by step. First, hardly a straw man as skin color is the main thing which your argument rests on, since you assume throughout a homogeneity which current data disproves. Again greeny, just because you do not apprehend the implications and inherent assumptions in your argument does not make them inexistant. Second in re ‘a major difference in athletic proclivity exists between people of West African ancestry and East Africans’ I have to say what? If we mean North American black populations, well I see a major socio-economic difference. If you’re taking all recently derived West African pops including West Africans themselves, I’ll say sure, a few limited groups in East African show some real stand out performance in long distance running, while West Africans don’t seem to be doing anything much at all. But this isn’t much of a coherent observation.
Third, if you can’t tell a West African from an East African, that’s your (unsurprising) ignorance. Even worse if you can’t tell a black (north) American from an East African, well that’s yet worse. But then I’m guessing all those funny East Asian fellows look alike too. Anyways, African appearances are every bit as diverse as European and marked by as many regional divergences as Europe with just about as much underlying meaning.
Now, I believe that we all have seen the data which indicates that skin color tells us very little indeed about the overall genetic makeup of the individual or group in question. However what it does indicate with much greater certitude and to a vastly greater degree, above all for ‘New World’ populations is a common socio-economic profile (largely disadvantaged, still suffering exclusion from full participation in the marketplace etc.) That is an actually sustainable commonality.
Take a look at the data greeny.
In raw numbers, of course there are more whites below the poverty line than blacks, function of population percentages. As percentages of their discrete populations, we have another issue entirely. Further, we need to add into consideration (I know greeny, more than one variable gets your head turning, but such is the problem which we confront) the socio-cultural issue. But this ground has been covered and recovered. Insofar as you actually believe coaches, be they professional or not, to have objective criteria, I can say I have little hope for a rational conclusion to this.
Yes? And one individual proves what about groups, greeny? You do recall that previously you agreed individuals do not say very much about groups, yes? Oh my, you know greeny I have to say my faith in logical discourse and the efficacity of rational analysis is often shaken in these discussions. It has been once more, for you’ve repeated this red herring, oh how many times? (Of course I feel I can actually impeach this red herring on its own merits but that’s pretty much a waste of time.)
Confused? No greeny, not confused, dismissive.
Better yet, define her terms and define what she means by the bet according to the repeated requests of more than one poster.
I dunno, what are the odds that a sprinter of ** pure ** West African ancestry will win the next sprint? Better yet, define the importance of said ancestry, including engaging what you mean by ‘white caucasian’ in objective terms so that I can better define my responses. I’ll lay decent odds on the next winner having substantial European heritage, as well as Amerind.
Very nice greeny, we combine an appeal designed to flatter the “racial group” and thus deracialize your position with an (inaccurate mind you) ad-hominem attack on arguments you have yet to address in a rational, substantive manner. You’re almost up to AWC’s level of use of rhetoric. Almost. If you try, next time, to work in a gratuitous holocaust reference you will be getting there. Pity, I do believe that you have the * native ability * to do better.
I’ll close by noting that the arguments against your and AWC’s racialist conclusions have not been ** denial ** of anything but genetic conclusions which you desire to draw, despite the weight of evidence against such. ‘Denial’? Hardly, it’s called rational, scientific thinking. As opposed to ‘magical’ thinking which characterizes your argument.
By the way, I can’t agree with sjgouldrock’s message in re caucasian and white being “meaningless” terms. Quite clearly the terms have meanings. The issue is that they can not carry the scientific implications that greeny wants them to. But then that’s not really his concern in the end.
SIlly me, I am in an irrascable mood. This little gem irritates me.
Showing your colors sjgr? I hardly know what to make out of the knee jerk response. The answer is found in my original hypothesis based on the well-known adaptations to cold and heat in re limb length. Populations long resident or under severe selection for cold have short limb to trunk ratios than tropical/sub-tropical pops. Simple issue of heat conservation/dispersion. I allowed that this might have an effect on running ability. Something to test for.
See, rational analysis, not knee jerk positions. You might try it if only for novelty value.