Collounsbury please give it a rest. You are far too emotional.
I think you guys may have gotten through to me! Have I understood correctly that Subsaharan Africans exhibit far more genetic diversity than say Europeans or Native Americans?
More diversity I couldn’t say. That would be a fairly difficuly question to answer one way or the other. Since most variation exists on an individual level the only way to answer this would be to do a complete genetic analysyis of every individual in all three populations.
What we can say is that there is no one gene that is exclsuively present or absent in any group except amongst perhaps very small populations. For example the gene for haemophilia may only be found amongst European royal families, and therefore not present in Africa. However statistically there should be just as many localised genes in an African population, neither more nor less.
The important point is that there is no way that we can biologically identify a group as being sub-saharan African in the first place. It just doesn’t exist.
Asking if sub-saharan Africans exhibit more genetic diversity than Europeans or native Americans is like asking if tap-dancers exhibit more genetic diversity than shuffleboard players. If there is an answer one way or the other it is purely co-incidental and in no way related to gene expression or gene exclsuivity amongst those groups.
::shrug:: If people would read before posting I wouldn’t have to yell at them.
Population wise, greater diversity is observed between sub-Saharan African populations, which is generally held to indicate that those populations are the older root of the “Exit” populations. However, a competing theory based on different analyses posits the possibility that at least part of this diversity stems from a backwash from Asia.
As Gaspode indicates, this doesn’t say much per se regarding “Africans” other than they are even less likely to be homogenous than other folks --turning the idea of race on its head from yet another perspective.
If I could understand you clearly each and every time then I probably still wouldn’t be here.
The first thing that comes to mind is that exit populations are more limited in genetic expression. Okay then, why can we not say that there are more options for expression of particular traits among sub-Saharan African populations. One of those traits being whatever makes some Africans good at basketball.
We can’t do this because of one simple fact. Although African populations differ from each other more than European populations do, African populations are more different from each other than they are from Europeans. This means that any trait cannot be found in a significant number of Africans. Any given trait will not be found in over 95% of Africans. Even if there were a ‘basketball gene’ that would guarantee world-champion status in basketball to those that possesed it, and it was only found amongst people of African origin, it could only possibly lead to a 5% increase in the number of African-Americans playing basketball. Add to this the fact that few if any African-Americans could claim an exclusively African ancestry in the last 5 generations and the incidence of this gene in African-American populations will fall to less than 2.5%. If it wasn’t a guarantee of basketball success and it wasn’t caused by only one gene then this would fall even lower. Considering some of the white, hispanic and other players on the NBA probably also have some African ancestry in the last 5 generations the chances of an African-American actually having any genetic advantage playing basketball is reduced to less than 1 in 200, basically the stage where it becomes immeasurable. Scientifically you’re just as justified in saying that there are more options for expression of particular traits amongst people who own cats, and one of those traits is what makes them better at playing basketball. There is a remote chance that you may be right, but any advantage given by genetics would be found in such a low percentage of players that it wouldn’t affect NBA player lists. If more people who own cats are pro-NBA players then you will have to find another cause for it because genetics does not give a significant correlation.
Now I’ll have to get Collounsbury to clarify this, but I believe there are not necessarily more options for expressions of traits amongst Africans. Diversity does not equal exclusivity. Just because any two given African populations are more diverse than any two given European populations, this does not mean that exactly the same genes are not found in both Europe and Africa. Basically African populations share less in common than European populations, but this doesn’t mean that the total gene pool isn’t exactly the same. Think of genes as bags of marbles. One African town has a bag of nothing but red and green marbles, one a bag of nothing but blue and yellow. They are more genetically diverse. Two European towns have bags of red and green and blue and yellow marbles. They are not genetically diverse. The same genes however are present in both Europe and Africa, they’re just blended more in Europe. There will be some exclusively African genes, but then there will be some exclusively European genes.
Or are you saying, Collounsbury that there are actually more genes total present in Africa, and that Europe is somehow genetically depauperate?
I know these number are approximate, but I’m fairly certain that I’m in the right ball park. At lets say 30 NBA teams with 4 of 5 players on the first string of recent African origin would suggest that 120 African Americans out of a total of lets say 30,000,000 African-Americans possess or inherited something special. That is 1 in 250,000, but clearly measurable.
For non-Africans it would be 30 out of 270,000,000 or 1 out of 9,000,000.
Sweet Mother McCRee, Greinspace. You are simply saying by the above statement that the NBA only selects a small proportion of people of any colour, but that it selects slightly more black people. This proves nothing, It demonstrates nothing. It is a statement of fact.
To say that the very large numbers being worked with as our sample size validate your theory in any way because they allow the statistically insignificant and scientifically invalid to be possibly able to push through is nonsense. It’s an argument from credulity.
You are essentially saying that the NBA is selecting for those people who are genetically most capable of playing basketball. Fucking Eureka. I thought they selected dwarfs. The fact that some of those genes may be more common in African Americans is irrelevant to your assertion that African Americans as a group are better at playing basketball because of some genetic advantage held as a cohesive group. The frequency of these genes amongst African-Americans is not statistically significant. Yes some African Americans have a genetic advantage, yes some European Americans have a genetic advantage, but there is not one shred of evidence that African Americans have any genetic advantage over Europeans Americans. None at all. Simply because there is no genetic cohesion amongst the group of people called African-Americans. There is no group of people called African-Americans that can be defined genetically.
You are confusing the actual question of the OP, which is “Why are African-American athletes better than white american athletes” with the one you are addressing with the above figures, which is “Why are some individual African-American athletes better than white american athletes”. The answer to the former is “Many, many factors, but it can’t be genetic because there is no shared genetic legacy amongst Afrrican-Americans’. The answer to the latter is “Many, many factors, and some of those may be genetic factors relating to genes inherited from African ancestors.”. But (and read this closely please) those genes cannot be a significant factor in the success of African-Americans as a whole simply because all the evidence is that African-American athletes do not share any genes.. Understand.
Now I’m willing to concede that there is a possibilty that the figures you use above may actually be true, but it would require that no black man has ever achieved anything in basketball that did not carry the basketball gene. That without the benefit of DNA testing the NBA has actually managed to select a genotype with better than 95% accuracy. That everyone who carries the gene is compelled by the gene to want to play basketball. That no one was ever selected who didn’t carry the gene and every single black man that did carry the gene was drafted for the NBA. Because if even half of those carrying the gene just didn’t like basketball, was injured or otherwise prevented from playing or preferred other interests then your 1 in 250000 suddenly becomes one in 500000. If half of those who did like basketball escaped undetected then the figure becomes one in 1 million. Your figures are statistically unsound, but even if I accepted them you have absolutely no evidence that in excess of 95% of the men on the NBA share any genes in common. All the evidence, statistically and genetically argues against. This is an argument from credulity. It could have happened so it must have happened.
You can push this hypothesis if you like, but it flies in the face of statistics, science and common sense. It has about as much factual foundation and makes about as much sense logically as saying the Invisible Pink Unicorn is responsible for the sporting success of black people. Many things can possibly account for this phenomenon, but genetics is not one that stands up to logical consideration.
Precisely!!!
The observation that there is more inter-group diversity in Africa does not indicate that Africans have a set of traits available that others don’t. It only means that you are even less likely to find any degree of coherency across any given set of traits between African populations.
It does not mean that there are more traits available in Africa. It does not mean there are different traits. It only means that African populations exhibit even higher degrees of inter-group variation.
If this were not the case, we would not be able to make the observation that there is no racial coherency, because an esxclusive or coherent set of traits found in Africa and not found elsewhere would mean a fixed difference and thus race at some level.
So, please for the sake of God stop trying to import race through the backdoor. You say you’ve got a point and then you go right back to your original conclusions!
Now, I think Gaspode and others have already pointed out the error of your reductionist thinking. But let me once more point out the problems:
First, it is a major error to ipso-facto attribute an over-representation of African Americans in sport X to having the right “gene” or “trait” – I’m not huge in sports myself but it is fairly obvious that there are a complex of different motor and other skills in use in any sport like Basketball. I’ll say frankly the idea there is one trait which gives a killer advantage is ludicrously stupid. The characteristics are going to distributed across many traits, I am convinced.
Second, as Gaspode has noted, its silly to force the conclusion that the African Americans have an exclusive lock on said package of traits – there is no such thing in the distribution of the Human Genome. Higher diversity did not mean exclusivity. Europeans will have the same access to a package of traits, and given that the basic traits --motor skills etc.-- are likely to advantageous for survivival, they will have spread given our history. That is clear. There is no reason to believe that the issue is not simply that those Af-Am in NBA simply represent a sample of individuals with an advantageous trait package, personal will who went out for basketball in higher numbers than their Euro counterparts.
In short, the hypothesis is genetically absurd.
This is so typical of you and Collounsbury. In order to debate you must impugn assertions I clearly never made. I have clearly and on several occasions in this thread disavowed that African-Americans are better at basketball. As a small group however they clearly produce more basketball geniuses.
Now Einstein’s parents weren’t geniuses, but he certainly was. I suppose one can’t imply a genetic connection, however the two of them had something that clearly clicked in his genome.
Yes, African Americans have produced many basketball geniuses. They handed down a love of the sport to their children and perhaps imparted a good work ethic. And maybe even passed down the genes neccessary to make them tall (although Spud Webb and Muggsy Bouges didn’t even get this). Being tall has nothing to do with being African American.
What their parents did not give them was something uniquely African American in relation to their genes. There is nothing unique about any gene. Any group can have any gene. No basketball gene. No set of basketball genes.
What are you trying to say here? That Einstein’s genius is or is not hereditary? You seem to be saying both in one sentence. Either you believe his genius was inhereted or you don’t. Stop equivocating.
Fuck fuck fuck
I just lost a long fucking ass reply due to motherfucking Windows fuckiing unstable goddamned… Fuck. I truly hate this system.
Okay: this time short.
(a) I think there is a miscommunication going on here GS.
(b) I believe that your hypothesis is fundamentally flawed on several levels, which I will not go into detial because I’m tired.
© note you are confusing individual heredity with populations. Big no no. Einstein of course gets his genes from mom and pop, but…
(d) you are assuming a simplistic expression of genes. It don’t work that way. Environment conditions expression.
(e) your hypothesis is backwards from the direction we should be going. It assumes the conclusion (in part based on an incorrect idea of expression); self-selection out of basketball competition by non-Af Ams with positive trait package is as likely as anything else, can not assume differential traits like that.
(f) frankly I think the mixing concept is not relevant insofar as it is quite clear that Euro-Af genetic exchanges do not start in 1492, they only increase in intensity.
I hope someone else can flesh this out.
In any case, let’s take a step back. I believe that Gaspode and I have partially misunderstood you, but in part we have been trying to point out flawed underlying assumptions. Part of this is due to mutual misunderstandings.
(Hmm, see I can be reasonable every once in a while. However I will now be forced to be mean to someone at work instead)
Forgive me as I admit I do not know the exact science of the mechanics of the genetic reformulation that takes place when the progeny of two distinct individuals is expressed in a new and unique individual. As I understand it, an almost infinite number of possibilities exist for the outcome of characteristics in the progeny based on the available two genomes. A genius of Einstein’s calibre is very rare indeed, the origin of his genius is clearly biological, and thus inherited. That does not mean his parents were geniuses.
As far as culture being the basis for the high percentage of African-Americans in the NBA, I say there is no basis for that claim, other than it is the only available alternative to a biological reason. I am reminded of the debate in the Seventies that men and women are only different because of biases in the raising of children. Subsequent study after study has refuted that claim. The “culture” of African-American NBA basketball can’t be more than a couple of generations.
No, I absolutely refuse to accept this on any level.
You have in fact contradicted yourself on several occasions and refused to state clearly exactly what you do mean even when asked. Just some examples include: “What I do presume to postulate is that due to the fresh mix of genes between Caucasions and Africans, an anomalous portion of African Americans can demonstrate superior athletic ability.” This quite clearly says that African Americans as a group are better at athletics and by extension basketball. Then there’s this : “A combination of characteristics more common to Caucasians with the counterpart of African specific characteristics would undoubted result in specific small groups that are superior” and this “Kinky hair, broad noses, dark skin. Does this not suggest a genetic coherence among African Americans?”. Greinspace will you please just answer me one question. Do you believe that the group identified as African-American have any genetic advantage over non-African-Americans as a group, when it comes to playing basketball? Simple question, no tricks here. If the answer is yes then we have a debate. If the answer is no then I have to wonder what exactly all your assertions about genetic coherence actually has to do with the OP.
I have not impugned any assertions, I have called into question clearly erroneous statements.
I almost understand what you are saying here. You are saying that the unique combinations of genes Einstein inherited from his parents resulted in him being smarter than either parent. Possibly correct. I assume by extension you are saying the genes inherited by African-American basket-ballers also make them better than either of their parents. Also probably correct, but what you cannot then go on to say is that there is any reason to believe that the fact that either of those parents was African-Americans made this combination of genes occurring more likely. Race is entirely irrelevant.
Can you please answer my question?
The answer is a clear and unequivocable No.
On the question of basketball I can see no evidence or reason for superior ability that can be attributed to the African American population as a whole. It isn’t about coherence at all Gaspode but diversity. Diversity is the *crux of my argument explaining the over representation of African-Americans in the NBA.
On the question of kinky hair, broad noses and dark skin all I said or meant was that these traits are inherent in subSaharan poulations. Notwithstanding the scientific evidence that you and Collounsbury have brought forward, regarding genetic diversity among Africans and relative coherence more likely with caucasians et al, which I accept. I understand that both of you abhor the concept of race,and that genetic differences for physical appearance are so minor that on a scientific level they are for all intent and purposes irrelevant.
All I’m saying that whenever drawing from a larger genetic pool the probability of generating combinations of recognized special abilities is increased. It seems to me that wherever the social, economic and cultural barriers have been overcome, some African Americans have clearly excelled. We see it in football, basketball, and now with Tiger in golf, another cultural barrier overcome. Tiger is in a league all by himself right now. In women’s tennis, the Williams sisters suddenly appear and dominate , another cultural barrier overcome.In the music world we have those great jazz composers and players, many who have had to overcome great poverty and many self taught.
Given that the OP asked “Why are African-American athletes better than white american athletes” I have to ask WTF? You are saying that you can see no evidence or reason why African-American athletes are better than white american athletes. Why did you bother to respond to the OP when your entire answer boils down to “no reason that I can see”?. I think you’ve wasted the time of a lot of people, yourself included.
Just to make sure I’ve got this straight I’m going to make statement. Tell me if you agree.
“The slightly disproportionate representation of African-Americans within the NBA is the result of no immediately apparent cause. What is certain however is that any suggestion of a genetic cause is not only highly unlikely with no factual basis whatsoever, but is actually in direct contradiction to common sense, statistics and all available scientific evidence.”
Wrong. As I have pointed out these traits are definitely not inherent in all sub-saharan populations. If you care to insert the word ‘most’ in there somewhere then I’d be inclined to agree, but why did you bring this up in regards to the OP? It is totally unconnected to athletic prowess amongt African-Americans and therefore irrelevant and raising the issue in the context you did implies that it is somehow genetically related.
False, we abhor ignorance, particularly willful ignorance. That’s why we’re at this board. Race I have no problem with at all so long as it is used in a purely cultural context, or when refering to species other than human.
Near enough.
Aside from the Invisible Pink Unicorn there is no other explanation aside from genetics, which we have already dismissed. It’s either nature, nurture or the IPU.
Two big difference that makes this analogy worthless. We have now and had then incontrovertible proof that gender is linked to very specific genetic traits, and we had then and have now evidence from the animal kingdom that the genetic enforcement of gender also enforces certain behavioural characteristics. Therefore denying a genetic cause for gender behavioural differences between male and female humans without controlled experiments flew in the face of all available scientific evidence as well as logic. With the cultural explanation for blacks playing basketball all the evidence points toward that conclusion. There is no evidence that race is linked to any genetic traits. We know culture encorages people to follow certain recreational and career paths.
When we refer to a cultural explanation for blacks playing basketball we don’t actually mean a culture of basket ball. We mean that black culture encourages many traits, stereotypes, philosophies and thought patterns that will lead a greater number of blacks to take up basketball. It doesn’t actually require a culture of playing basketball. Added to this even if it was only one generation, so what. We’re not talking genetics so any cultural explanation only has to hold true for the generation in question.
Wrong. Being African-American doesn’t mean you are drawing on a larger gene pool. As we have taken pains to explain the total gene pool amongst Europeans as a group and Africans as a group is exactly the same. Any difference in the genes available to a ‘pure’ European, a ‘pure’ African and an African-American of mixed ancestry is, as I have pointed out in tedious detail above, so small that it could not in any way be logically assumed to contribute to the observed frequencies of African-Americans participating in any given activity, sporting or otherwise.
That having been said, what exactly does this have to do with African-Americans ability in athletics? You have already conceded that genetics plays no part in determinig African-American sporting success, haven’t you?
Which may all be true, but what has this got to do with the OP? Yes Black people play golf at professional level but are hideously under-represented. They play tennis at a professional level but are probably under-represented there too. They compose music and may be under, over or adequately represented there as well. How does any of this go to addressing the question of “Why are African-American athletes better than white american athletes?”? Sounds more like MPSIMS material than GD.
grienspace writes:
> A genius of Einstein’s calibre is very rare indeed, the
> origin of his genius is clearly biological, and thus
> inherited.
I know when someone is faking it when they can’t think of any geniuses other than Einstein. Where did this popular idea arise that Einstein was a genius unparalleled in human history? Einstein was no more intelligent than dozens of reasonably well known innovators in many other fields. It’s estimated (based on how fast he picked up knowledge as a child, how deep his discoveries were, and how broad his knowledge was) that he had an I.Q. around 160. That’s right on the borderline of what’s usually considered to be a genius. About 1 person in 30,000 has that I.Q.
On the other hand, it’s estimated that the I.Q.'s of Goethe, Leibnitz, John Stuart Mill, Pascal, Kant, Galileo, Descartes, Wittgenstein, Darwin, Mozart, Newton, and Voltaire varied from slightly above Einstein’s to well above his. And these are only the people who happened to be in the right place and the right time for their intelligence to be exercised on the right problems. For every person who made a major discovery, there have been hundreds of people of equal intelligence who just didn’t happen to be in the right circumstances to do such work.
Even if you look at people who have the intelligence and who make it to circumstances where they can do intellectual work, there’s still a huge portion of luck that determines who makes the big discoveries. Claiming that the people who make the big discoveries are thereby the smartest people in their fields is like claiming that Bill Gates is the smartest person in the world because he’s the richest.
Your analogy works only in a sense that you didn’t intend it. Being a great athlete, like being a great intellectual innovator, depends on many things - inborn talent, childhood training, willingness to do the hard work required, being able to enter the right profession, and a large portion of luck.
If you will recall, this latest particular discussion was initiated by myself as a response to the General Question “Why is the NBA mostly Black”. I brought it here because I knew my response would initiate controversy. My position is to rationalize an observation of 80% predominance of a particular group that represents 10% of the population. I don’t need a degree in biology to observe the superior capability in Michael Jordon is biological. Don’t tell me he got his ability from culture. Though it was fine tuned by practice and hard work, it is my observation that people work much harder when they see positive results. Many of us have strong work ethics, and I myself, in my youth spent every spare moment in sports. I played basketball in high school, and worked hard at it. Many of my friends did as well. I worked as hard as Rudy of Notre Dame fame. But never did I or my friends ever show promise of a professional career.If we had an inkling of it, you can bet your ass that we would be chasing a spot in the NBA.
What you have shown me is that it is a fallacy to presume Africans as a race. The genetic diversity et al. I propose to use that diversity as an explanation for why dark skinned people(a genetically diverse group) are able to send more representatives to the NBA. The converse would be applicable as well of course. We are more likely to find people with two left feet among the African population.
I think it is time now for you to defend the assertion that the reason “the NBA is mostly black” is strictly cultural. Please defend it without refering to genetics.
Wow, I didn’t know that. What IQ’s did these guys have Wendell?
Then I will re-phrase the question. You state that “On the question of basketball I can see no evidence or reason for superior ability that can be attributed to the African American population as a whole.”
Given that the OP asked “"Why is the NBA mostly Black.” I have to ask WTF? You are saying that you can see no evidence or reason why African-American NBA athletes are better than white american NBA athletes. Why did you bother to respond to the OP when your entire answer boils down to “no reason that I can see”?. I think you’ve wasted the time of a lot of people, yourself included.
An ignorance of the facts always will on this board for some reason. Could have something to do with that ‘fighting ignorance’ thingy.
No, you need a degree in common sense to tell you that that is as good an explanation as any. Yes there is probably a genetic component to it, but you’d never prove it. For your own allegorical evidence to have any bearing you would need to totally control environmental factors. You and your friends would need to eat the same food, get the same amount of sleep, live in the same climate with the same number of hours of sunlight, belong to the same church, receive the same familial support and use the same toothpaste as Michael Jordan. In short you would need to be Michael Jordan. If you then showed no basketball promise then your argument would have some bearing on fact. Until then this isn’t an argument, it is heresay. Environment and genetics cannot be distinguished in humans except for twins.
Having said that, I don’t think anyone would bother arguing the point. Yes genetics helps in these things. Big deal. The problem is you are trying to argue that genetics helps blacks more than whites and there is no evidence for this and considerable evidence against it.
And this is where your whole argument falls down. Allow me to repeat for about the 54th time :DARK SKINNED PEOPLE ARE NOT MORE GENETICALLY DIVERSE AS A GROUP THAN PEOPLE WITH ANY OTHER SKIN COLOUR, NOR DO THEY HAVE A LARGER GENE POOL TO DRAW FROM. You have conceded these points long ago. Please do not bring them up again. Your whole argument hinges on (and I quote) “dark skinned people(a genetically diverse group)”. This is wrong, incorrect, fallacious, and without substantiation. Dark skinned people are not a genetically diverse group, and without this point your whole argument falls apart.
This is an argument from ignorance Greinspace. There are only two known causes for any trait being exhibited in any organism if we ignore deliberate genetic tampering by humans. These two things are Nature and Nurture, or genetics and environment, or blood and background. Say it how you will it is the same. All the evidence goes directly against the concept of genetics being responsible. That theory is statistically invalid, it is scientifically invalid and it is logically invalid as it pertains to the known facts. Yes you can argue from ignorance that all the facts are not known and more may come to light that support the theory. They might, but until they do this theory is about as valid scientifically as saying the IPU is responsible. There are no known facts supporting either, numerous facts detracting from the theory, but more might become available that prove the existence of the IPU.
I have not at any stage said that the reason the NBA is black is strictly cultural, nor has Collounsbury. What we have said time and again is that any theory that suggests a genetic cause flies in the face of logic and evidence. This being the case the only logical conclusion is that it is caused by environmental pressures experienced by black and white basketballers.
That is the sum total of my defence : It Is The Only Logical Conclusion That Does Not Ignore The Known Facts.
On a board dedicated to the elimination of ignorance that is all the defence that is needed.
I have to retract my earlier message, it now is quite clear that you are trying to weasel your way back into racial conclusions, albeit perhaps w/o understanding.
So, let’s try to examine a few things.
Rationalize. Well, instead of rationalizing let’s logically investigage.
I will simpy note that I have repeatedly drawn your attention to the fact that individual inheritance and group trait distributions. They are not the same fucking question. To note Michael Jordan’s superior capacity is genetically rooted is of course correct. That does not allow group conclusions.
Of course, your assertion is on the individual level is simplistic also. How many times do we have to explain that genes provide a template, but are not destiny. They present opportunities and risks, which may or may not be activated by environmental factors. I’m gonna go over this to help draw everyone’s attention to the fact expression is not ‘mechanical’ in the sense that once you got gene set X when your daddy’s sperm meets mommy’s egg you’re fixed. What you get is potentials and risks and of course some definate limits.
(1) pre-natal environment plays a significant role, including nutrition and exposure to bad boys that mummy might have eaten/been exposed to.
(2) early nutrition and environment also are key in expression of traits. In the most extreme, you don’t get some key little compounds and some things just don’t turn on. Further, research has shown stimulation is important for development, e.g. there are physical results for the brain if a young child is not sufficiently stimulated. Ergo, the simplistic idea that say Einstein was destined to genius bec. of his genes fails right here: had he been raised in an environment which was non-stimulative he might not have developed into the fellow he did (and of course see Wendell’s reply).
(3) Of course, will power and application count.
Why not? It depends on what sense we’re taking, but certainly part of his ability derives. Of course I expand the explanation to the whole set of environmental conditions which shaped him.
As I see it here, you are a priori excluding an integral part of the explanation, with the apparent explanation it just doesn’t seem right to you. Given the evidence, its quite clear that environmental limitations can and do play large roles so I see no reason to a priori exclude the explanation.
(a) Personal anectdotes are not evidence, and indeed are just the thing to lead astray. We can allow easily you and your presumably white friends sucked, which does not explain anything about another group. It explains that you sucked. It doesn’t even explain anything about other white boys, just you.
(b) Your personal experience is not a refutation of socio-cultural and environmental explanations already put forth.
Propose all you want. It’s wrong, I can’t think of how many more ways Gaspode and I have explained how you are misapprehending the meaning of diversity. The diversity undermines a biologically based explanation for it suggests even less-reason to suppose some commonality in advantageous genes by group.
I mentioned earlier you keep trying to import the idea of race through the back door. Well, reflect on this.
No we are not! Where are you getting this from? Gaspode, Edwino can you think of any other ways to explain diversity?
Well, again you’ve forgotten that regional variation is a tiny minority of total varaition for all god damned groups. The difference between African and extra-AFrican populations is trivial in terms of the degree of elevated variation. Its importance is soley in noting (a) possible avenues of population history to be explored (b) refuting the idea that recently African derived populations should be more homogenous amongst themselves. You’re elevating this into a mountain of differnce and creating the idea that diversity means access to new traits.
But also as Gaspode and I have pointed out, this doesn’t mean that such populations have some whacky trait sets which other pops don’t, rather only such pops are more stirred up.
Why? Genetics is the answer to the underlying supposition that environmental factors generally do not and biological factors do explain the situation. Nota Bene: I am noting environment generally, not “culture” to account for the whole complex of factors which may effect this question.
As I see it, you want to find a simplistic biological explanation for Af Am dominance in sports (and music?!). Your a priori exclusion of non-genetic factors rests on personal anectdote rather than on data. Our critique of what has to, in the end, be a genetic explanation (for the group), has been squarely supported by data as has our inclination to environmental factors.
I don’t know of any other way to address this.