grienspace asks:
> What IQ’s did these guys have Wendell?
Take a look at this web site:
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-80790/Index.htm
It provides estimated IQ’s for many prominent intellectual innovators.
I give up
I’m sorry Wendell, but I’ve really got to question these claims. I’ll admit that this is not my field of study and I may be wrong, but this doesn’t fit with what I do know on the subject of IQ testing.
As I hope we all know, IQ tests are not an accurate measure of intelligence. Attempting to estimate the IQs of historical figures is an even less way to measure intelligence. The whole project sounds to me more like an amusing game than serious research. What’s more, according to the link (http://home.swipnet.se/~w-80790/Index.htm) the original project was conducted in 1926. That’s pretty old to be taken seriously now, even if it was at the time.
Besides all this, an IQ of 160 is not a “borderline genius” IQ according to any system I am familiar with – including the one used in your link. That page gives 145 as the bottom limit of “genius”. Given the way IQ tests are scored, a 160 is so far above a 145 that it cannot be considered merely “borderline genius” if 145 is the cutoff point for “genius”.
A 145 I.Q. is 3 standard deviations above the norm. That means about one person in 750 is at least that smart. A 160 I.Q. is 4 standard deviations above the norm. That would mean that about one person in 30,000 is at least that smart. I don’t see that it’s worth arguing about which level you should set the boundary for genius at. If it’s 145, that would mean that in a medium-sized high school (with about 700 students), you would expect one student to be a genius. If instead you use 160, it would mean that you would expect one person in a medium-sized city (with about 30,000 people) to be a genius. Using either definition, there are a lot of geniuses around. There are about 9,000 people with an I.Q. of 160 or greater in the U.S. and about 360,000 with an I.Q. of 145 or greater.
Either way, being a “genius” is just one of the requirements for making an important intellectual discovery. As I said, it also takes hard work, getting the right education, preparation in childhood, being in the right circumstances to make the discovery, and a big hunk of luck. I was only speaking against the notion that you can measure the intelligence of someone based on the quality of the discoveries they make.
I agree with you that the guesses at the I.Q.'s of these historic figures should be taken with a large grain of salt. I was using that table because I wanted some evidence to back up my claim that Einstein wasn’t the smartest person of all time, which is what a lot of people seem to be claiming. He isn’t even the most important physicist of all time. Newton was, and Einstein is one of a number of others that might claim second place.
As I said, I know that someone is faking it when they can’t think of anyone else to use as an example of a genius than Einstein. There’s a bizarre tendency for people not to even know the names of any other prominent intellectual innovators than Einstein.
But let’s consider the following comparion: Isaac Newton and Michael Jordan. Newton had great amounts of innate intelligence, just as Michael Jordan has immense amounts of innate athletic ability. That doesn’t mean that Newton was the person with the greatest amount of innate intelligence around (even if we restrict ourselves to Europeans born within a couple decades of Newton, since that’s a probably a requirement for discovering the laws of gravity and force). Nor does it mean that Michael Jordan has more athletic ability than anyone else (even if we restrict ourselves to American men born within a few years of him, or even if we could define a set of strictly “basketball abilities” and measure people on that). There were and are hundreds of people who could have discovered the laws of gravity or could have been just as good basketball players as Jordan. What caused Newton to be that good a physicist and Jordan to be that good a basketball player is only partly their innate abilities. It also depended on their hard work, their getting the right education (or the right coaching and the right competition) at the right time, and their luck at being in the right circumstances.
An interesting factoid: during the Manhattan Project, which was responsible for pooling the greatest collection of scientific minds in history, the overwhelming concensus among these Nobel laureates was that J. Robert Oppenheimer was the most intelligent and possessed the quickest mind. But, his discoveries, compared to those of many others, paled in insignificance. The old saying in theoretical physics, of course, is that you’re basically washed up by 35.
That said, Wendell, citing Einstein as a “genius” seems valid to me and to, I’m guessing, hundreds of world-class physicists and mathematicians. He was incredibly brilliant and exceptionally creative, completely shattering the conventional laws of Newtonian physics. If the 160 measure is correct, as you say, then it just shows how limited IQ tests really are. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many of history’s greatest “geniuses” benefitted greatly from the contributions of colleagues who never received proper credit.
The problem here is that you’re using the word “genius” in two different senses. One is “possessor of more than a given level of innate intellectual ability.” It doesn’t matter whether you set the level at which you call someone a genius at 145 or 160 I.Q., the fact is that most people who are geniuses in that sense never do major intellectual or creative work. Many of them never make it into a field where they can do such work. Most of the rest make it into such fields and have good but not first-rate careers. It’s just a matter of luck which of them happen to make the big discoveries.
The second sense in which you’re using the term “genius” is “someone who has made important intellectual and/or creative discoveries.” If you’re going to use the word in that sense, you should again realize that the people who happen to make these discoveries are not necessarily the ones who have the greatest innate intellectual ability. Once again, what determines whether someone makes important discoveries is partly innate ability, partly preparation in childhood, partly the choice to go into the field in which the discovery is made, partly hard work at one’s field, and partly luck.
If you use the term “genius” again, please explain in which sense you’re using it.
(Incidentally, the fact that I’m using the idea of I.Q. doesn’t mean that I think that I.Q. tests are uncontamined by environmental factors. I’m using I.Q. because it’s at least slightly closer to measuring one’s innate intellectual ability than judging by whether one makes a major intellectual discovery. In fact, there’s a lot of evidence that how well does on I.Q. tests is influenced by one’s environment, even if one looks at I.Q. tests given to children shortly after they enter school.)
The problem with looking at single examples of people who have are “geniuses” (in the sense of people who have made important discoveries) is that this is once again using anecdotal evidence. That’s why I’m bothered by people who can’t even name any other “geniuses” (intellectual discoverers) than Einstein. Einstein didn’t even make the most important physics discovery of all time. At best he’s second to Newton, and there’s a number of other physicists whose discoveries are pretty close in importance.
I suspect that the reason that Einstein became known as the prototypical “genius” (in either sense of the term) is that, first, he did make an important discovery, and one whose effects, if not its theory, can be easily explained. (It’s responsible for the atomic bomb, and there’s all the neat time dilation effects for people who want some gee-whiz facts about relativity.) In contrast, not that many people outside of the field of mathematics know the names of Kurt Goedel or Andrew Wiles, even though the discovery of Goedel’s Theorem or the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem is as important in mathematics as relativity is in physics. Second, he was a colorful eccentric, and people love hearing stories about colorful eccentrics. This gives people the idea that most scientists, or at lest most important scientists, are colorful eccentrics. This isn’t even close to being true. I’m a mathematician, and I know what mathematicians are like from twenty years of working with them. I also know other sorts of scientists too. There are a few colorful eccentric characters among scientists, but no more so than in any other field. Most scientists are boringly average in personality. Most top scientists are boring average in personality.
grienspace writes:
> An interesting factoid: during the Manhattan Project,
> which was responsible for pooling the greatest collection
> of scientific minds in history, the overwhelming
> concensus among these Nobel laureates was that J. Robert
> Oppenheimer was the most intelligent and possessed the
> quickest mind.
This contradicts what I’ve read. What I’ve read is that most physicists agreed that while Oppenheimer was a very good physicist, he wasn’t quite at the level where he would ever, say, win a Nobel prize for his discoveries. The reason he became head of the Manhattan project (or maybe it was head of the scientists, a position just below General Groves) was that he also had good managerial ability. It was also agreed among the scientists at the Manhattan project that he was much more generally well-read than the other scientists there, even those who were clearly better physicists. The problem here is that intellectual ability isn’t a single thing. The ability to be a top-notch physicist is not the same as the ability to be a top-notch manager and neither is the same as the ability to be competently well-read in many fields.
In fact, one prominent theory about intelligence (that of Howard Gardner) is that there are actually many different intellectual abilities. We have arbitrarily put together a number of those abilities and decided to call them a single thing - intelligence.
grienspace writes:
> The old saying in theoretical physics, of course, is that
> you’re basically washed up by 35.
This is, at best, wildly exaggerated. Perhaps it is true that one’s intellectual quickness becomes slightly less as one grows older, but there are many examples of important discoveries made later in life.
Furthermore, as a field matures, it becomes more likely that a major discovery will be made later in life. In the early 19th century, Evariste Galois was able to make important discoveries in mathematics at the age of 20 because there were important discoveries to be made that could be reached with only a couple of years of training in higher mathematics. By the end of the 20th century, Andrew Wiles made his discoveries at the age of 40, since by that time mathematics had progressed to the point that reaching the level of making important discoveries required much more preparation.
Wendal, get your facts right before you post. I have never surfed in my life.
A little sloppy aren’t we? Don’t you mean identical twins separated at birth?
So you and Collounsbury say. In fact you both continually refer to the science, the great moderator of the truth to which we all subscribe.We all have assumed you both have some direct knowledge of genetics which allows you to categorically state that there is no evidence for genetics and considerable evidence against it with regard to the cause of the predominance of African-Americans in the NBA. Of course the relevant data needs to be interpreted correctly by the experts in genetics which you and Collounsbury purport to be.
Following Gaspode’s last post I decided to abandon any possibility that my little genetic theory could possibly be accounted for scientifically if I continued to trust in the expertise of Gaspode or Collounsbury. So I performed an internet search where I stumbled upon a book by Jon Entine published about a year ago entitled Taboo. Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It. Guess what? I no longer am made to feel like an idiot for suggesting a genetic cause !
A little background. Jon Entine did a documentary with Tom Brokaw of NBC on this very subject just over a decade. The public outcry was enormous.Being a well known writer, television news reporter and producer, he decided to revisit the subject.
Okay you all say quite rightly, big deal, what qualifications does Jon Entine possess thatCollounsbury doesn’t possess. Just that his book is out there for all to see, with many academic reviews and journalistic reviews at his own website, including a review by Scientific American.
Now for scientific validity, I am very comfortable with the opinions expressed by this foremost science magazine for the general public. As follows:
Flies in the face of logic and evidence does it Gaspode?
Now Jon Entine and Scientific American haven’t drawn any rigid conclusions for genetics like those who rigidly claim evidence for environmental pressures On the contrary, there are now even more questions to be answered. Furthermore Scientific American isn’t endorsing or disparaging Jon Entine’s tentative conclusions. What I find interesting is the respect for his work. In closing this posting I would like to conclude with Jon’s words
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Wendell Wagner *
In contrast, not that many people outside of the field of mathematics know the names of Kurt Goedel or Andrew Wiles, even though the discovery of Goedel’s Theorem or the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem is as important in mathematics as relativity is in physics
I’m familiar with these names, but do you really contend that Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem is as important in mathematics as relativity is to physics? Care to elaborate?
This contradicts what I’ve read. What I’ve read is that most physicists agreed that while Oppenheimer was a very good physicist, he wasn’t quite at the level where he would ever, say, win a Nobel prize for his discoveries.
Actually, true. I can’t recall what Nobel laureate said this, but he said this view reflected general opinion. Again, however, we are getting into a circular argument as to what is genius–a subject I agree with you is laced with contradiction and oversimplification.
I thought that you’d given up. Ah well… [cracks knuckles]
Not in the slightest sloppy. I mean exactly what I wrote. What I said is perfectly true and stands as written! If you have any problems with this please state them.
Lets straighten out a few facts.
- I do not now,nor have I ever, purported to be an expert in genetics. My expertise, for what its worth, is in tropical woodland ecology. I’m essentially a botanist. Collounsbury can speak for himself. I have some education in genetics of course, it’s a little hard to be an ecologist without understanding genetics. However if you can give me one instance where I have ever purported to be an expert you may not look like a fool.
- The relevant data has been interpreted. If you had bothered following the links you would know this. Interpreted correctly is a matter of opinion, but they did find their ways into independent, respected and peer reviewed journals, so the majority of respected experts asked prior to publication agreed that the interpretation was sound. I am not going to argue the toss, it’s not my field but I will respect the opinions of those with qualifications and experience in the field over any interpretation you may give.
- Hi Opal.
Damn, we wouldn’t agree with you over and above scientific consensus. Stop it, you’re making me cry.
Nobody has made you feel like an idiot except you. Please take responsibility for how you feel. Criticisms were delivered because you made baseless assumptions in direct contradiction to the evidence in Great Debates on the SDMB. It’s that fight against ignorance thing again, and you can expect the same reaction whenever you make baseless and illogical assertions.
And this supports your argument how?
Again more groundless pap. So you found someone else who agrees with you. This does not win any points in a debate.
And I’m still waiting for some actual evidence. This is all just assertion from another person. This is like saying that because more than one person believes in racial purity and genetic cleansing it makes it right. This is not getting the debate anywhere. However if you like I’ll counter the arguments presented herein. Ready
No it isn’t. It is controlled by human beings making subjective judgements and limited to those with the knowledge and resources to enter the field. Laboratories are perfect laboratories, nothing else. Sports-running is a particularly poor laboratory in that it is an abstract concept. It isn’t even a particularly good sampling field. If it were a perfect laboratory for sociological studies all sociological studies would be conducted in athletic stadia. They aren’t, they are conducted door to door or at shopping malls. Why do you think this is? Is it because sports-running isn’t a good laboratory. Do you actually have any evidence or cites to support this. Common sense refutes it so I think we can dismiss this casually as more groundless assertion.
No it doesn’t. This is groundless unless you can provide a cite. I can’t actually think of one other aspect of life that doesn’t offer the same degree of definition outside the arts, where performance is subject to the biases of two people. It certainly isn’t any more definitive than academic performance or financial success. Again more baseless assertion that becomes apparent for what it is with even two minutes thought.
OK, I’m just dieing to see the controlled experiment that he used to come up with that howler. Of course it doesn’t exist because such an experiment would be impossible to implement due to legal, social, ethical and financial reasons. Whoever said this is not speaking as a scientist in any way. That statement is not only baseless, it lacks any means of being proven.
And since Collounsbury and Edwino have been good enough to provide us all with genuine scientific evidence, countless cites and many excellent explanations that demonstrate that there are no inherent differences between the populations in question and no evidence of thousands of years of separate evolution I think the least you should do is provide one cite that actually supports this assertion. This is another groundless, unprovable statement. This man is no scientist.
Infinitesimal? They’re bloody invisible. I’ve yet to see any evidence that they exist.
Yet more assertion. You’re right grienspace. he does make the same baseless and illogical assertions that you do.
This man has a degree in philosophy/religion. He is not a scientist much less a geneticist. He has a philosophical/religious viewpoint to push and like most social scientists will happily include real science to assist him. However this is not the point. As poor as it may be this is simply an attempt at an argument from authority grienspace. The fact that something is in a book has no bearing on it’s logical or factual basis. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have published a book discussing why evolution is scientifically un-grounded. Does this mean you believe that too?
Collounsbury has likewise provided many fine cites that are out there for all to see.
The thing you will learn about science Greinspace is that a book is not worth as much as an article in “Nature”. The simple reason is that an article in “Nature” has been reviewed by some of the top names in the field in question. A book has been reviewed by an editor for ‘readability’ and a proofreader for spelling errors. Those are the qualifications Collounsbury’s sources have that this source doesn’t.
I can’t believe that you are gullible enough to fall for the blurb reviews on someone’s home-page. If the book had been roundly condemned by every major genetics and sports physiology journal in the world, do you think he would actually put them on his home page?
Fair enough. We’re not getting into duelling cites here. Arguments from authority hold little weight with me. It’s simply your argument versus mine. So let’s have a look at some actual argument rather than a list of assertions that agree with yours.
That is a statement of fact. It is in fact the entire proposition of the OP. This does not support either of our arguments.
In other words he agrees with what Collounsbury and I have been saying.
And then goes on to back this up with?
For the thousandth time, yes it does.
- Scientific American hasn’t drawn any conclusions at all if you notice. They are doing a book review.
- Entine has acknowledged environmental pressures : “sports is a “bio-social” phenomenon” therefore he is one of those who rigidly claim evidence for environmental pressures. To do otherwise flies in the face of logic and accumulated evidence. If you can find one cite that suggests that genes can ever act in a vacuum free of environmental pressures then I will stop saying this.
- Hi Opal.
And we have answered all yours with logic, facts and references. Do you have any more? We’ll be happy to answer them too.
Which is direct contradiction to the implication behind: “Now Jon Entine and Scientific American haven’t drawn any rigid conclusions”
Respect yes. It was, as they said, “well-researched, relatively thorough and lucidly written”. No comment whatsoever on the logic or science behind his assertions. David Irving’s work has received much the same comments: Well researched. Somewhat lacking in depth and lucidly written so as to appeal to the common man. Predominantly a load of codswallop nonetheless. Respect for someone’s work has no bearing on respect for the thoughts contained therein. I read the first chapter in Mr. Entine’s book and could not find one reference to a scientific publication anywhere. In fact on reading the reviews provided I came across this, and several similar quotes :” While the sections concerning Entine’s hypothesis will surely attract the greatest attention, they actually form a relatively small portion of the book. The majority of Entine’s tome is concerned with outlining the origins and history of the “taboo”” Let’s just make it quite clear right now that we are not talking here about a scientific tome, rather a sociology text with some smattering of ‘relatively thorough’ science. If you wish to debate the sociology fine, but don’t expect anyone to accept the word of a newspaper columnist over a respected journal in a scientific debate. I’m surprised that you are prepared to do so yourself.
Collounsbury, you know of any scientific inquiries addressing genetic differences and similarities that might satisfy Mr. Entine? Oh, that’s right.
For crying out loud Grienspace this is pathetic. The entire post consists of nothing more than “I found someone who agrees with me”. Big deal. If you wish to obtain a copy of Mr. Entine’s publication and engage me on some sort of facts then good. This however is not a debate, it is your assertion being backed up with the assertions of another. Nary a fact to be seen between the two of you.
I repeat, this flies in the face of logic and evidence.
I could quite easily rebut some of the quotes from Mr. Entine’s book but it’s really not worth the effort. It’s up to you grienspace to provide some cites based on more than simple assertion that actually support your case.
OK, I’ve done my own quick web search of Mr. Entine and his works. Not excactly enthusiastic reviews. In fact they vary from sceptical to downright hostile. Aside from his own website I couldn’t find one entirely positive review concerning his science. Some of the more typical evaluations:
And even the “Scientific American” review which both grienspace and Mr. Entine seem so fond of quoting from is rather scathing when taken in its entirity. The edited highlights found on Mr. Entine’s webpage are not exactly representative of the magazines opinion of the book as a whole:
and further on:
Still later:
On the whole it appears my initial assessment of Mr. Entine’s work is held by the majority of those who have actually read the book. He is a philosopher with a philosophical case that he is trying to prove. He is not attempting any accurate scientific analysis, merely presenting that data which supports his assertions irrespective of evidence to the contrary.
I think that, unless you wish to present any actual facts or logical arguments for me to think on, I will rest my case here greinspace. The facts thus far are unequivocal. There is no evidence for any genetic advantage held by blacks in sport, nor is there any logical argument as to how this might be. Logic and evidence all points towards an entirely environmental cause for any under or over representation of blacks in any field of endeavour.
The desperation with which some folks try to rescue discredited ideas is really very, very annoying.
Now a word, like Gaspode, I have never claimed to be an expert in genetics. Like Gaspode I have made it very clear that while I am familiar with the field, given I work in biotech (plant actually) and I have to understand what is going on, I am not personally a geneticist. Edwino, being a Ph.d candidate or on the trail in this very field is our real “expert” – expertness being relative Edwino so I hope you don’t mind me pointing to you.
What I do claim is the following: (1) I have a reasonable understanding of genetics (2) I have a reasonable grasp of the literature on human population genetics since (a) I do understand it, (b) I follow it from a hobby interest (3) I provide substantive citations to the leading literature in the field so that knowledgeable folks can check out my bona fides, and I clearly signpost where possible differences which I am aware of (4) Hitherto I have not seen any substantive critiques of what I know to the be concensus in the field.
There, I hope that is clear. Some folks on the board have referred to me as an “expert” – I believe that I have largely corrected the misaprehension. I do claim, however to be well-informed.
Now, on to the “meat”
Ah, Entine, a sports journalist. Just what we need as an expert on genetics. Give me a motherfucking break. Of course, if you had read the links I had alread provided, you might have noted that I had already addressed Entine’s sloppy work. Worthless trash.
Big fucking deal. I give you cites to the leading genetics literature including the foremost folks in population genetics – which one can confirm you know. You come back with a fucking sports journalist. Pardon me if I laugh in your face.
Ahem, Scientific American? You’re putting the opinions of some journalists at Scientific American up against Cavalli-Sforza, the peer-review at genome.org etc. ad nauseum? Never mind of course that the full context of the review is rather different from the quotation you provide.
Let me quote from the thread this summer on race and atheletics, me very own brief review of the very same book:
There, I’m not going to revisit this worthless piece of waste of wood.
But you will, my dear Sysyphus. You will.
We all realize that there is no hard scientific basis for determining race, but that doesn’t mean assumptions can’t logically be made.
For example here is a stupid sport I just invented called touch. You stand flat footed and reach as high on the wall as you can, and score points for as many centimeters off the ground you touched. And it gets added to the scores of the other 99 memebers of your team for total points.(in other words how tall you are and arm length are pretty much the only important factors in my sport).
Now I go out and pick 100 families that I determine to be of northern European Heritage(knowing nothing about their height) and tell them as soon as they have a baby to send it to the dorm for my sport. I do the same thing with 100 families that I consider to be Asian(again never seeing how tall they are) and have them sent to the dormitory as well. These 200 kids are raised in my dormitory, having the exact same access to food, equipment, and under no external socialtal influence.
When all the kids hit 18 we play the game. I’m going to put my money on the european kids, because I believe that statistics have shown that Northern Europeans are Genetically taller than Asians, and I’ll even spot you ten point. Are you willing to bet against me, since race plays no factor in ability at sports?
I am even less of an expert on genetics than any of the other people who have recently announced that they are not experts – I’m not even a science major. But I do know a little about Asian and Asian people, and I hate seeing the “Asians are genetically short!” example brought up again and again.
On average Northern Europeans do tend to be taller than Asians, but this does not mean what you seem to think it means.
First of all, you’re comparing people from a small region of one continent to all the people of the most populous continent on earth. This may come as a shock to you, but all Asians are not alike. There is individual and regional variation throughout Asia, just as in Europe. In some areas people tend to be taller than others.
Secondly, the biggest factor in the height difference between Asians and Europeans or Americans is diet (both the type of food and the amount consumed). Children of Asian immigrants who are raised on an American diet usually end up towering over their parents. Diet changes can still have an effect even later in life. My college has a large number of international students from Japan, and they tell me that it is not unusual for Japanese students who spends even a year in America to grow noticeably taller.
I have yet to hear of any evidence that Asians are genetically predisposed towards being shorter than Europeans.
I am beginning to realize how very dangerous assumptions are.
Statistics… genetically taller. Sometimes I want to…
Okay, Wolfman. So I don’t have to yell at you and impugn your intelligence, let me assume that you did not bother to read any of the threads I linked on the first page. Disappointing but unsurprising at this point in the discussion. True at this point, most people know I get very upset because of this, but I’m trying to turn over a new leaf and not let this upset me.
Let me encourage you to go back and read the linked discussions. You may, if you so chose, discover that height is a trait highly responsive to diet and other environmental influences. You might also discover that not all Asians are little shrimps (indeed I’ve meet personally a good number of very tall Koreans, but that’s not data per se) and that there have been significant gains in average height in Japan due to dietary changes.
After this, you may, if you feel so moved, wish to reconsider your above theory.
Otherwise, I may be tempted to try to put together a team of Manchus.
Absolutely. An assumption is the hypothesis neccessary for a proper scientific investigation.
Statistics… genetically taller. The stats are there for the difference in height, but I am not aware of any study refuting dietary claims for the disparity. You may have chosen a bad example, because anecdotally my experience is that Asians I know who eat at MacDonalds are no smaller than the average. Why couldn’t you have picked the Negritos?
Okay, Wolfman. Don’t be bullied by those who believe citing their own rhetoric is the end-all of any rational discussion and enquiry.
Let me encourage you to continue to question and suggest causes for genetic or environmental differences among perceived distinct populations of the human race. The scientists have as yet to shut down the debate of nature versus nurture in specific elite sports among reasonable people.
After this, you may, if you feel so moved, wish to continue with your assumptions.
Otherwise, whatever
Well, you know my dear fellow, I’ve finally had enough of you.
Why don’t you come and visit the pit. I feel inspired. Perhaps because its late and I’m pissed off.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1152167#post1152167
I realize that some of you are somewhat discourged with this topic, so I will ignore your little barbs and ask my question again. after a few direct comments.
I never said anything about all Asians being shrimps. In fact if you read my post I mentioned teams of 100. I did that so as to eliminate the effect of extreme cases and get to a better average. If it makes you feel better make the teams a million people.
If you will also notice in my post I said
This was done to remove diet and other environmental influence.
I read a great deal of this over the past few days, with seemingly more care than you took in reading my one post before you decided to impugn my intelligence.
However there were so many links and I only have a certain amount of time. So it is possible that I missed or over quickly skimmed a pertinant one. Since you seem to have the attitude of one who apointed himself expert, then it should be easy to answer my question.
would you bet on the team of Asians?
Note I am using Asian to refer to Oriental people, note the whole continent of Asia.
Second note. I’m using Northern Europeans because I have read that they are statistiacally the tallest people on earth, before anybody accuses me of being a Nazi.
I checked it, and I don’t want anything to do with comparing dogs to humans. That is sick. Lets stick to blacks and sports. By the way, I understand that both West Africans and African- Americans share records for olympic sprint events and jumping, way out of proportion to the rest of the world. They both share a genetic heritage from 400 years ago,(AA’s being from West Africa primarily), but have completely unrelated cultures. Hmmmmm.