# Why do black pupils in the US underachieve academically when one factors out poverty? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 25, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948 "2009-01-25T20:13:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/421 "2015-01-21T12:15:44Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > I see what this is, and I’m not playing. **Andy** has defined the terms of the debate, and under those terms has declared himself the victor. I’m unimpressed. Me too. Whoever this **Andy** guy is, if he’s doing this, that’s not impressive. > [@](#): > > **Andy** , I’m sure you think you are both anthropologically and morally correct. But stifling debate on this topic hurts blacks far more than whites. Agreed. **Andy** , don’t stifle debate. That’s bad. I stand with you against debate-stifling. > [@](#): > > Let’s assume intellectual differences are cultural. What’s the correction? Ban rap music, saggy jeans, and fatherless homes? Try and educate all American blacks that their very culture is inherently deficient? I’ll assume you’re asking me… I doubt that saggy genes and rap music have anything to do with test scores or anything else substantive. The possible explanations (which would probably serve to make things like single moms and other challenges a symptom and not a cause) I’ve offered include things like reduced teacher expectations, day-to-day discrimination and racism, and other experiences that may be unique to the black experience that can serve as obstacles to various forms of achievement. > [@](#): > > Now let us assume that genetic studies (which are politically impossible now) reveal no differences in intellectual capabilities of adults, but show brain _developmental rates_ differ by race and gender. It may be the case that only Asian females should have a full high school schedule in 9th grade. Asian boys and white girls should wait a year, black girls and white boys should wait two years, black males 3. We could shift the curriculum to support all. Boys would take ALL their English, History, and Foreign Language in 9th and 10th grade, all Math and Science in 11th and 12th. > > What would be wrong with this? Nothing, but we’ll never know if it should be done because “black people” have no measurable genetic differences from Asians so there’s nothing to research. > > And yet, Daquan can’t find the equilibrium price of butter. I see no reason to believe that any such studies are politically impossible – there’s nothing that would stop anyone from doing them. There’s no cabal and conspiracy that shuts down good science. Bad science and racist claims are criticized, but that does nothing to stop good science from being done. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/422 "2015-01-21T14:17:34Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > This sentence doesn’t make any sense at all. Poor typing. Here it is again, corrected: If you think that black skin is genetic, but nothing else genetic can correlate with it, again, I can’t help you. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/423 "2015-01-21T14:21:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Poor typing. Here it is again, corrected: > > If you think that black skin is genetic, but nothing else genetic can correlate with it, again, I can’t help you. Just because a characteristic is genetic doesn’t mean that everyone with that characteristic is related, or shares ancestry. In the case of dark skin, this is not the case for everyone (or even everyone in the US). There are plenty of African Americans who are more closely related, genetically speaking, to various non-African Americans then to many other African Americans. As a group – there are plenty of non-African groups that African Americans as a group are more closely related to than to certain African groups. So dark skin doesn’t tell us much about ancestry, in the US or elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/424 "2015-01-21T14:23:21Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > **Andy** , I’m sure you think you are both anthropologically and morally correct. But stifling debate on this topic hurts blacks far more than whites. Don’t waste your breath. There is no way he, Dibble, or others, will even entertain the notion. They will not give the proposition that one race is more intelligent than another. They will tied themselves in a Gordian knot to avoid it. My favorite: “races don’t exist.” Of course if they really believed that they wouldn’t spend so much time arguing that begins with the premise that they do. Kind of like a sane person spending hours upon hours in a thread about what is the best selling soda brand on Venus. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/425 "2015-01-21T14:24:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Don’t waste your breath. There is no way he, Dibble, or others, will even entertain the notion. They will not give the proposition that one race is more intelligent than another. They will tied themselves in a Gordian knot to avoid it. My favorite: “races don’t exist.” Of course if they really believed that they wouldn’t spend so much time arguing that begins with the premise that they do. Kind of like a sane person spending hours upon hours in a thread about what is the best selling soda brand on Venus. Straw man alert! I can’t see with all the straw men cluttering up the place! ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/426 "2015-01-21T14:26:04Z")
There are two approaches to nullifying any supposition that the average underperformance of black students in the US school system is related to average gene pool differences. The first is to argue that “race” is cultural and therefore biologically meaningless. While there is a good bit of wordsmithing in this line of argument, the fundamental dilemma is that it’s pretty obvious that a self-assignment of “black” puts one in an average gene pool where 80% of the genes are from sub-saharan, and mostly west african, groups. The second argument is that, without identifiying specific genes accounting for the difference, nurturing variables are equally likely explanations, and given the history of racism in the US, that these cannot ever be normalized. If Daquan cannot find the equilibrium price of butter despite all additional educational nurturing focus, it is as likely as genes that the explanation is an unidentified or uncorrected nurturing variable. Against these two lines of reasoning is the blunt reality that these outcome observations are not specific to the US and not specific to any given political system. They are not specific to any nation. They are not specific to any cultural history. They are not specific to any demographic majority (i.e. it does not matter if blacks are in the majority and create the rules, or whites/asians do). The same outcome will always be observed for academic performance: blacks will underperform, as a group average, on quantitative academic disciplines and asians will outperform. The insistence within the US of assigning self-identification (in an effort to mandate fairness of opportunity) makes it easier to study large population groups, but the broad pattern of outcomes persists across the entire world wherever large populations have been brought together. We do not see black source populations expanding out and taking over other cultures; we do not see black source populations assimilating and expanding innovations from the outside world while maintaining their local dominance successfully. Somehow the same groups end up on top, and the same groups end up on the bottom. It is the stubbornly persistent and universal patterns which lead teachers across the world to privately admit that they simply cannot get their black students to a competitive average with their asian students, no matter the nurturing effort. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/427 "2015-01-21T14:30:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Just because a characteristic is genetic doesn’t mean that everyone with that characteristic is related, or shares ancestry. In the case of dark skin, this is not the case for everyone (or even everyone in the US). There are plenty of African Americans who are more closely related, genetically speaking, to various non-African Americans then to many other African Americans. As a group – there are plenty of non-African groups that African Americans as a group are more closely related to than to certain African groups. > > So dark skin doesn’t tell us much about ancestry, in the US or elsewhere. Ha. My turnstile offer is still open. Here’s another offer: Just about every country in the world competes in track and field. Certainly all races are represented. Here’s the deal: you hold in your hand the list of the 100 fastest sprinters from last year, complete with name, picture and full bio. You call off a number, like “27th fastest time”, and I’ll guess their skin color and race. Every time I’m right you give me a $1,000. Every time I’m wrong, I give you $2,000. You in? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/428 "2015-01-21T14:35:49Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There are two approaches to nullifying any supposition that the average underperformance of black students in the US school system is related to average gene pool differences. > > The first is to argue that “race” is cultural and therefore biologically meaningless. While there is a good bit of wordsmithing in this line of argument, the fundamental dilemma is that it’s pretty obvious that a self-assignment of “black” puts one in an average gene pool where 80% of the genes are from sub-saharan, and mostly west african, groups. > > The second argument is that, without identifiying specific genes accounting for the difference, nurturing variables are equally likely explanations, and given the history of racism in the US cannot ever be normalized. If Daquan cannot find the equilibrium price of butter despite all additional educational nurturing focus, it is as likely as genes that the explanation is an identified nurturing variable. > > Against these two lines of reasoning is the blunt reality that these outcome observations are not specific to the US and not specific to any given political system. They are not specific to any nation. They are not specific to any cultural history. They are not specific to any demographic majority (i.e. it does not matter if blacks are in the majority and create the rules, or whites/asians do). > > The same outcome will always be observed for academic performance: blacks will underperform, as a group average, on quantitative academic disciplines and asians will outperform. > > The insistence within the US of assigning self-identification (in an effort to mandate fairness of opportunity) makes it easier to study large population groups, but the broad pattern persists across the entire world wherever large populations have been brought together. We do not see black source populations expanding out and taking over other cultures; we do not see black source populations assimilating and expanding innovations from the outside world while maintaining their local dominance successfully. > > It is the stubbornly persistent and universal patterns which lead teachers across the world to privately admit that they simply cannot get their black students to a competitive average with their asian students, no matter the nurturing effort. I’ll address the “nurturing” variables part here. Outcomes, in fact, are specific to a small number of places in which there’s been anything close to adequate testing and attempts to normalize any nurture factors at all (and SES are the only nurture factors addressed anywhere). They are specific to the present and very recent history – outcome “hierarchies” were very different at various other times and places in the past. There have been times in which nearly every group was higher or lower on the metaphorical totem pole than they are now. From a few data points over a paltry few decades after literally centuries of brutal repression you extrapolate that the current pattern must necessarily continue forever. And you continually ignore actual experimental evidence that refutes the genetic explanation, and hand-wave away any insistence that such experiments could easily (really, truly easily!) be repeated. And you apply ridiculous things like _the development of nuclear weapons_ to somehow reinforce your assertion (how???) that some groups are inherently genetically superior in intelligence, on average. This pattern is absolutely not stubbornly persistent – it’s persisted for a miniscule slice of history in which we’ve actually made any efforts, weak as they are, to address inequalities. Despite your assertions, you don’t actually have any knowledge of what “teachers around the world” (beyond anecdotal acquaintances) privately acknowledge, and you have no knowledge of what scientists secretly believe. And most ridiculous of all is the assertion that if we only went back to 19th century ideas about black intelligence, that somehow things would be better for black people. As if we can’t just look at history and see what actions and behaviors those beliefs were used to justify. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/429 "2015-01-21T14:39:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Ha. My turnstile offer is still open. > > Here’s another offer: Just about every country in the world competes in track and field. Certainly all races are represented. Here’s the deal: you hold in your hand the list of the 100 fastest sprinters from last year, complete with name, picture and full bio. You call off a number, like “27th fastest time”, and I’ll guess their skin color and race. Every time I’m right you give me a $1,000. Every time I’m wrong, I give you $2,000. You in? These offers have nothing to do with this discussion. We could do the same thing with early 20th century basketball players, and you’d be picking a bunch of Jews. Sprinting is dominated by some tiny islands with unusual cultural obsessions with sprinting and the country with the best athletic infrastructure on Earth. It’s not dominated by West Africa, which has by far the densest and most diverse collection of West African genes on Earth. That leads me to believe the weird disparities in things like sprinting have more to do with the cultural role of the sport and athletic training and infrastructure rather than the genes of different populations. Genes in different populations might be involved. I’m very open to that possibility. Once we find the genes for sprinting, and find their prevalence in various groups, I’ll be happy to re-evaluate my position. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/430 "2015-01-21T14:51:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Poor typing. Here it is again, corrected: > > If you think that black skin is genetic, but nothing else genetic can correlate with it, again, I can’t help you. Who cares about “can”? I care about “does” - which correlation can, of course, be shown by the production of the relevant r-value for the relationship in question. Hell, even a rough estimate, if you show your workings… So for skin colour, what, _exactly_, would you offer that it correlates to? It doesn’t even correlate to hair frizziness. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/431 "2015-01-21T17:08:56Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ll assume you’re asking me… I doubt that saggy genes and rap music have anything to do with test scores or anything else substantive. The possible explanations (which would probably serve to make things like single moms and other challenges a symptom and not a cause) I’ve offered include things like reduced teacher expectations, day-to-day discrimination and racism, and other experiences that may be unique to the black experience that can serve as obstacles to various forms of achievement. Wait a minute, “serve as obstacles” FOR WHOM? You aren’t both accepting the OP’s premise “that black kids underperform” AND denying it, are you? If they can’t be meaningfully identified, they can’t be meaningfully identified. Just kidding, I understand your point: they CAN be identified for purposes of identifying a racist society or teachers with low expectations, they just can’t be identified for other purposes. Classic appeal to ignorance: no one has PROVEN (to your satisfaction) that x (skin color) and y (intelligence) are correlated, therefore, they ARE NOT correlated. I’m going somewhere else to bitch about the Common Core. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/432 "2015-01-21T17:29:40Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > Wait a minute, “serve as obstacles” FOR WHOM? You aren’t both accepting the OP’s premise “that black kids underperform” AND denying it, are you? If they can’t be meaningfully identified, they can’t be meaningfully identified. Huh? Who said they can’t be meaningfully identified? I’m sure many of these potential obstacles, if they exist, haven’t been identified. While I certainly lean towards believing that there exist such obstacles put in place by society, I’m by no means certain. > [@](#): > > Just kidding, I understand your point: they CAN be identified for purposes of identifying a racist society or teachers with low expectations, they just can’t be identified for other purposes. This is not my point. > [@](#): > > Classic appeal to ignorance: no one has PROVEN (to your satisfaction) that x (skin color) and y (intelligence) are correlated, therefore, they ARE NOT correlated. No, this is not my point. > [@](#): > > I’m going somewhere else to bitch about the Common Core. That’s fine – and you can bring your straw men with you. If it’s just a misunderstanding, I’d be happy to try and help you understand what I’m actually trying to say. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/433 "2015-01-21T19:30:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > These offers have nothing to do with this discussion. We could do the same thing with early 20th century basketball players, and you’d be picking a bunch of Jews. No. Basketball, or any other sport, is largely a skill based. With skills that improve as one plays more. Running is different—as you should know from the many discussions you’ve been in discussing this, but conveniently choose to ignore. Someone is fast or they aren’t. Training can help, of course, but you can’t turn Larry Bird into a even a good sprinter the way you can turn him into a great basketball player. So, please stop with this basketball bullshit when running is brought up. As far as the list of the 100 fastest sprinters in the world, how many do you think have black skin? If speed did not have a genetic component we’d expect the tastes runners to be fairly dispersed to the extent that there race is represented. This is CLEARLY not the case. And while you are correct that the elite sprinters—the fastest of the fast—tend to be from Caribbean island-nations, theta doesn’t account for the whole top 100. So take them out and tell me what percentage of the remaking top 100 times belong to people that do not have black skin? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/434 "2015-01-21T19:37:17Z")
[QUOTE=iiandyiii] SES are the only nurture factors addressed anywhere… [/QUOTE] No they aren’t. Parental education is another nurture factor, it is not the same as SES, and I am not going to bother rubbing your nose in it again. > [@](#): > > So dark skin doesn’t tell us much about ancestry, in the US or elsewhere. Yes it does. [QUOTE=Chief Pedant] … a self-assignment of “black” puts one in an average gene pool where 80% of the genes are from sub-saharan, and mostly west african, groups. [/QUOTE] Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/435 "2015-01-21T19:39:09Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Who cares about “can”? I care about “does” - which correlation can, of course, be shown by the production of the relevant r-value for the relationship in question. Hell, even a rough estimate, if you show your workings… > > So for skin colour, what, _exactly_, would you offer that it correlates to? It doesn’t even correlate to hair frizziness. I care about “can”. That’s the thing I’ve been arguing in all these threads. We know that different physical attributes—skin color, size, eye shape, hair texture—have a genetic component and align with populations we can classify as races. I see no reason why intelligence, or more specifically, the genetic component of intelligence, should be immune to any variance among races. Why in the world should that be? It very well _may_ be the case, and I’ll go as far as to say that I personally think it is the case that differences in intelligence will likely one day found to be _not_ genetic, certainly not exclusively genetic. But—it _can_ be genetic. It may be genetic. And that wouldn’t surprise me either. So, “can” is what it is all about. But you and others just can’t stomach the discussion so you attempt to cut it off any way you can. When you’re nitpicking fails, it’s the old , “But there are no races anyway.—so, there!” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/436 "2015-01-21T19:41:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No they aren’t. Parental education is another nurture factor, it is not the same as SES, and I am not going to bother rubbing your nose in it again. > > Yes it does. > > Regards, > Shodan Would you please stop pointing out reality. Not everyone around here seems to have an appreciation for it. Or is able to grasp it. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/437 "2015-01-21T19:43:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We know that different physical attributes—skin color, size, eye shape, hair texture—have a genetic component and align with populations we can classify as races. For fuck’s sake, get it through your head - we know no such fucking thing. **Not one of those characteristics “aligns with” races**. **Not a fucking one**. You are wrong about this “known” fact, you’ve had it pointed out before, and yet you persist. I’m not going to even look at the rest of the drivel you posted. Because given the wrongness of that 3rd sentence, that’s all it can be. Drivel. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/438 "2015-01-21T19:47:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. Basketball, or any other sport, is largely a skill based. With skills that improve as one plays more. Running is different—as you should know from the many discussions you’ve been in discussing this, but conveniently choose to ignore. Someone is fast or they aren’t. Training can help, of course, but you can’t turn Larry Bird into a even a good sprinter the way you can turn him into a great basketball player. So, please stop with this basketball bullshit when running is brought up. Not convinced, when we’re talking about 10ths and 100ths of a second. And I’m not convinced when, historically, sprinting has been dominated by runners from all kinds of places. In 50 years, the best white sprinters may well be faster than Usain Bolt, considering how the best times have evolved and cluster. > [@](#): > > As far as the list of the 100 fastest sprinters in the world, how many do you think have black skin? If speed did not have a genetic component we’d expect the tastes runners to be fairly dispersed to the extent that there race is represented. This is CLEARLY not the case. And while you are correct that the elite sprinters—the fastest of the fast—tend to be from Caribbean island-nations, theta doesn’t account for the whole top 100. So take them out and tell me what percentage of the remaking top 100 times belong to people that do not have black skin? Do you really think black skin – whether from native Australians, Congolese rainforest tribes, Andaman Islanders, Sri Lankans, Sudanese, etc. – has something to do with sprinting? I thought (for the common belief, anyway) it was about West African genes. The idea that, somehow, just having dark skin makes one a better sprinter, or that sprinting ability can be predicted by skin darkness, sounds ludicrous. In all likelihood, based on appearance and where they hail from, most of the top 100 sprinters have both African and non-African ancestry. There are a few that have no African ancestry (like Patrick Johnson and Christopher Lemaitre). Without knowing the genes involved, I’m not ready to accept that genes are the explanation for various disparities (and especially not ready to accept that it has something to do with “black skin”). In case you’re curious, my skepticism about the involvement of genes as an explanation for disparities in sports like sprinting is far less strong than my skepticism about the genetic explanation for test score disparities – I’m not aware of any specific experimental evidence that refutes the genetic explanation for sprinting disparities (unlike the genetic explanation for test score disparities), and things like sprinting are much, much easier to measure than intelligence, and probably have many many fewer compounding societal factors. But I’m not just going to accept an assertion about black skin and sprinting (which is a pretty ridiculous assertion, considering how many unrelated groups have very dark skin) without data about the genes involved and their relative prevalence. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/439 "2015-01-21T19:48:07Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > For fuck’s sake, get it through your head - we know no such fucking thing. **Not one of those characteristics “aligns with” races**. **Not a fucking one**. You are wrong about this “known” fact, you’ve had it pointed out before, and yet you persist. I’m not going to even look at the rest of the drivel you posted. Because given the wrongness of that 3rd sentence, that’s all it can be. Drivel. So epicanthic folds are equally common in all races, huh? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/440 "2015-01-21T19:50:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No they aren’t. Parental education is another nurture factor, it is not the same as SES, and I am not going to bother rubbing your nose in it again. Many fewer studies have taken into account parental education than SES, from what I’ve seen, but I’ll concede this point. I don’t think it matters, because there are nigh-infinite other potential nurture factors that have not come close to being corrected for. > [@](#): > > Yes it does. > > Regards, > Shodan No it doesn’t. Even “West African” tells us little about someone’s ancestry. There are plenty of West African groups that are closer to various non-West-African populations than to other far-flung West African populations. The Wolof in Senegal are a lot more closely related to certain groups in Mali, Mauritania, and Morocco (and likely elsewhere) than to, say, certain rainforest populations in Gabon. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948.md?page=23)