# 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:** 49
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/962 "2015-03-26T12:00:18Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > (see the Eric Wang link upthread) Is this the broken link you’ve been asked to fix? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/963 "2015-03-26T13:18:11Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The _reality_ about elite speedsters is that they are overwhelmingly Jamaican. So far, _no_ genetic explanation covers _why_ specifically Jamaica and why not, say, Trinidad. > > Yes, Jamaicans have a high proportion of certain genetic markers for fast-twitch muscles etc. _But so would any elite speed athlete_. > > Europeans on average may not have as much of a predisposition to it as Jamaicans, but I’d wager the genetic profile of the best European sprinters would have the same ACTN3 and ACE markers as a Jamaican sprinter. So waffling on about proportions of those genes in a population isn’t going to counter the fact that it doesn’t seem to be the deciding factor when looking at an already-cherry-picked pool such as “all national-level sprinters”. > > It’s possible it’s partly [environmental](http://www.caribbeantracklife.com/jamaica-sprinting-prowess), partly cultural - but it’s not pure genetics, that’s for sure. The much-touted sprinting genes are just a necessary requirement to be a good sprinter, they are not a sufficient explanation. For the question “Why Jamaica, specifically” inheritance isn’t the answer. Interesting article. It says that fast-twitch muscles are necessary for fast springing and that those muscles are dependent on having either the “577RR or the weaker form 577RX”, and not the 577XX variant. I also says that the required genes are much more prevalent in West African heredity versus European. This agrees with what I’ve been saying. You seem to allow this for Jamaica. Where we differ, it seems, is that you feel uncomfortable expanding the statement outside of Jamaica. But if you were to remove all Jamaicans from the record books, it wouldn’t much change what we see: that the elite runners have the West African ancestry as opposed to European. As far as the cultural factor in Jamaica, it m ames perfect sense that culture would matter. And no one has said otherwise. The same with diet, environment and training. The article seem to agree with what I and others have been saying, that those things can make someone faster, but unless they have one of those two West African genes, they will not be an elite speedster. Yes, it has to be turned on, as well, but it has to be present before it can be turned on. I’m not sure if, or why, you think the article supports your position and not mine. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/964 "2015-03-26T13:24:21Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > Well, I am not so sure about irrefutable. Earlier I made a comparison between Jamiacan dominance in speedsters and Norwegian dominance of the winter olympics. I am sure people with more knowledge of sports history can point to other snapshots when one nation dominated a sport. > > Of course, one can make the point that Jamaican dominance is greater in their sphere than the Norwegian one. But then where do we draw the line? I think that when looking at this one of the most important things in the egalitarian nature of the sport. Sprinting is a wonderful example in that it 1) everyone does it and 2) it requires very little acquired skill, if any. Winter sports, which necessitate long periods of ample snow and ice are not egalitarian. Huge populations, the majority of the world, is shut out most winter sports. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2015, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/965 "2015-03-26T13:28:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Interesting article. It says that fast-twitch muscles are necessary for fast springing and that those muscles are dependent on having either the “577RR or the weaker form 577RX”, and not the 577XX variant. I also says that the required genes are much more prevalent in West African heredity versus European. This agrees with what I’ve been saying. You seem to allow this for Jamaica. Where we differ, it seems, is that you feel uncomfortable expanding the statement outside of Jamaica. But if you were to remove all Jamaicans from the record books, it wouldn’t much change what we see: that the elite runners have the West African ancestry as opposed to European. But this hasn’t been established – it’s been established that most of the top sprinters are _black_, but it has not been established how much West African or European (or other) ancestry they have. The article on gene variants is very interesting, but it doesn’t say (unless I missed something) that the specific variants being discussed are entirely absent from those with European ancestry – just that they’re less common than for those with West African ancestry. And if they are just less common, then we could presume that there exist some small number of Europeans with the same raw genetic sprinting “potential” as the best Jamaican sprinters, even if they would be harder to find. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2015, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/966 "2015-03-26T13:33:21Z")
From reading the article, it sounds like they’re saying if a bunch of Europeans ate the same diet as residents of the “Cockpit Region” of Jamaica ate (including the specific and unusual mineral combinations in the soil), then some portion of those Europeans would be world-class sprinters, on the level with the best Jamaican sprinters. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/967 "2015-03-26T13:54:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But this hasn’t been established – it’s been established that most of the top sprinters are _black_, but it has not been established how much West African or European (or other) ancestry they have. > > The article on gene variants is very interesting, but it doesn’t say (unless I missed something) that the specific variants being discussed are entirely absent from those with European ancestry – just that they’re less common than for those with West African ancestry. And if they are just less common, then we could presume that there exist some small number of Europeans with the same raw genetic sprinting “potential” as the best Jamaican sprinters, even if they would be harder to find. And? The point is the their is a genetic component, and that component is much more strongly tied to a West Africa heritage. From the info in the article, it is possible that people of European ancestry will, and do, have the one of the two genes in question. And it is possible that if they were raised in Jamaica and then had babies there, and the babies also had one of the two genes, that they’d be very fast runners. But even that assumes full knowledge of all factors at play. I’m really surprised that you seem to challenge this. It seems clear that 1) one must have one of two genes required for someone to be really fast and 2) those two genes appear in people with a West African lineage and a much, much higher rate than in those with a European lineage. And while the article is interesting and sheds light on the topic, it’s certainly not a comprehensive explanation. But it supports my position. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/968 "2015-03-26T13:56:34Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > From reading the article, it sounds like they’re saying if a bunch of Europeans ate the same diet as residents of the “Cockpit Region” of Jamaica ate (including the specific and unusual mineral combinations in the soil), then some portion of those Europeans would be world-class sprinters, on the level with the best Jamaican sprinters. Possibly. But it seems that they would have to have been conceived there a=so their parents would have eaten the right foods, too. But you’re also assuming that we now have perfect knowledge. I doubt that. For one, I’d feel more comfortable if the research was repeated with much larger sample sizes. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2015, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/969 "2015-03-26T14:03:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And? The point is the their is a genetic component, and that component is much more strongly tied to a West Africa heritage. From the info in the article, it is possible that people of European ancestry will, and do, have the one of the two genes in question. And it is possible that if they were raised in Jamaica and then had babies there, and the babies also had one of the two genes, that they’d be very fast runners. But even that assumes full knowledge of all factors at play. > > I’m really surprised that you seem to challenge this. It seems clear that 1) one must have one of two genes required for someone to be really fast and 2) those two genes appear in people with a West African lineage and a much, much higher rate than in those with a European lineage. > > And while the article is interesting and sheds light on the topic, it’s certainly not a comprehensive explanation. But it supports my position. The article supports the position that there may be genetic component, and that West African ancestry may be involved. I’m not sure if the “much, much higher” is supported by the article – it seems that the gene variants are actually pretty common in most populations (including Europeans, and the variants are very, very common among West Africans), but they are “turned on” only rarely. What I’m challenging is the assumption that all black sprinters are of “West African” ancestry, and I’m challenging the rote dismissal of the various other ancestries that are undoubtedly included among the top black sprinters. But this article does a lot more to single out Jamaica as being uniquely special for sprinters than it does for West African ancestry, while acknowledging that West African ancestry may be involved. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/970 "2015-03-26T14:06:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think that when looking at this one of the most important things in the egalitarian nature of the sport. Sprinting is a wonderful example in that it 1) everyone does it and 2) it requires very little acquired skill, if any. Winter sports, which necessitate long periods of ample snow and ice are not egalitarian. Huge populations, the majority of the world, is shut out most winter sports. That is true. However, if we compare, Norwegians still dominate on a per capita basis against other populations with similar climate. For example, Sweden has twice the population of Norway, and half the medals across the board. Finland, half the medals. Post-Soviet Russia, 30 times the population, massive sums thrown at the Olympics, no more medals. Canada, half the medals. The US, just over 80 % of the medals. And how many US winter Olympic medalists have Norwegian genes? Whats more, this tends to apply to both high-skill events such as Biathlon and to less skill dependent ones like cross country. Of course, Jamaicans dominate running more than Norwegians dominate winter events. But that raises the question, if a certain amount of dominance is needed to seek a genetic root for it, how much dominance? ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/971 "2015-03-26T14:29:28Z")
Anyway, as I understand Tomndebb has been trying to point out… Let us assume that there is a hypothetical set of genes that make for maximum potential sprinters, and that the combination of these is 100 times as common in the Jamaican gene pool as it is in the US one. So 1 in 1000 Jamaicans has it, and one in 100 000 Americans. So in Jamaica, there are 3000 people with this gene combination out of a population of 3 million, and in the US there are 3000 people with this gene combination out of a population of 300 million. Then, each nation competes with what 1-5 athletes in a run? All of which will be come from this genetic pool of 3000 people, and none of whom will have a genetic advantage. (Seems to me that being poor at encouraging athletes in a sport is going to count against a country far more heavily than gene pool. Unless you’re totally without the genes, you will find outliers with the right set if you look hard enough) ---
**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:** [March 26, 2015, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/972 "2015-03-26T15:23:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Interesting article. It says that fast-twitch muscles are necessary for fast springing and that those muscles are dependent on having either the “577RR or the weaker form 577RX”, and not the 577XX variant. I also says that the required genes are much more prevalent in West African heredity versus European. This agrees with what I’ve been saying. You seem to allow this for Jamaica. Where we differ, it seems, is that you feel uncomfortable expanding the statement outside of Jamaica. No discomfort. I have no problem with saying that the fast-twitch genes have a higher prevalence in certain populations in West Africa. > [@](#): > > But if you were to remove all Jamaicans from the record books, Why would I want to do that, when it makes my point? > [@](#): > > it wouldn’t much change what we see: that the elite runners have the West African ancestry as opposed to European. Elite runners have **both**. Or you’d only see West Africans in there. > [@](#): > > As far as the cultural factor in Jamaica, it m ames perfect sense that culture would matter. And no one has said otherwise. Not “matter” - be the overwhelmingly most important factor. And that _has_ been disputed. > [@](#): > > The same with diet, environment and training. The first and last come under “culture”, they’re not separate things. > [@](#): > > The article seem to agree with what I and others have been saying, that those things can make someone faster, but unless they have one of those two West African genes, they will not be an elite speedster. Then your reading comprehension is extremely poor. The article is saying the exact opposite - that it doesn’t matter if you have the genes, other people have the genes, you’re less likely be an elite speedster if you’re not _Jamaican_. > [@](#): > > Yes, it has to be turned on, as well, but it has to be present before it can be turned on. That it has to be “turned on” is the whole point of the article. Remember, my point _isn’t_ that fast twitch muscle mutations don’t exist or are not high in West African descendants. It’s that they’re a wholly inadequate explanation for _Jamaican_ dominance in sprints. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure if, or why, you think the article supports your position and not mine. Maybe that’s because your interpretation is at complete odds with what the article actually says. Things like “ **Having the 577RR or 577RX variant of the actinin 3 gene does not explain why Jamaicans dominate in international sprint events.** ” do not agree with your interpretation of what the article is saying. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/973 "2015-03-26T17:07:21Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Remember, my point _isn’t_ that fast twitch muscle mutations don’t exist or are not high in West African descendants. It’s that they’re a wholly inadequate explanation for _Jamaican_ dominance in sprints. Okay, then let’s focus on this. You are of the opinion that the high-twitch genes found in a higher proportion in this elf West African descendants are “a wholly inadequate explanation for _Jamaican_ dominance in sprints.” Well, I agree with that. First, no one has stated an opinion that culture and environment don’t matter. I know I certainly am not and have never been of that mind. Second, it raises a second issue, i.e., why is it that one small subset of those with West African ancestry (Jamaicans) out perform not only those that without the West African ancestry, but also the other groups that share the West African ancestry. I don’t know if anyone has even offered an opinion on that. I certainly don’t know. My guess would be that it’s due to culture and environment. Though I do find it interesting that Usain Bolt doesn’t really look like what a power sprinter usually looked like. He’s much longer and leaner. Don’t know what that means, but I do find it quite interesting. So, on Jamaicans, we seem to agree. The point about looking at elite runners that are NOT Jamaican is that you still wind up with a group of people that 1) have black skin and 2) appear to be of West African ancestry. The first point is unassailable, I think even you’d agree, as would anyone who is not blind. I think you’re argument would be that even though they have black skin, that is no _guarantee_ that they have West African ancestry. I’ll grant that there is no “guarantee”, but I’l like to hear your explanation as to why such a disproportionate percent of the world’s fastest humans simply have black skin. Let’s leave West Africa out of it for a moment. Why do you think that is? ---
**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:** [March 26, 2015, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/974 "2015-03-26T17:25:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The point about looking at elite runners that are NOT Jamaican is that you still wind up with a group of people that 1) have black skin and 2) appear to be of West African ancestry. The first point is unassailable, I think even you’d agree, as would anyone who is not blind. I think you’re argument would be that even though they have black skin, that is no _guarantee_ that they have West African ancestry. I’ll grant that there is no “guarantee”, but I’l like to hear your explanation as to why such a disproportionate percent of the world’s fastest humans simply have black skin. Let’s leave West Africa out of it for a moment. Why do you think that is? Just looking at the [top 25 men’s 100 meters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres#Fastest_100_metres_runners), they are all “black” based on US cultural/visual cues, but have skin tones ranging from light brown to very dark brown. The women’s top 25 includes a handful of Eastern Europeans, one Chinese athlete, and several “black” athletes with a wide variety of skin tones. So it’s unassailable (for the top male sprinters) that they are “black”, but their skin tones vary. As to why, I don’t know. Could be genetics, could be culture, could be a combination. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2015, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/975 "2015-03-26T19:44:00Z")
Way I see it, it’s just more cherry-picking “Well, _if we ignore Jamaica_, where there’s a clear case to be made for non-genetic factors being dominant, well, then it’s clearly tied to the colour of their skin…” Except the same sort of factor that exist in Jamaica likely play out on a lesser scale in all the other places good sprinters come from. Or maybe I’m mistaken and there’s a clear genetic reason why Jamaica, why _not_ Haiti, and more especially, why _not_ Côte d’Ivoire… ---
**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:** [March 27, 2015, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/976 "2015-03-27T01:53:39Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The _reality_ about elite speedsters is that they are overwhelmingly Jamaican. So far, _no_ genetic explanation covers _why_ specifically Jamaica and why not, say, Trinidad. > > Yes, Jamaicans have a high proportion of certain genetic markers for fast-twitch muscles etc. _But so would any elite speed athlete_. > > Europeans on average may not have as much of a predisposition to it as Jamaicans, but I’d wager the genetic profile of the best European sprinters would have the same ACTN3 and ACE markers as a Jamaican sprinter. So waffling on about proportions of those genes in a population isn’t going to counter the fact that it doesn’t seem to be the deciding factor when looking at an already-cherry-picked pool such as “all national-level sprinters”. > > It’s possible it’s partly [environmental](http://www.caribbeantracklife.com/jamaica-sprinting-prowess), partly cultural - but it’s not pure genetics, that’s for sure. The much-touted sprinting genes are just a necessary requirement to be a good sprinter, they are not a sufficient explanation. For the question “Why Jamaica, specifically” inheritance isn’t the answer. Almost nothing is “purely genetics.” What genes do is establish a maximum potential, written upon by nurture. But wrt sprinting/power sports, the question is, “Is there evidence that the average genetic difference for two cohorts is what drives the outcome that we see?” The answer is, “Yes.” And the evidence is overwhelming. When only whites could compete, black athletes were not represented. When blacks were permitted to compete in sports like sprinting, basketball and the NFL, they became disproportionately represented, and not because whites gave up interest, nor because blacks suddenly had superior nurturing. Is there direct genetic evidence? Well there has been a lot of interest in looking at the ACTN gene variants which help govern muscle physiology. Here are a few interesting observations: 1. Frequency of the ACTN3 577X mutation varies by continental source pool. Homozygosity for it is much higher in asians than in sub-saharans, with whites falling somewhere in between. Human migration patterns at out of africa create a divide in frequency for a cohort of “black”; there is debate about whether it is selected for or is a founder/bottleneck/genetic drift, but none of that alters the frequency differential, which is marked. See [here,](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554748/), [here,](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115449) or a summary [here.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180686/) 2. If you are ACTN3 577XX (homozygous for the 577X variant), you will not be a sprinting star against cohorts that include the R variant. 3. Your chances of homozygosity for ACTN3 577XX are much higher if you are white or asian. [Nice graph here.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554748/figure/pone-0052282-g001/) So, in summary, if you self-describe as white, you self-assign to a cohort which has a much higher average frequency for a gene variant which eliminates your chances of having the fastest sprinting time. It is this sort of genetic evidence which perfectly correlates with what we observe, even if we have not worked out every gene and every detail. Against this sort of evidence, you must introduce all sorts of speculation why white sprinters just laid down and gave up. They didn’t. Whites and asians have not slowed down. As nurturing and interest have both improved, whites and asians have improved their times. But not enough to offset the genetic advantage of a cohort with a better gene pool. What happened instead is that a population with superior genetics for the outcome was allowed to compete. ---
**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:** [March 27, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/977 "2015-03-27T02:04:56Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > Anyway, as I understand Tomndebb has been trying to point out… > > Let us assume that there is a hypothetical set of genes that make for maximum potential sprinters, and that the combination of these is 100 times as common in the Jamaican gene pool as it is in the US one. So 1 in 1000 Jamaicans has it, and one in 100 000 Americans. > > So in Jamaica, there are 3000 people with this gene combination out of a population of 3 million, and in the US there are 3000 people with this gene combination out of a population of 300 million. > > Then, each nation competes with what 1-5 athletes in a run? All of which will be come from this genetic pool of 3000 people, and none of whom will have a genetic advantage. > > (Seems to me that being poor at encouraging athletes in a sport is going to count against a country far more heavily than gene pool. Unless you’re totally without the genes, you will find outliers with the right set if you look hard enough) But you are just making up a hypothetical example, and no one knows exactly all the genes involved, along with every detail. What we do know absolutely is that at least a couple of genes are deeply involved in muscle physiology, and that human migration/evolution has diverged the frequencies of variants of those two genes such that there is no chance cohorts without the same average frequency of variants will have outcomes proportionate to their populations. Genes affect maximum performance potential. Black, white and asian cohorts have different average frequencies of genes. Evolution diverges. Were it not for the risk that a door is slammed shut on a blind faith in egalitarianism, no one would look at the outcome for sprinting and be shy about saying that genes are at play for the disproportionate representation of blacks, whites and asians. What’s the nurturing explanation alternative? That whites and asians aren’t trying? They are faster than ever, as their nurturing is maximized and the starting pool is broadened by beating the candidate bushes for young runners (think China, or E Germany). But genes win. And no amount of nurturing advantage is going to change that. If you want to completely eliminate any whites at an international level, look for source pools from the same west african ancestry that the Jamaicans have. Don’t bother the Inuit (or the Kalenjin or Mbuti, for that matter). What we have here is mother nature doling out the best sprinting genes to a given population, and when we compare that population against pretty much all the eurasian ones, they are gonna kick ass. I love genes. Wish I had better ones. ---
**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:** [March 27, 2015, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/978 "2015-03-27T02:11:44Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Way I see it, it’s just more cherry-picking “Well, _if we ignore Jamaica_, where there’s a clear case to be made for non-genetic factors being dominant, well, then it’s clearly tied to the colour of their skin…” > > Except the same sort of factor that exist in Jamaica likely play out on a lesser scale in all the other places good sprinters come from. > > Or maybe I’m mistaken and there’s a clear genetic reason why Jamaica, why _not_ Haiti, and more especially, why _not_ Côte d’Ivoire… If Haitian genes parallel Jamaican ones (and I have no idea if they do), then make nurturing equivalent there and they would compete on par, sure. The Jamaican model for identifying and grooming track stars is pretty darn good for a relatively underfunded nation. It’s nowhere as good as being white in New York, or asian in Beijing, but it ain’t bad…and I suspect is vastly superior to Haiti. ---
**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:** [March 27, 2015, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/979 "2015-03-27T02:21:39Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > When only whites could compete, black athletes were not represented. When blacks were permitted to compete in sports like sprinting, basketball and the NFL, they became disproportionately represented, and not because whites gave up interest, nor because blacks suddenly had superior nurturing. Do blacks with more African ancestry perform better than blacks with more European ancestry. > [@](#): > > Is there direct genetic evidence? Well there has been a lot of interest in looking at the ACTN gene variants which help govern muscle physiology. Here are a few interesting observations: > > 1. Frequency of the ACTN3 577X mutation varies by continental source pool. Homozygosity for it is much higher in asians than in sub-saharans, with whites falling somewhere in between. Human migration patterns at out of africa create a divide in frequency for a cohort of “black”; there is debate about whether it is selected for or is a founder/bottleneck/genetic drift, but none of that alters the frequency differential, which is marked. See [here,](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554748/), [here,](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115449) or a summary [here.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180686/) > > 2. If you are ACTN3 577XX (homozygous for the 577X variant), you will not be a sprinting star against cohorts that include the R variant. > > 3. Your chances of homozygosity for ACTN3 577XX are much higher if you are white or asian. [Nice graph here.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554748/figure/pone-0052282-g001/) > > So, in summary, if you self-describe as white, you self-assign to a cohort which has a much higher average frequency for a gene variant which eliminates your chances of having the fastest sprinting time. Based on the numbers in the cites, there should be plenty of whites and Asians (if not as many, proportionally) with the “right” genes for sprinting. > [@](#): > > It is this sort of genetic evidence which perfectly correlates with what we observe, even if we have not worked out every gene and every detail. It doesn’t “perfectly” correlate. The numbers from those cites don’t match perfectly (or particularly close) the disparities in the top sprinters. > [@](#): > > Against this sort of evidence, you must introduce all sorts of speculation why white sprinters just laid down and gave up. They didn’t. Whites and asians have not slowed down. As nurturing and interest have both improved, whites and asians have improved their times. But not enough to offset the genetic advantage of a cohort with a better gene pool. > > What happened instead is that a population with superior genetics for the outcome was allowed to compete. Then it should be easy to answer the question about whether black sprinters with more West African ancestry perform better than black sprinters with less. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/980 "2015-03-27T09:11:02Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > But you are just making up a hypothetical example, and no one knows exactly all the genes involved, along with every detail. > > What we do know absolutely is that at least a couple of genes are deeply involved in muscle physiology, and that human migration/evolution has diverged the frequencies of variants of those two genes such that there is no chance cohorts without the same average frequency of variants will have outcomes proportionate to their populations. What you are saying here is not wrong. However, it misses the point I was trying to clarify, in the post you replied to: **Average** gene frequencies of such genes in a population are irrelevant to the performance of top athletes. They are all drawn from a pool of total outliers, and in no way representative of the average. Or to rephrase: The very top athletes are selected on the basis which includes having high-performance genetics for a sport. Unless a countrys frequency of a such a gene variant is low to the point of nullity, or their ability to identify and nurture talents in a sport is very poor indeed, the people with the best performance will rise to the top. A process that will select for advantageous gene variants. Also, there are 3 million people in Jamaica, 91 % with West African heritage. There are 223 million people in the US who identifies as “White”. With 3 % of the genes of this group being of West African origin, there should be more than twice as many of these genes in the US white group as there are in Jamaica. ---
**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:** [March 27, 2015, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/981 "2015-03-27T12:05:15Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > I am saying that the difference in academic achievement is very large and visible in the US. If it was genetically based, we’d see a similar difference in other nations where there are groups of west African extraction. Instead we observe either no difference (Scandinavia, Netherlands) or a far smaller difference. (UK). > > Along with the fact that academic achievement seem less inheritable in US blacks, this is consistent with the cultural explanation, but not the genetic one. Do you have a cite for your Scandinavian example, and what are the cohorts you are comparing for standardized tests (not graded exams)? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948.md?page=48) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948.md?page=50)