I’ve pointed out previously that the discussion seem very America-centric. The difference in academic achievement seem pretty large. I was unaware of just how large until I read this thread. The idea that this difference simply goes invisible and unnoticed as soon as you get outside the U.S. cultural environment is somewhat strange.
Also, even if we had incontrovertible evidence of such relative average differences in speed, it would mean nothing unless we also knew that academic ability was inherited in exactly the same way, by the same number of genes and the same pleiotopies.
You’re conflating two different issues. As far as the speed issue, I’ve seen no one claim that blacks or people with West African heritage are, on average, faster. The discussion goes to the elite speedsters. The average might be higher, or maybe not. That’s immaterial to 1) observing that the elite speedsters are disproportionately black (of West African heritage), and 2) the reason for that.
Given the disparity, and the egalitarian nature of running, the argument that the difference is to to some thing non-genetic seems absurd. As you say, maybe there is so magic strand of DNA that is present in those with West African heritage. It may be that that strand gets “turned on” or gets more powerful with the present of some strand of DNA more prevalent in European DNA. Who knows? But the facts are what they are: if you’re going to be one of the 100 tastes humans, you’re very, very, very, very likely to have black skin and be of West African heritage.
Well, almost meaningless. You make a good point, but the genetic issue about elite speedsters simply goes to the fact that genes can be the determining factor in performance. Going further than that basic position when looking at intelligence is poor logic.
What I see here is some posters wanting the speed issue to not be true for fear that it will bolster those offering a hypothesis about intelligence. While I understand their motivation, they are arguing from a position of emotion. It really does not help their case because the reality about elite speedsters is irrefutable.
It seems to me that you are seeing your own strawmen and the objection to the observation have been to the strong implied assumption that it is the african genes, when the populatoins looked at are not very coherent.
In effect it seems more like the american posters are arguing from a position of myopia and advancing the strong exclusive genetic hypotheses based on some american cases without a good logic and without anything but an ad hoc evidence.
It does not help the case when you make statements that are not very coherent.
It is clear that a set of the sprinters from the americas are dominant. These sprinters, they are of a mixed Americas heritage. But to these posters, black is black is black…
from this some americans are making the leap that it is the west african gentic heritage (which west african genetic heritage?? - no importance they do not see any differences…) without any attention to the confounding factors. And then they start waving their hands and asserting it is denying reality of genetics when… the evidence is not genetics, but a narrow sport result that is not even observable as an effect outside the americas populations…
It is not very coherent or logical to make a strong conclusion about the west african heritage when the pool of the sprinters is in a clear way not of a clear heritage.
this is very different from the example of the east african marathoners from a few very discrete ethnic groups - so discrete and dominant one can not accurately say the Kenyans or the eithiopians.
there is not a fear of anything, it is merely that there is a difference from seeing the specific genetics examples and the incoherent black is blakc is black ad hoc assumptions. the objection I see is the strange one drop implicit thinking of the americans, for a population that often looks very Toubab to any african.
I am conflating nothing. The claims regarding the speedsters are offered, (and have been offered in this thread), to indicate that different groups, as groups, might have different qualities and that it probably indicates that one of those categories is average intelligence. Since we are talking about an outlier group, (Your “elite speedsters”), we have no information regarding the average speed or intelligence the populations from which they arise.
Which has no bearing on the discussion of average intelligence–or even any speed–of any population of the world.
I am specifically noting that the analogy of speed and intelligence, when applied to races , (or SIRE groups), is useless. We have only the information regarding the outliers in regard to speed. The one group that we can identify for marathon speed demonstrates a high probability of a genetic base, given that we know exactly the population that is producing them and we know that it is a small, limited population.
We have no such similar information regarding the sprinters from the West of Africa, beyond a general awareness of their ancestry some time in the last 400 years, so a specific genetic source is not as available.
However, even if we found that the matter was one of genetics, the information appears to be only in regard to outliers of the population. You cannot simply grab any 50 kids out of Harlem, Watts, or the defunct Cabrini-Green and assume that some percentage of them are good enough to join the NBA. When pointing at world class sprinters and NBA players, you are looking at the best of the best. That says nothing about the average person in the population. Pointing to that sort of “evidence” to claim that “blacks” are better sprinters or basketball players is false. Trying to analogize that false position to claim that “blacks,” on average, might just be dumber than “whites,” on average, is a misapplication of bad data.
What is irrefutable? The fact that most of the best sprinters are black? Sure, that’s irrefutable. Something about West African genes? Not irrefutable – black doesn’t = West African, and most of the best sprinters probably have ancestry from multiple continents. For us to conclude that it must necessarily have something to do with West African genes (and I think this is what you are insisting), we would have to know how much West African ancestry the best sprinters have in comparison to average black people, and whether more West African ancestry among black sprinters correlates to faster times, and more information specifically about West African ancestry.
We don’t know how much of the best sprinters’ ancestry is West African. It’s definitely not zero – but neither is their European ancestry.
You are mischaracterizing the discussion. Either inadvertently or intentionally, I don’t know which.
I have seen no one here claim that one group has an average running ability, speed wise, that is greater or less than another group. None. Maybe I missed something you saw. So, I’ll ask you to supply quotes for those who have made such a claim. I recall exactly 0.
The issue of elite speedsters is only part of the discussion to demonstrate that the genetics of one group can separate the group from the general population when it come to a specific metric of performance: speed. There are two different aspects to that:
A) those with West African ancestry, are on average, faster than those with European ancestry
B) those with West African ancestry have a higher likelihood of being one of the very fastest humans, i.e., you probably are going to be of West African ancestry if you want to train to win the 100-meter dash in the Olympics.
Again no one has stated “A”. You think otherwise, so, cite?
Irrefutable" there is a ridiculously high correlation between the West African ancestry and the world’s fastest sprint times. To be clear, if you look at the individuals that hold the record for the 100 fastest humans, they you will see black skin and West African ancestry. NO ONE is claiming the inverse is true, that if you look at black skin and West African ancestry, you are just about guaranteed to find a world-class sprinter.
Is this all you’re saying? I thought you were insisting that it was obviously (and irrefutably) West African genes responsible.
I’m not sure if the correlation is “ridiculously high” between West African ancestry and the fastest sprint times, but it’s extremely high between the social signifier of “black” and the fastest sprint times. Since we don’t know the relative levels of ancestry (including which part of Africa) of each sprinter, I don’t think we can say for sure that the correlation is “ridiculously high” for West African ancestry.
Probably, but you’ll also see brown skin and European ancestry, and maybe some slightly lighter skin and Native American ancestry too (not to mention ancestry from other parts of Africa). We don’t know what percentage of each sprinter’s ancestry is from West Africa (or other parts of Africa). It’s probably high, but the percentage of European ancestry is also probably pretty significant.
But we DO know that if you don’t exhibit blackness and have West African genes in a higher percent than those that exhibit whiteness, you are much, much, much less apt to find yourself in the list of 100 fastest human.
Yes or no?
You might as well argue that this tallest trees are just as apt to be dogwoods or oaks as Redwoods or Giant Sequoias.
So, in your own words, you are making the point that I note is erroneous. You simply drop the word “average” and insert the unsupportable phrase “separate the group from the general population.”
If you meant that the separated group included only the list of high speed sprinters, then your statement would be tautological and irrelevant to the discussion of group intelligence.
However, in a discussion of the relative intelligence of large populations, a small group of high speed sprinters does not separate their group that happens to include those sprinters from any other groups. The sprinters are a small subset within the larger group, but they do not indicate any general trait within their group.
Tay-Sachs can be more easily found among Ashkenazi Jews, French Canadians of southeast Quebec, and Louisiana Cajuns. It can occur within any population, but those groups have the highest rates. Discovering Tay-Sachs says nothing about the general population of Ashkenazi Jews, French Canadians, or Cajuns. That one can more easily find it in those populations does nothing to separate those populations from other groups. It can be found, if rarely, in any group. If one is a member of one of those groups who does not carry that genetic information, one is no different, in that regard, from being an outsider to those groups.
Bringing either speed or Tay-Sachs into a discussion of relative group intelligence is a red herring that serves no purpose.
Yes for “blackness”, no (or at least we don’t know) for “West African genes”. Again – do the top black sprinters have more West African ancestry than other black sprinters? Or the best black NBA players vs other black NBA players?
Can you help me out w/ what “one drop” means, and what it has to do with the contention that, because self-identified blacks are overrepresented in the NBA, and because all groups have access and inclination, it’s likely that gene variants within the black population are driving that success?
The NBA, sprinting, and power muscle burst sports such as the NFL are useful examples in the US because for those sports, it can be shown that both white and black cohorts have both the inclination and opportunity to become stars in them. Yet the observed outcome, once blacks gained access, is a complete reversal of the proportionate population.
For marathon running, I suggest you read the chapter in Epstein’s Sports Gene book (or maybe the whole book).
This has nothing to do with “black is black.”
It is a common misperception that when studying two cohorts for genetically-driven skillsets, the cohorts must be genetically monolithic. One can readily show more diversity within self-identifed blacks (as a world population) than any other group; indeed it would not be unusual for any given black to be as genetically “removed” from another black as he is to any given white.
But the question is not whether or not “black is black.” It’s whether or not the difference in performance outcome in self-identified cohorts is genetic.
The answer to that is “yes,” for reasons that have been elucidated upthread. These are two cohorts that have an average separation of 65,000 years for their source populations, and in the US (for example) these cohorts are not nearly homogenized by recent migrations. So whether we are looking at gene variants driving appearance, physiology (creatine kinase, e.g.), disease (sickle cell or cystic fibrosis) or any other of 1,800 gene variants (see the Eric Wang link upthread), they are different pools with different gene variant averages, driving different average outcomes.
No, Tom, you’re hearing things wrong. No one is saying or has said that support for the proposition that blacks, on average, may be less intelligent do to genetics can be found in the sprinting world because in that sprinting world the average speed for blacks is greater than the average speed for whites, or any other group.
No, no one is saying that.
What they are saying is that fundamental to the notion that one group may be less intelligent than another group (on average) is the idea that a particular group (“race” for the purposes of this discussion, but let’s not get hung up on that right now) can and does outperform others due to genetics. One way that might be expressed is in the group’s average performance. Another way that may be expressed is when looking at the group’s best performers and compare to=them to the best performers from other groups. That is the point being made. There has been no claim about speed performance except at the elite level. The average speed for blacs may be greater than that of other groups. Or it may not. But no one has put forth that proposition nor has any evidence been presented to suggest that it is in any way part of the discussion.
This is silly. Looking to an outlier sub-group simply does nothing to indicate characteristics of a group. That you continue to press this point while denying that it is the point you are making is just odd.
Everyone recognizes that Tay-Sachs appears more frequently among Ashkenazim, but it would be utterly silly to declare that Ashkenazim are more sick than Mizrahim, to say nothing of Anglo-Saxons. That sort of misguided claim only seem to appear when someone wishes to employ bad logic to make claims about intelligence or “natural abilities.”
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, 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.
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 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.
Or to elaborate a little: In the case of the cultural explanation we’d probably expect a much smaller gap in achievement outside the US. This gap would be larger in nations more heavily penetrated by US culture (Anglophones) and in nations with their own social disadvantaging for blacks.
We’d expect a much smaller to nonexistent gap in nations with less exposure to US culture and less/different racial fractures. (I.e European countries heavily prejudiced against Roma but with no special feelings about blacks -> we expect the Roma to do worse)
Wereas if the genetic explanation is correct, we’d expect to see a large consistent gap across nationalities and cultures, with much less variation from local circumstances.
