If so, missed it, but here is the Eric Wang paper I was referencing.
But if the european genes were doing the contributing, we would not see blacks overtake whites in this arena. It’s the west african gene content that drives the self-identification.
If it were european genes driving success, the proportion of successful sprinters would remain at least proportionate to the wannabe pool, which is overwhelmingly white.
Certainly, on average, because self-described blacks perform better than self-described whites, and we know that average ancestry proportion, at least for the US cohorts.
And we also know it is not european genes driving success because the highest performance outcome is not white; it’s black.
You could create some other cohort by measuring actual admixtures, but there’s no need to. You already know which source pool has the best genes for sprinting.
While it’s true top athletes are outliers, it’s not true the observed pattern occurs only in those outliers.
If we were to take sprinting, basketball or football, we’d see generally the same pattern at every level of progression from grade school on.
WRT Jamaica, I do not discount that they root out every candidate more rigorously than does the US. What you won’t find is a proportionate number of white Jamaicans becoming elite sprinters there, nor a proportionate number of white US kids become elite sprinters in the US.
Genes; and it’s just not that hard to account for nurturing among cohorts for sports that return very high rewards.
To argue for nurturing, you have to postulate that whites aren’t interested, don’t get rewarded for success, don’t care about stardom, and so on. And that is more than a stretch.
TY. Not sure if it’s the same. You linked to this earlier but I can’t get anything to load: htttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.169.5750
Ohhh I see. Extra t in the link. I’ll flag it for a mod.
That means broad sports results from grade school on, an athletic equivalent to SATs could be used to indicate a different range of average genes suited to these sports. While the results of top athletes, hand-picked for characteristics that include genes very different from the average, cannot.
That is actually an argument against a genetic root for the differences. With a 3 % admixture of west African genes into the US white gene pool, the pool is so large that there is going to be a group of outliers which have the west African “sports” genes.
Assuming this group is going to be subject to the same processes in school and life, it should produce up elite runners with the same genetic advantages as African Americans. The only reason why the white US population would not produce elite runners whose African gene percentage includes just those genes is culture.
You could also argue that whites have had more paths to success open to them. Most cheetah hunts end in failure because the cheetah is running for his dinner, and the antelope is running for his life. Motivation matters. The man who has only one path out of poverty will go more heavily into it than the one who has backups.
If it were some factor resulting from a combination of ancestries, then that could cause the current disparities. So could various cultural and environmental factors.
It still might be genetics, but we don’t know that for sure – much less that it’s something specific about West African genetics.
In the US, most self-described blacks have a variety of ancestries. So it may not be West African genetics that are the cause.
The highest outcome could be some ancestry mix (that appears “black”) and we wouldn’t know it.
No we don’t – it could be a combination of ancestries that appear “black” (even some ‘perfect’ mix like 70% West African, 10% Central African, 10% European, and 10% Native American that gives the best chance for the best sprinting genes), it could be some cultural factor, it could be some quirk of diet or upbringing, etc.
There’s certainly a case to be made for genetics – even some genetic evidence in the form of those genes that have been discussed before. But that’s not enough to conclude that it’s just West African genes.
No one is making that assumption, and no one is dismissing other possible ancestries. “On average” is different from “all”.
Please tell us you recognize this.
Regards,
Shodan
Apparently you haven’t been reading CP’s posts, in which he explicitly discounts any possible contribution from other ancestries.
Recommend that you do.
Regards,
Shodan
I have read them. He says things like this -
And please don’t sign your posts with my name.
Regards,
Shodan
He also says things like this:
So he discounts that any genes other than West African could possibly be contributing.
To survive the Shodan-level of smugness, you must become the Shodan-level of smugness.
Regards,
Shodan
Black, White, Green, Purple, West African, European, Martian or Lilliputian, please tell me you realize how lame that is.
:rolleyes:
You just don’t realize the majesty and grandeur of Shodan’s epic smugness. It’s okay – it took me a while to recognize it too.
Not here you don’t. Warning issued and never do it again.
Understood. Apologies, Shodan.
No worries he replied smugly.
Regards,
Shodan
To get back to the discussion, it seems to me that CP is explicitly rejecting the possibility of any other genetic explanation other than West African genetics as the cause of the disparities in athletic outcomes. While I think the genetic explanation is a reasonable hypothesis (though I’m not ready to conclude that it’s the best one) for disparities in athletics, in light of the cited information about genes that are specifically tied to sprinting ability, there could be other genetic causes (as well as cultural and environmental causes such as whatever is helping Jamaicans dominate the sport) that would be consistent with the disparities – I’ve offered the possibility that some combination of various populations of African, European, and Native American ancestry might provide some individuals with the best chance of ‘maximum sprinting potential’ based on various genes that are more or less common on average in these different groups.
Not that this tells us anything about the main topic (intelligence) of this thread.
Finland has (or used to have) the highest per capita representation in Internet activity.
Has to be genetic!
100 years ago, europeans ruled the sprinting sports scene and helped themselves to the glory of success.
When sprinting was opened up to blacks, europeans lost their domination. I see no evidence they ceded their glory voluntarily.
The average gene pools of those two cohorts have been separate by 65,000 years.
White times for sprinting have not slowed down. Whites haven’t lost a taste for sprinting glory. White advantages for optimum pursuit of glory have not been diminished.
A much simpler thing has happened: a new gene pool in the mix. And all the genetic science to date supports that there are broad average differences for the specific physiology driving success.
Your whackamole list of possible nurturing explanations implies there is some sort of cyclical rotation for various cohorts as these nurturing influences ebb and fade.
Nothing in the real world suggests that. Nothing. The reward for sports glory is insanely high for all. When the entry gate is opened, the genetically gifted can, and do, excel.