Well, let’s think about that. Consider the following. Let’s take two different populations and test them for some attribute. After testing, the scores for the attribute fall along the standard normal curve, but the curve is slightly offset for the two groups. Let’s say the median for group A is one point better than that for group B, but everything else - standard deviation, kurtosis, etc - is the same.
While the difference in the attribute would have no practical consequence in the day to day lives of the two populations, at the tail end of the distribution, i.e., the elite end, there would be considerable differences between the two populations. I think we’re in agreement so far.
So the question becomes - will the 1 point difference essentially eliminate the lower tested group from the elite levels? And what if the population for the lower tested group, Group B, was, say, 8 times greater than group A? What would you expect the makeup of the elite group to be?
I suspect that someone with enough of a statistical background could give a definitive answer to this.
**EL Zanga **think of it like this: If you want say that some Athletic skill is genetically pre-determined and that is the driving factor and that’s it and you pick the 8 top guys at it in the world – through multiple trials and events be it long jump, high jump, whatever you can’t have 25%ish from other geneotypes. That can’t happen. If it does we would have to say *has *to be more complex than that.
**
Really Not All That Bright** -You clearly don’t understand the argument going on and I am not sure how to respond. I guess its best to say : If you see something above you disagree with form a real non-bombastic argument against it and I will try to respond.
I’m afraid you just don’t understand his point which is clear as a bell to me. Your argument requires looking at attributes of whole populations to make any sense at all, while his argument focus’s on bell curve outliers which is far more relevant to the discussion when we are talking about elite athletes.
One can measure the sprinting speed of healthy 20-year-old men in meters per second and then plot the result in a graph. The result will be bell shaped, with most people falling in the middle, and smaller numbers of outliers on the right and left sides of the curve.
For various reasons, it is very likely that the distribution can be approximately but reasonably accurately modeled with a so-called “normal” distribution, which has certain mathematical properties.
Now, suppose one asserts that Group X is slightly faster than Group Y. What that means is that the distribution curve for group X is slightly to the right of the distribution curve for Group Y.
What are the mathematical implications of such a difference? Well, among average people, there won’t be much of a noticeable difference. But as you look at more and more elite groups of sprinters, you would expect to see higher and higher proportions of people from Group X, compared to their numbers in the general population.
(This is a result of simple mathematics that you can learn in a basic class on statistics. It’s really not that complicated, but to some it may seem counter-intuitive.)
Indeed, in American and international track and field, I do see this sort of a pattern, looking at high school track and field; NCAA track and field; international track and field; and Olympic competition.
Also, I feel pretty confident in predicting that you would see a similar pattern if you looked at running-back type football positions (which require a lot of speed) in high school football; NCAA football; and the NFL.
There’s no rationality involved in such an assessment. Moon was black as far as football was concerned.
When he came out, the dominant style of offense in the NFL required dropback passers with strong arms. Moon was a scrambler, and that meant his arm was considered suspect, properly or not.
Has the OP noticed that there are now quite a few white receivers in the league? Racial profiling is breaking down all over.
Warren Moon may be of Samoan descent but he was born in LA. I highly doubt more than a couple of the coaches/general managers who spurned him had any idea he was Samoan (if he was- Google doesn’t seem to know much about his ancestry).
“Quite a few”?
There were two white wide receivers starting in the NFL this season - Kevin Curtis of the Eagles, and Joe Jurevicius of the Browns. There are four if you count slot receivers on teams which run a lot of 3-wide formations, as the list then swells to include Wes Welker of the Pats and Anthony Gonzalez of the Colts. Brandon Stokley started a few games for the Broncos while Javon Walker was injured. We’ll include Matt Jones of the Jaguars, who used to start and at least appeared in every game this season.
That makes six. There are 32 NFL teams, each starting at least 2 wideouts…
So we’ve got six white guys (by the most generous accounting, out of a possible 64.
No! Nobody is saying that! We’re saying that certain athletic skills are genetically influenced and that certain groups appear to be more inclined than others to have these genetic attributes. Big difference between being pre-determined and influenced.
I think you’re making the same mistake as jimmmy. The fact that there are *some *white receivers in the NFL in no way undermines the genetic argument.
Flying Dutchman the “mistake” that I think you are making is saying that “groups” of people that you are identifying as African/black have an inherent genetic advantage over whites in speed. You are saying that – right? If I am mischaracterizing it tell me.
Now don’t turn that around and try and talk about Bell Curves or that I am saying you are saying all blacks are faster than all whites. I am not saying that you are saying that - OK? I don’t wish to keep going over and over that. I think I am being fair in saying that the first paragraph is your argument.
If it is, I think it can be demonstrated to be false simply by showing that the World Championships - are 25% white as roughly all International Track Championships/men and women turn out to be. Your answer to that is to mischaracterize it & to provide some variant answer as in the second paragraph - I don’t see that as a logical answer. You apparently do, if that is your answer lets agree to disagree.
ElZanaga we may be close to some agreement. If all you want to say is that genes may be one influence among many complex factors then I am with you.
When we began to debate, I say it is hard to talk about meaningfully in these discussions. I said that because, I don’t doubt you know this, the genes of the Black guys lined up are likely to be more different than the genes of the white guys. There is a great deal of genetic diversity in Africa and, by comparison almost homogeneity outside of it. If fact, if the entire world disappeared except sub-Saharan Africans almost all of the worlds’ human genetic diversity would still be preserved – they use the number 99% in peer reviewed journals.
So how are we going to identify the “groups” that people would identify as athletically superior? An example: the odds would be pretty overwhelming that those 5 “black” guys lined up at the world Championship last year were more genetically different from each other than they were from the white guys or the Cuban black guy. That’s amazing isn’t it? But the odds are its true. That makes talking about genes and athletic ability very difficult to talk about in any meaningful way – no?
Given that the whites would be very close to genetically homogenous and the “blacks” and black Cuban genetically diverse – you might even say the genotype most represented at this elite level are the genotype shared by the whites – we couldn’t be sure by eyeballing it – we would need to do genetic tests to prove it – but the odds are that would prove to be true.
This isn’t some squishy sensitivity seminar offered by an associate Berkley “Professor of Diversity” this is the hardest peer-reviewed science on earth.
For what it’s worth, you are in the wrong here. If Group X has a slight advantage in speed over Group Y, it does not necessarily follow that the fastest people in the world will all come from Group X.
To see why, you would need to unerstand that “bell curve” stuff, which apparently you are not interested in.
You guys don’t go back very far, do you? It wasn’t all that long ago you couldn’t name 5 white WR’s or 5 black QB’s in the NFL, because there weren’t any at all.
I understand what you are saying. Flying Dutchman and others are saying that that “groups” of people that they are identifying as African/black have an inherent genetic advantage over whites in speed. They are not quantifying as* a slight advantage.* They are saying that there is an inherent genetic advantage in speed in being black (NB I am not saying that they are saying all Blacks are faster than all whites or anything like that). Given that isn’t the burden of a 25% outlier an argument against that? It is an argument that more is going on than genes - right? (and to be accurate 25% at the elite end isn’t a true Bell Curve and saying a distribution curve would be more accurate but I didn’t want to be a d^ck about it).
If you think that all the variation can be explained by genes God Bless you. I understand what you are saying but I think that is wacky.
Join The Coffee Achievers! Bengals QB Kenny Anderson did, as did Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Why do we see the same race at different quirky American novelist positions?
Oooooooh! here’s one more spot. Jane Curtain reminds us that with coffee, “you can do it.”
I have no idea what your point is here.