Occam's razor does rather explain it.
It doesnt, because its not even the most simple explanation.
Ok,My reasoning is that with greater genetic diversity, i.e. a wider distribution, you will see greater extremes, faster and slower, taller and shorter etc. Overall, the average between two groups can be the same.
Boys' and girls' educational attaiment is an often cited example, whether true or not.
Your explanation is "because Occam's razor"
Ok,My reasoning is that with greater genetic diversity, i.e. a wider distribution, you will see greater extremes, faster and slower, taller and shorter etc. Overall, the average between two groups can be the same.
A fair point I'll grant you. And you may well be correct. Equally if one set of variables contains a greater proportion of higher valued variables than another then it's more likely that when the two sets are combined then a proportion of the higher variables (of the two sets) are likely to come from one group rather than the other. Apologies for my poor attempt at an explanation!!
To be honest, I don't know the exact answer, and to be even more honest I don't think it's of any great importance.
[quote=kennyp ]I don't know
I'm glad to see some self-awareness.
[quote=kennyp ]
Lots of idiots conflating correlation with causation on here.
Sorry, but I don't debate with people who resort to calling people they don't agree with 'idiots'.
Well to be fair, it's a factual statement - people confusing correlation with causation are idiots. Does it bother you because you do confuse the two?
Well to be fair, it's a factual statement - people confusing correlation with causation are idiots. Does it bother you because you do confuse the two?
Like I said to the other chap, I don't debate with people who resort to that. I don't agree with Charlie but at least he is polite.
Id like to mention that even if certain traits can be found in a higher instances in certain races, we're talking about averages and slight shifts in normal variation.... meaning that there are plenty of black people with small dicks.
Where as some of you lot seem to be deriving pleasure from being able to say something offensive and then defending it.... "cuz its the truuuth"... as if it's clever. You are simply repeating the old phenomena where racists hid behind genetics and various pseudosciences.
As the saying goes, what horrors would walk the streets if peoples faces were as unfinished as their minds.
I don't agree with Charlie but at least he is polite.
And bingo, I got you. You wont debate with someone who called you an idiot because its impolite but you are happy to offend others.
[img] 
[/img]
[quote=kennyp ]To be honest, I don't know the exact answer, and to be even more honest I don't think it's of any great importance.
So unimportant that you've written multiple posts arguing about it? Let me remind you that your entrance to this thread was heralded with:
"I'm not expert on physiology but spend even a little time watching the Olympics and it become fairly obvious that black people are generally better runners than whites (other races are available) whereas white people are better swimmers than black." - where you're attributing group attributes due to the performance of a small elite, a distinction you think is of no great importance (or am I misunderstanding what it is you think is unimportant?)
Anyway, this fast black men business is clearly a recent physiological development
You find that offensive? oh the ironic lolz.Are you a creepy white male attempting to Asian women 20 years your younger?
Tom, you really don’t GET this written word thing , do you? (Again!)
Good Greif, meant, do people actually do that! Does that make better sense to you now? Oh yeah....lolz!
[quote=CharlieMungus ]Anyway, this fast black men business is clearly a recent physiological development
I think that is how genetics works.
The whole point in this is.....you have to decide if the principle stereotyping an entire section of the population based on the attributes of some of them is right or wrong.
You can't have "positive" stereotyping but not negative stereotyping. You can only have stereotyping or not.
Tom, you really don’t GET this written word thing , do you? (Again!)Good Greif, meant, do people actually do that! Does that make better sense to you now? Oh yeah....lolz!
Ok, I apologise rockape 😛
I just thought you'd found the language used - a little bit - errr low brow? Or it was a sarcastic good grief.
This is why smileys are amazing useful on the internet. 😀
Assume the weather is a bit pants back in Blighty.... Why else would you be getting so wound up about such a load of bollocks?
Is it racist? I don't think so. Twenty years ago he'd have been "our **** genius" rather than "our Belgian" genius, it's probably progress.
Is it puerile "humour" that most people grew out of a couple of years after puberty? Yes it is. Football chants are always so intellectually highbrow, aren't they.
The excerpt from Adam Rutherford's brilliant book (A brief history of everyone who's ever lived) mentioned earlier
In sport, similar ideas doggedly persist, despite science. There hasn’t been a white man in the Olympic 100 metres final since Allan Wells won in Moscow in 1980. African American athletes have provided 13 of the top twenty speeds in the 100 metres in history (the other seven were also by black men, Canadian or Jamaican), and they boycotted the games that year, as the Cold War was as chilly as it would get. These types of numbers have fuelled a notion that the prowess and success of black people in sports is a biological, and therefore genetic advantage that they have over white athletes. Recall Jesse Owens standing on the podium of the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany having won the 100 metres in 10.3 seconds, and three other gold medals. Later, Dean Cromwell, the assistant coach to Owen’s team, would attribute this beautiful act of sporting defiance to a crude manifestation of biological destiny:The Negro excels in the events he does because he is closer to the primitive than the white man. It was not long ago that his ability to sprint and jump was a life-and-death matter to him in the jungle.
The power of that victory in front of a racist murderous regime is sadly undermined by the racism that belittles the achievement itself. Attitudes such as these are extremely common within sports and in the public. Matthew Huey and Devon Goss, two sociologists from the University of Connecticut, forensically took apart a century of attitudes to sporting success of black people, and found that a genetic advantage was a persistent theme.
Throughout the twentieth century, theories arose that attempted to explain the apparently disproportionately high presence of successful black sportsmen. The most persistent is the idea that black people have a higher proportion of ‘fast twitch’ muscle fibres, a type of subcellular protein that is involved with explosive movement. Of course ‘black’ is virtually meaningless for the purposes of this argument. The genes that confer skin pigmentation are few, but mask a level of deeper genetic variation within Africa than without. That a Namibian and a Nigerian have more similar skin colour than either do to a Swede masks the fact that the majority of their genes are more dissimilar to each other than they are to that same Swede. So if the main classifier is skin colour, the differences that underlie dark skin are too great to support an argument of generic athletic superiority. We know, for example, that in parts of Africa, notably the highlands of Ethiopia, many longstanding populations have genetic adaptations to living at altitude. In that specific regard, these people are more genetically similar to Tibetans than to any other Africans, all of whom we would collectively typically describe as black. But this characteristic is unusual in sub-Saharan Africans in general. All other things being equal (which of course they never are) my genetic ability to process oxygen via a gene called ACE is no different from most Africans, though not many East Africans. Similarly, a particular version of the gene alpha-actinin-3, which is associated with the fast-twitch muscle fibre, is present in successful black sprinters, but is not exclusive to Africans, or indeed any particular regional or cultural group within Africa. A thorough 2014 review by the Brazilian sports scientist Rodrigo Vancini of the scientific literature on the genetics of African athletes concluded that the studies of the variation in these two genes, the ones most frequently associated with black sporting success, ‘do not fully explain the success of these athletes. It seems unlikely that Africa is producing unique genotypes that cannot be found in other parts of the world.’ Part of the cultural argument is based around the possibility that slavery bred in these physical capabilities. The idea that underlies this assertion is that strength and physical prowess would be desirable in slaves, who would then be successful workers and thus procreate, and their genes passed on. This is a kind of ‘common sense’ argument. But science is the opposite of common sense. It’s a set of methodological tools that attempt to extract objective reality from how we perceive it. Science sets aside the bias that we lug around, and separates what feels right from what is. There are several problems with the idea that slavery bred superhumans. The first is that 400 years is not enough time to establish particular alleles with that effect. Ten or twelve generations might provide the time for the spread (or eradication) of an allele of great biological significance. But as with so many human behaviours, we’re not talking about a single gene of great impact. There are dozens of genes that are involved in the biology of sporting prowess, and these are not uniformly distributed across competitors of different sports: sprinters do not make good long distance runners. The second problem is that I am unaware of any data that has analysed positive selection for these alleles in black people with slave ancestry. Without this, assertions of slavery being effectively a programme of selective breeding are merely vaguely racist wish-fulfilment, confirmation bias or yet another form of adaptationism. Physical characteristics obviously do play essential roles in sporting success. The average height of an NBA basketball player is 6?7?, where being tall is obviously quite handy. Conversely, in horse racing, a sport dominated by white people, jockeys are typically small and light, broadly in accordance with Newtonian rules about speed and mass. Height is heavily influenced by genetics, but these numbers are nothing to do with race, as viewed through the lens of skin colour or continental origin. The Dutch are the tallest people on average on Earth, and I have little doubt that if there were similar numbers of Dutch people as there are Americans, and basketball was as culturally important and ubiquitous, then they would produce teams as good as the LA Lakers. Sport is sometimes cited as the great leveller, a forum in which only talent and sheer grit will win the day. The idea that black people are better at sport because of genetics, and possibly because of breeding during the wicked centuries of slavery, is built upon tissue foundations, and its cultural ubiquity yet another example of the chasm between what we think, and what science says is true.
Cougar
They are not meant to be though ..by their very nature they have two purposes the first being to offer support to your own team & players and secondly to wind up the opposition team and players ..or would you prefer everyone to stay mute in silent appreciation ..
I think you are probably more suited to ballet if that's what you think..
As for the genetics thing, as Tom said:
Lots of idiots conflating correlation with causation on here.
...
Maybe caucasians have a higher access to **** swimming pools?
There's any number of reasons why a given demographic might be over-represented in a given sport. Maybe there [i]is [/i]a genetic element; maybe they had access to better facilities when they were younger; maybe their country of birth gave a higher importance to that discipline; maybe their lifestyle contributed to their performance; maybe they'd started training since they could walk; maybe as someone else suggested they trained at higher altitudes?
Suggesting that black people are better runners than white people may have an element of truth but it is at best a gross oversimplification.
I'd like to buy a paragraph break please, Nikky.
Take it up with my editor
Wall-of-text aside, that is an interesting read.
Suggesting that black people are better runners than white people may have an element of truth but it is at best a gross oversimplification.
maybe they get benefits of doping better 🙄 though there aren't many "black" runners [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_run_world_record_progression ]in this list[/url] a few african though
Oh but hold on. lemaitre is faster than just about every black man ever!
Now that is just confusing!
And..
There hasn’t been a white man in the Olympic 100 metres final since Allan Wells won in Moscow in 1980
Most of the finalists that year were white! Hold on!
[quote=CharlieMungus ]Oh but hold on. lemaitre is faster than just about every black man ever!
Now that is just confusing!
Yeah, but get this - Simone Manuel is a faster swimmer than just about every white woman ever. That's even more confusing.
Thanks Kimbers - interesting stuff. 🙂
[quote=Cougar ]Wall-of-text aside, that is an interesting read.
It [i]is[/i] an interesting read but still fails to explain the dominance of black runners in the sprint and long-distance events.
The high numbers of white competitors in the more technical events, and those that require expensive facilities, is easily explained by the cost and opportunity thing. I'd even buy that the wider the talent pool, the more likely it is that the top athletes will emerge, and that many potential caucasian stars never make it big due to being sidetracked into other careers. What are the other factors?
And to further complicate it, why aren't more of the 1.4Bn Chinese succeeding in these events? I'd have thought that's a wide talent pool and that the government would encourage the top competitors to come through with equipment, facilities and coaching.
Can I just add on the swearing in public thing that I heard some charmer yesterday call his 7 or 8 year old crying son a c***, from across the road, still wishing I'd gone and said something. 🙁
The high numbers of white competitors in the more technical events, and those that require expensive facilities, is easily explained by the cost and opportunity thing. I'd even buy that the wider the talent pool, the more likely it is that the top athletes will emerge, and that many potential caucasian stars never make it big due to being sidetracked into other careers. What are the other factors?
It kind of does - genetic variation is the widest in Africa. Which, means that there is more variation within their population than between the African continent and Europe. That makes it even harder to make sweeping generalisations about Africans as a whole. We are a more homogenous, inbred population - making broad sweeping genetic generalisations about us...actually easier. This means you get more statistical outliers - that may contribute to good sporting performance. Some scholars argue that in the future, they'll be producing a lot of the worlds nobel prize winners as well.
[quote=scotroutes ]And to further complicate it, why aren't more of the 1.4Bn Chinese succeeding in these events? I'd have thought that's a wide talent pool and that the government would encourage the top competitors to come through with equipment, facilities and coaching.
There's are some non-racist explanations for that one I think - the pool of possible competitors is way, way smaller than that, partially because a lot of them are living in relative poverty with poor nutrition, partially because most of those don't do competitive sport at a level where they might be spotted. Clearly Chinese athletes have done very well at some events though - lots of good female distance runners in the 90s...
[quote=Tom_W1987 ] genetic variation is the widest in Africa. Which, means that there is more variation within their population than between the African continent and Europe. That makes it even harder to make sweep generalisations about Africans as a whole. We are a more homogenous, inbred population - making broad sweeping genetic generalisations about us...actually easier. This means you get more statistical outliers - that may contribute to good sporting performance.
Cool. Thanks.
[quote=aracer ]the pool of possible competitors is way, way smaller than that, partially because a lot of them are living in relative poverty with poor nutrition, partially because most of those don't do competitive sport at a level where they might be spotted. Clearly Chinese athletes have done very well at some events though - lots of good female distance runners in the 90s...
And swimmers...
I'm still surprised we've not seen more coming through though, it being a "good" thing for promotion of the culture.
Apparently he’s a Belgian Genius, with a 24” Penis and scores all the goals while his bell end hangs by his toes.I guess Belgians are well endowed.
I think it's especially impressive to be playing top flight proffesional football with a sub 24inch inside leg.
Cool. Thanks.
But I'd caveat that with what he explains towards the end of the wall of text.
All other things being equal (which of course they never are) my genetic ability to process oxygen via a gene called ACE is no different from most Africans, though not many East Africans. Similarly, a particular version of the gene alpha-actinin-3, which is associated with the fast-twitch muscle fibre, is present in successful black sprinters, but is not exclusive to Africans, or indeed any particular regional or cultural group within Africa. A thorough 2014 review by the Brazilian sports scientist Rodrigo Vancini of the scientific literature on the genetics of African athletes concluded that the studies of the variation in these two genes, the ones most frequently associated with black sporting success, ‘do not fully explain the success of these athletes. It seems unlikely that Africa is producing unique genotypes that cannot be found in other parts of the world.’
A good example is the GB cycling team (especially track cycling). We all know they didn't have great success because British people are better at track cycling than other colours / nationalities but some of the posters on this thread would presumably come to that conclusion.
Just wait till they find out about Adebayor!
we are discussing races not nationalities so that is not a great example
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heavyweight_boxing_champions ]i remember when they said a white man would never be heavy weight champion again [/url] 🙄
[quote=Junkyard ]we are discussing races not nationalities so that is not a great example
It's not an unreasonable way of proving the negative - that sporting success isn't necessarily the result of superior genetics.
I thought we were discussing racism / and the size of a footballers knob in a chant ..which I found way more interesting than races / genetics.
@ aracer you need to use something at least genetically distinguishable and that is not a people from this country...whatever the brexiters say 😉
Took until page 5 for the first brexit reference.
Standards are slipping, I tell you. Standards are slipping.
Brexist!
Cool. Thanks
What you thanking Tom for! I'm sure I said all that stuff earlier, in more straightforward terms too!
Maybe.
But, I guess Tom is the biologist
[quote=CharlieMungus ]But, I guess Tom is the biologist
I'm disappointed in him - we should treat those with a different biology equally.
even the ladies?
I think it's terrible that those biologs have been persecuted for so long.
