Blacks play ball better?

[john5746]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/13006182.htm

 

Yes, I know - not very smart comments from the coach. Not politically correct, but I bet 95% of coaches agree with him.

 

Do we deny that the average black athelete will be quicker and more coordinated? The average asian student will have a higher SAT than others?

 

There are exceptions and the reasons may not always be genetic and we have the whole, what is a race thing, but can we not make any generalizations, even if there is some truth in them?

 

As they find genome differences, will they be able to publish them without a bunch of flack? If you know that African Americans have a tendancy toward sickle-cell or hypertension, do you treat them differently, or just ignore it?

 

Edit: Maybe this link will work

 

http://inhome.rediff.com/sports/2005/oct/27coach.htm

[H W Copeland]

Who was this coach supposed to have offended? Black people? Or White people?

[Pangloss]

It seems to me that it's possible that black atheletes might be so successful right now because they've encouraged that avenue of advancement within their social culture.

 

It also occurs to me that the whole argument may be inaccurate, and a typical example of the MSM straw man approach to reporting. E.G. "Joe Smith went professional this week -- this new profusion of black atheletes stuns many coaches and observers..." etc etc etc. Not enough people challenge the premises of MSM reporting these days, IMO.

[ecoli]

Who was this coach supposed to have offended? Black people? Or White people?

 

Silly rabbit... you know white people aren't allowed to be offended by racial slurs!

[budullewraagh]

genetic differences based on race is really taboo because it proves that all men actually aren't created equal. we see a higher risk for sickle-cell anemia in africans and those of african decent because those with sickle-cell anemia didn't get malaria. in the us, asians do better on the sats because the smartest asians came from various asian countries. it's not a wonder why the best marathoners come from kenya- kenyans throughout history have had to run all their lives to stay alive. so maybe black people do play basketball better. and maybe white men can't jump.

[H W Copeland]

Silly rabbit... you know white people aren't allowed to be offended by racial slurs!

 

Is it a racial slur to say that black people are better athletes than white people?

 

I wouldn't think that it was.

[Pangloss]

One quick-and-dirty way to figure out if something is politically correct is to flip it around and see if the reverse raises your hackles.

 

For example, it doesn't seem to be much of a racial bias to suggest that black people are more physically capable. But if one were to say that white people are mentally superior, all hell will break loose. And yet, from a genetic point of view, what is the difference between the two suggestions (assuming a lack of evidence for either position)?

[ecoli]

Is it a racial slur to say that black people are better athletes than white people?

 

I wouldn't think that it was.

 

no... but I couldn't think of a better word to use... so sue me!

[Mokele]

I fail to see why a difference in athletic ability would rasie hackles, as a pretty high chunk of it is environmentally determined anyway (practice makes perfect). I'm usually big on reducing humans to their simplest biological mechanisms, but in this case even I think cultural differences are the best explanation.

[john5746]

Who was this coach supposed to have offended? Black people? Or White people?

 

I could see how white athletes would be offended, especially his team. People do a lot of reading between the lines with statements like this. They automatically assume he is talking genetics and that they can't get black athletes because there aren't enough smart ones to go to his school or some other tangent like that. People seek to be offended these days. I think he owes his team an apology, just as any coach who puts all the blame on his team. But that's about it.

[Douglas]

Blacks play ball better?

 

Of course they do. they're also the best long (marathon) and short distances runners in the world. IMO, it's genetic.

 

Given that Blacks are roughly 13% of the population, and given that whites practice (and like) basketball as much as blacks, the odds of fielding an all Black starting 5 basketball team are astronomical.....unless they're better than whites.

[ecoli]

Of course they do. they're also the best long (marathon) and short distances runners in the world. IMO' date=' it's genetic.

 

Given that Blacks are roughly 13% of the population, and given that whites practice (and like) basketball as much as blacks, the odds of fielding an all Black starting 5 basketball team are astronomical.....unless they're better than whites.[/quote']

 

This not totally true... at least about the basketball part. There is some sociology that you are overlooking. The majority of African-Americans live in urban centers, and those that do mostly live in the inner city - that means they don't get out much. And the sport they play most is basketball, simply because it's really the only sport that is better played on concrete or blacktop. Because it's the major sport, there is plenty of competition... and good competition. If you want to get good, you have to practice a lot. (and there is genetics invovled too, I'm sure.) But even only the best of these kids can get into a college, most of them would need a sports scholarship to afford the top schools... and then even fewer get recruited.

 

I'm sure you'll find that most of the Black basketball players were born in urban centers.

[Douglas]

I'm sure you'll find that most of the Black basketball players were born in urban centers.

That's probably true, but for every black in the urban areas, there's 8 or 9 whites from indiana practicing just as hard. And if only 1 of those 8 or 9 whites make a team, that would make the basketball team 50/50. But on some teams, it 100/0.

 

Hey, Larry Bird was great, only because he had eyes in the back of his head, but Doctor J. floated through the air like a butterfly....what a player.

 

 

[Pangloss]

But if we think it's okay to say that blacks can play ball better, then why is it not okay to suggest that blacks are mentally inferior/superior?

 

Since we're talking about genetics in both cases, what's the difference? Why is it okay to suggest one form of genetic superiority, but suggesting another form of genetic superiority raises six kinds of holy hell?

[Douglas]

But if we think it's okay to say that blacks can play ball better' date=' then why is it not okay to suggest that blacks are [i']mentally[/i] inferior/superior?

 

Since we're talking about genetics in both cases, what's the difference? Why is it okay to suggest one form of genetic superiority, but suggesting another form of genetic superiority raises six kinds of holy hell?

C'mon Pangloss, you know better than to ask that.......

[H W Copeland]

no... but I couldn't think of a better word to use... so sue me!

No problem, my lawyer is too expensive for that anyway.....

[ecoli]

That's probably true' date=' but for every black in the urban areas, there's 8 or 9 whites from indiana practicing just as hard. And if only 1 of those 8 or 9 whites make a team, that would make the basketball team 50/50. But on some teams, it 100/0.

 

Hey, Larry Bird was great, only because he had eyes in the back of his head, but Doctor J. floated through the air like a butterfly....what a player.

 

[img']http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:NZLBeuO7gtIJ:www.a-bd.com/images/products/MCFA_76271_256.jpg[/img]

 

 

right, I'm denying that there is genetics invovled, just don't ignore the socio factors.

[ecoli]

That's probably true, but for every black in the urban areas, there's 8 or 9 whites from indiana practicing just as hard. And if only 1 of those 8 or 9 whites make a team, that would make the basketball team 50/50. But on some teams, it 100/0.

 

 

I'm not denying that there are genetics involved, but you can't ignore the socio factors either. Maybe its because blacks are genetically superior that the competition is higher, thus they want play more to get even better.

[Mokele]

The problem is that the *only* availible method to determine for sure what's genetic and what's not is selective breeding. Obviously, this is a big no-no for humans.

 

The *usual* for complex multicellular organisms is both: genetics mixed with environment.

 

Of course they do. they're also the best long (marathon) and short distances runners in the world. IMO, it's genetic.

 

That is actually genetic, specifically fron Kenyan ancestry. Those of Kenyan ancestry are literally 10% more efficient when running, and, while we haven't pinned down the gene or genes, such a massive increase is unlikely to be caused by anything short of a direct genetic alteration of physiology.

 

However, that doesn't mean this can be extrapolated to other athletic talents.

 

That's probably true, but for every black in the urban areas, there's 8 or 9 whites from indiana practicing just as hard. And if only 1 of those 8 or 9 whites make a team, that would make the basketball team 50/50. But on some teams, it 100/0.

 

But remember that for someone in indiana, other sports are availible, while in an inner-city area, there just isn't room for baseball or football fields all over the place. As such, *all* (or nearly so) of the talented (or not) black athletes would go into basketball, while white athletes would be spread over numerous fields.

 

Also, the intensity and number of competitors is higher in the inner city. A kid from Indiana might only face 4 or five lefties occaisionally, which in the inner city, with so many people, a player will face more people and thus more diversity of playing styles (more lefties, for instance). (I don't actually know if being a lefty matters in basketball, I just picked it for an example).

 

Since we're talking about genetics in both cases, what's the difference? Why is it okay to suggest one form of genetic superiority, but suggesting another form of genetic superiority raises six kinds of holy hell?

 

Because it's OK to tell a minority group they're better, but not that they're worse.

 

Personally, I'm always skeptical of genetic claims when it comes to human races. A few such differences exist, but by and large human populations have so much gene flow that most differences in gene frequency aren't confined to racial boundaries.

 

Mokele

[Douglas]

The *usual* for complex multicellular organisms is both: genetics mixed with environment.

Good post Mokele, but I'd put "environment" at about 5% on the list of reasons why Blacks are better at certain sports.

[bascule]

For example, it doesn't seem to be much of a racial bias to suggest that black people are more physically capable. But if one were to say that white people are mentally superior, all hell will break loose. And yet, from a genetic point of view, what is the difference between the two suggestions (assuming a lack of evidence for either position)?

 

You don't need genetic evidence. There is plenty of statistical evidence to support the assurtion that blacks are, in general, better athletes.

 

http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/01/28/taboo/print.html

 

In track, the purest test of athletic ability, runners of African descent hold every single men's world record at every standard distance, from the 100 meters (where no non-black athlete has held the world record since 1960) to the marathon. In pro football, the positions that require the greatest combination of speed, power and explosiveness -- wide receiver, cornerback and running back -- are almost entirely played by blacks. In pro basketball -- the sport that requires the greatest combination of leaping ability, power bursts and agility -- almost all the starters and virtually all the superstars are black. In baseball, blacks are also disproportionately represented, although not to the same degree that they are in the more athletically demanding basketball and football.

 

The Salon article further argues that there are at least observable phenotypical differences (duh), from which we can infer that there are genetic differences (although the research to confirm this has not yet been performed):

 

"Blacks with a West African ancestry generally have: relatively less subcutaneous fat on arms and legs and proportionally more lean body and muscle mass, broader shoulders, larger quadriceps, and bigger, more developed musculature in general; smaller chest cavities; a higher center of gravity ... faster patellar tendon reflex; greater body density ... modest. but significantly higher, levels of plasma testosterone ... which is anabolic, theoretically contributing to greater muscle mass, lower fat, and the ability to perform at a higher level of intensity with quicker recovery; a higher percentage of fast-twitch muscles and more anaerobic enzymes, which can translate into more explosive energy."

[Pangloss]

Because it's OK to tell a minority group they're better' date=' but not that they're worse.

[/quote']

 

Why?

 

Isn't that actually a really *bad* thing? As a side note, this seems to be the territory Bill Cosby has been digging into lately, and he's getting a lot of support from just about everyone in the African-American community EXCEPT the leadership of said community. Which should tell us something, shouldn't it?

 

 

You don't need genetic evidence. There is plenty of statistical evidence to support the assurtion that blacks are' date=' in general, better athletes.

[/quote']

 

I'll accept that as writ, for the purposes of argument. So we now turn to the question of whether or not it's okay to state that they are mentally superior/inferior, should such evidence arise.

 

Now here's a tough one: Was Thomas Jefferson (and George Washington, and many other founding fathers) wrong to think that blacks were mentally inferior?

 

Careful, this is a tricky one.

[Mokele]

Why?

 

Because I'm just being cynical.

 

In reality, I think the difference between what Cosby is doing and saying who's geneticly better is that Cosby is ranting about social issues and things that are the product of poor choices and bad cultural influences, which people can change. However, you can't change your genes (not yet, anyway), and such genetic information tends, in the public eye, to set a "biology-is-destiny" tone and crush the American dream/illusion that anyone can do anything if they set their mind to it. It's clearly false if you really look at it, but the emotional reaction predominates in the public.

 

I think it's the difference between "You *shouldn't* do this, and *should* do this" and "You *cannot* do this and there's nothing you can do, no amount of trying, that will change that".

 

I also think that there's a big difference between "morally OK" and "politically/socially OK". The facts are always morally ok, but a lot of the time, people just don't want to hear them.

 

Also, frankly, because shoddy arguements (lacking proper evidence) about genetic inferiority of various groups have been pandered for centuries, and still are, as an excuse for discrimination and bigotry, any minority takes a very dim view and steep skepticism towards any such new claims, because past history indicates such claims are likely bullshit spread for hateful reasons. Even if new, valid info is *not* so tainted, it must overcome the sordid past history. Frankly, were it my project, I wouldn't even *think* of publishing with a p of more than 0.001 (a value of statistical certainty which in this case means a 99.9% chance the data really is right; standard scientific p for publishable significant results is only 0.05, or 95% certainty).

 

Now here's a tough one: Was Thomas Jefferson (and George Washington, and many other founding fathers) wrong to think that blacks were mentally inferior?

 

That entirely depends on how you define your terms. In terms of intellectual potential, possible; most were slaves, and the smartest may have avoided capture or killed themselves, thus resulting in a biased sample. In terms of actual mental capacity at the time, again, probably, but also due to lack of education. Neither actually speaks to *genetic* or otherwise inherent capability of an unbiased sampling.

 

Good post Mokele, but I'd put "environment" at about 5% on the list of reasons why Blacks are better at certain sports.

 

I can easily state that you're flat-out wrong there. Why? Because athleticism isn't a simple, one-locus trait. Any genetic basis is going to be highly complex and interactive, which will reduce heritability by increasing opportunity for environmental influence.

 

To give you an example of what we'd be looking for in the genetics-dominant hypothesis: in Darwin's finches, whose differing beaks are the one of the great icons of evolution, narrow-sense heritability of bill size is a modest 30% or so. Broad-sense is more, but still not over 50%, iirc. So expecting a heritability of 95% for athleticism is really, *really* over-reaching the bounds of genetics.

 

Mokele

[Douglas]

The problem is that the *only* availible method to determine for sure what's genetic and what's not is selective breeding. Obviously, this is a big no-no for humans.

Talking about selective breeding, A decade or two ago, Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder, former TV football color man, was fired and severely castigated for his comments on how Blacks were better athletes that whites, because in the slave days the white owners specifically bred the big strong males with the big strong females.

[Douglas]

....................Why?

 

Now here's a tough one: Was Thomas Jefferson (and George Washington' date=' and many other founding fathers) wrong to think that blacks were mentally inferior?[/quote']I don't know that George and Jeff thought blacks were mentally inferior, but Bell labs physicist William Shockley (the transister man) lectured on the theory that blacks were intellectually inferior. He took a well deserved beating for it, since he was spouting his own opinion.

 

Anyway, getting back to why, You have to be careful about telling the truth nowadays.....it's a sensitivity thingy.

You may recall that Christy Todd Whitman fired the head of the NJ state troopers for telling the truth. And many other heads have rolled for truth telling.