‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

Genetics and physical abilities

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  8334
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
01 August 2021 17:57
 
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 03:36 PM

But can’t we form reasonable explanations based on the data that we know?  Blacks are highly over represented in the NFL and NBA… The experiment has been running in front of us and it seems like there must be a genetic answer.

https://www.utoronto.ca/news/olympic-athletes-disproportionately-white-and-privately-educated-u-t-researcher-finds

...our study found significant access and equity issues that restrict individuals from a lower socioeconomic status, creating a participation parity barrier,” said Lawrence, who received his medical degree from U of T Medicine in 2013 and trained in sports medicine at St. Michael’s Hospital.

In the study, ‘Sociodemographic Profile of an Olympic Team,’ published this week in Public Health, Lawrence and his team collected sociodemographic data from publicly available resources for all athletes representing Canada, the United States, Great Britain, and Australia at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games and the 2016 Rio Summer Olympic Games.

... and ...

They found that the percentage of the elite athlete population that is white was much larger than that of the general population. Privately educated athletes constituted 30.3 per cent, and 32.7 per cent of winter and summer athletes, respectively. They found 94.9 per cent of winter, and 81.7 per cent of summer athletes were white.

So if we extend that socio-economic divide to non-olympians, we find that low-cost-of-entry sports like Basketball, US Football, and soccer have lots of black athletes, but those sports that require significant investment in gear or facilities are dominated primarily by non-blacks.  Because a ghetto kid can play ball without a lot of extra cash to sign up for facilities, buy expensive equipment, or whatnot.  And playing pro-sports is a very noteworthy ticket out of the ghetto.  College sports alone can lift a kid (and family) out of poverty with much less monetary investment than any other path.  It’s not a guaranteed path, of course, but it’s a non-criminal slow-time-investment with potentially millionaire-making dividends in the end-game.

Track. Running. Ball. (Basket, foot, footie) are all relatively low investment sports.

Corollary and adjacent: ghetto kids with no cash and not much else to do, will be less distracted by extracurricular activities that require parental investment and kids being dropped-off at facilities and clubs.  So they play street-ball, or run, or the like…  While more affluent families might invest in music lessons on expensive musical instruments, or other higher-price-tag activities.

[ Edited: 01 August 2021 18:00 by Jefe]
 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  688
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
01 August 2021 18:03
 
Cheshire Cat - 01 August 2021 05:48 PM
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 03:36 PM

But can’t we form reasonable explanations based on the data that we know?  Blacks are highly over represented in the NFL and NBA… The experiment has been running in front of us and it seems like there must be a genetic answer.

You seem to be dancing around something on this thread, and I’m wondering if this is mostly it:
What effect has slavery had on modern black athleticism due to artificial selection?

Is this what this thread is really about?

Your intuition is incorrect- I don’t think I’ve danced around that topic nor was I seriously considering it.  But I will tell you that I discussed this forum topic with a friend last night and that was his explanation.

 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1940
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
01 August 2021 18:28
 
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 06:03 PM
Cheshire Cat - 01 August 2021 05:48 PM
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 03:36 PM

But can’t we form reasonable explanations based on the data that we know?  Blacks are highly over represented in the NFL and NBA… The experiment has been running in front of us and it seems like there must be a genetic answer.

You seem to be dancing around something on this thread, and I’m wondering if this is mostly it:
What effect has slavery had on modern black athleticism due to artificial selection?

Is this what this thread is really about?

Your intuition is incorrect- I don’t think I’ve danced around that topic nor was I seriously considering it.  But I will tell you that I discussed this forum topic with a friend last night and that was his explanation.

Ahh, that explains it. Fair enough.

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  688
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
01 August 2021 18:38
 
Cheshire Cat - 01 August 2021 06:28 PM
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 06:03 PM
Cheshire Cat - 01 August 2021 05:48 PM
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 03:36 PM

But can’t we form reasonable explanations based on the data that we know?  Blacks are highly over represented in the NFL and NBA… The experiment has been running in front of us and it seems like there must be a genetic answer.

You seem to be dancing around something on this thread, and I’m wondering if this is mostly it:
What effect has slavery had on modern black athleticism due to artificial selection?

Is this what this thread is really about?

Your intuition is incorrect- I don’t think I’ve danced around that topic nor was I seriously considering it.  But I will tell you that I discussed this forum topic with a friend last night and that was his explanation.

Ahh, that explains it. Fair enough.

Good work, you’ve solved the mystery you’ve conjured in your head.  I can’t fathom what that explains to you, but move on to the next.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  1267
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
01 August 2021 18:44
 
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 05:30 PM
mapadofu - 01 August 2021 05:16 PM

Asked and answered https://forum.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/72920/#926143
(By weird in post #2)

Yeah, it might be a good idea to actually do some reading about the topic.

Answered?  I don’t think so.

Would you humor me and answer this question?  There are groups of people around the world.  They have different skin color, different hair, eye color, physiques, etc.  What explains these differences?

Mostly genetics for coloration, though skin and hair color can be affected by sunlight.  Physiques are strongly affected by nutrition and e exercise.

Overall, what make people different from one another is a combination of genetics and environment.


In America, many of the best basketball players are African American.  In Europe, many of the best players are Lithuanian.  Cross country skiing is dominated by the Nordic countries.  Kenyans and Jamaicans have had success in long distance and sprinting respectively. Brazilians have not had much success in sprinting; nor has the Jamaican bobsled team torn up the track.  I think it was Iran who at one time dominated (or dominates) Greco-Roman wrestling.  Boxing in the US has gone through various phases where different ethnicities came to the fore. England is over represented in the world’s top dart players.  Canadians dominate in curling. Canadians used to dominate ice hockey, but now there are a lot more Europeans in the upper echelons of the sport.  Dominicans have been over represented in MLB over the years.  Not many black people play field hockey or lacrosse in the US. Etc. etc. etc.

I decided to look up who dominates in archery, thinking it would be Japan.  Turns out it’s South Korea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/2021/07/21/olympic-sport-dominance-country/

“ But can’t we form reasonable explanations based on the data that we know? ”

Looks to me like there are a lot of factors at play in terms of which countries tend to dominate at which sports, not the least of which is money (both overall and how it is specifically allocated to foster some sports over others), and culture (which sports get attention focused on them).

Though I’d like detailed genetic sequence studies that describe The who how and why of a genetic basis for athletic prowess, how about a hypothesis that can just explain the observed variation in how different countries come to dominate at different sports.

Your genetic determinism model just doesn’t cut the mustard.

[ Edited: 01 August 2021 19:10 by mapadofu]
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1981
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
01 August 2021 19:01
 
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 03:36 PM
mapadofu - 01 August 2021 11:44 AM

“Some of these groups have greater athletic abilities than others.” 

If this is a descriptive statement about the apparent success of one group or another at some particular sport, where is the scientific study that shows that this dominance is primarily, or even significantly, genetic?

Time and time again you’ve been presented with the confounds, yet you can’t get past the idea of genetic determinism.

Cue Hitchens’ Razor.

It’s not just a statement of apparent success- it’s a description of reality.  You and weird want the exact combination of genes listed in some study.  Fair enough - maybe I need to look harder or maybe it’s not as easy to find for whatever political reason.  But can’t we form reasonable explanations based on the data that we know?  Blacks are highly over represented in the NFL and NBA.  With all of the talk of white privilege and wealth and opportunity how is this possible?  Many more whites here with greater resources, better access to nutrition and training.  And they certainly have motivation to succeed in these sports.  But your response is “show me the precise genes”.  The experiment has been running in front of us and it seems like there must be a genetic answer. 
The brass tacks is I will try to research this - and I’m open to being completely confused on the matter.  The confounds presented haven’t changed my mind yet.

Whites from prosperous backgrounds don’t have motivation to succeed at sports.
The dropout rate in medical school is 15-18%.  That means that over 80% of people who go to medical school go on to finish it.

Every year, of all the kids who play high school basketball, only 7% of them go on to play varsity college ball.  Of all the varsity college players, only 1 to 1.5% of them make it to the NBA.

So, a dedicated kid could focus on their education and have an 80% chance of success, or they could focus on sports and have a 0.7% chance of success… and that’s even assuming that they have the right body type to even compete (if you’re 6’2” or shorter, the odds of playing in the NBA are extremely small).  If you are motivated and want to have a successful career, getting an education still allows you to excel, become wealthy, well known, influential, etc… and the odds are significantly higher.

Kids from poorer backgrounds can’t pay for college, and getting student loans means you get the job… but someone else gets the money.

So no, there is not equal motivation to play sports and seek a professional career.

Cris Carter talking about football and CTE.
I’ve linked this in another thread, that essentially had the same topic, very recently.  If you listen to him, you can really get a sense of how culturally important football has been to him and his community.  Even from an early age, his life revolved around football.  It’s given him everything he has, and it scares him that it could be so dangerous to young men.

[ Edited: 01 August 2021 19:05 by weird buffalo]
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  1267
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
01 August 2021 19:09
 
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 06:03 PM
Cheshire Cat - 01 August 2021 05:48 PM
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 03:36 PM

But can’t we form reasonable explanations based on the data that we know?  Blacks are highly over represented in the NFL and NBA… The experiment has been running in front of us and it seems like there must be a genetic answer.

You seem to be dancing around something on this thread, and I’m wondering if this is mostly it:
What effect has slavery had on modern black athleticism due to artificial selection?

Is this what this thread is really about?

Your intuition is incorrect- I don’t think I’ve danced around that topic nor was I seriously considering it.  But I will tell you that I discussed this forum topic with a friend last night and that was his explanation.

You’re friends with Jimmy the Greek?!?? Awesome.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1981
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
01 August 2021 19:10
 

I’m going to add this point:

We have a hypothesis: race is a genetically factual concept, and it affects the abilities people have.

To conclude that this is true has implications that support many, many racist ideologies.  In fact, this concept is fundamental to racist ideologies.  Now, if there are genetic racial differences, this reason is not sufficient to conclude that it isn’t true.  This would be a fallacy based on not liking the consequences.  That said, because this concept supports racist ideologies, we should therefore not conclude it is true until we have evidence that it is.

Scientists can and do investigate this.  Lots of scientists are still trying to understand our genome, heritability, and other factors for how our body operates.  No one is suggesting we stop investigating this.  What we shouldn’t do is conclude that race is a legitimate genetic category AND that there are significant differences between those races… until there is verifiable evidence that it is true.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  1267
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
01 August 2021 19:34
 

I’ve got a silly bet hypothetical.

Suppose you got the first shot at a pool for which national team would win The World Boomerang Championship, I.e. get to pick any team.  Even odds, you just get the pool if the team you picked wins.  Which country would you pick? Why?

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  688
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
01 August 2021 20:20
 
mapadofu - 01 August 2021 06:44 PM
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 05:30 PM
mapadofu - 01 August 2021 05:16 PM

Asked and answered https://forum.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/72920/#926143
(By weird in post #2)

Yeah, it might be a good idea to actually do some reading about the topic.

Answered?  I don’t think so.

Would you humor me and answer this question?  There are groups of people around the world.  They have different skin color, different hair, eye color, physiques, etc.  What explains these differences?

Mostly genetics for coloration, though skin and hair color can be affected by sunlight.  Physiques are strongly affected by nutrition and e exercise.

Overall, what make people different from one another is a combination of genetics and environment.

If you take two unrelated Chinese people at birth, male and female, and bring them to the US and they eat an “American” diet and are exposed to American sunlight and have a child, that child will look like his parents.  And if he grows up with this American environment- his appearance won’t change.  He will look like a Chinese person.
No amount of environmental factors will change this. 
The environment may have affected the genes of people from China over a span 10,000 years, but no amount of environmental stimulus is going to change what that kid looks like now.  Does that make sense?
If the parents are relatively short, this kid will likely be short.  If he’s malnourished- maybe even shorter than his potential- but with the best nourishment he’ll still likely be shorter than the average person in the US.  Is this thinking flawed?
What I’m getting at is that the environment will have little to no effect over these shorter periods of time.  Tens of thousands of years of evolution within the relatively stable groups around the world affected by the environment and the genetic code changing in response to these different stimuli.

 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
01 August 2021 20:56
 

Sorry for being a little bit off-topic, but I’m just guessing about some circumstances that this thread has made me wonder. I once thought there are inherited human traits given by our recessive genes that at some point in the future of our human race might mutate or literally disappear. But now, as far as an increasingly conservative, divisive and competitive path humanity keeps treading, I’m well convinced that those recessive genes will be definitely perpetuated throughout quite many more generations. Oh well…

But actually as it turns out, there’s still much to be researched about the diverse roles played by dominant and recessive genes in every species natural selection, I can fully realise that too.

[ Edited: 01 August 2021 20:59 by Rick Robson]
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2254
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
01 August 2021 22:01
 
mapadofu - 01 August 2021 07:34 PM

I’ve got a silly bet hypothetical.

Suppose you got the first shot at a pool for which national team would win The World Boomerang Championship, I.e. get to pick any team.  Even odds, you just get the pool if the team you picked wins.  Which country would you pick? Why?

It may be silly, but it’s an excellent question. Genetic inheritance vs. cultural inheritance. Your implied argument is compelling.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1981
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
01 August 2021 22:15
 
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 08:20 PM
mapadofu - 01 August 2021 06:44 PM
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 05:30 PM
mapadofu - 01 August 2021 05:16 PM

Asked and answered https://forum.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/72920/#926143
(By weird in post #2)

Yeah, it might be a good idea to actually do some reading about the topic.

Answered?  I don’t think so.

Would you humor me and answer this question?  There are groups of people around the world.  They have different skin color, different hair, eye color, physiques, etc.  What explains these differences?

Mostly genetics for coloration, though skin and hair color can be affected by sunlight.  Physiques are strongly affected by nutrition and e exercise.

Overall, what make people different from one another is a combination of genetics and environment.

If you take two unrelated Chinese people at birth, male and female, and bring them to the US and they eat an “American” diet and are exposed to American sunlight and have a child, that child will look like his parents.  And if he grows up with this American environment- his appearance won’t change.  He will look like a Chinese person.
No amount of environmental factors will change this. 
The environment may have affected the genes of people from China over a span 10,000 years, but no amount of environmental stimulus is going to change what that kid looks like now.  Does that make sense?
If the parents are relatively short, this kid will likely be short.  If he’s malnourished- maybe even shorter than his potential- but with the best nourishment he’ll still likely be shorter than the average person in the US.  Is this thinking flawed?
What I’m getting at is that the environment will have little to no effect over these shorter periods of time.  Tens of thousands of years of evolution within the relatively stable groups around the world affected by the environment and the genetic code changing in response to these different stimuli.

The average height of women in South Korea went from 4’8 to 5’4 from 1896 to 1996.  A change of this type is impossible genetically in a human population of pretty much any size in that short amount of time.  BTW, the average height of women in the US is also 5’4.

Go read a book or something, instead of talking out your ass and assuming that the shit coming out of it is scientifically true.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  1267
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
01 August 2021 22:21
 
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 08:20 PM
mapadofu - 01 August 2021 06:44 PM
DEGENERATEON - 01 August 2021 05:30 PM
mapadofu - 01 August 2021 05:16 PM

Asked and answered https://forum.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/72920/#926143
(By weird in post #2)

Yeah, it might be a good idea to actually do some reading about the topic.

Answered?  I don’t think so.

Would you humor me and answer this question?  There are groups of people around the world.  They have different skin color, different hair, eye color, physiques, etc.  What explains these differences?

Mostly genetics for coloration, though skin and hair color can be affected by sunlight.  Physiques are strongly affected by nutrition and e exercise.

Overall, what make people different from one another is a combination of genetics and environment.

If you take two unrelated Chinese people at birth, male and female, and bring them to the US and they eat an “American” diet and are exposed to American sunlight and have a child, that child will look like his parents.  And if he grows up with this American environment- his appearance won’t change.  He will look like a Chinese person.
No amount of environmental factors will change this. 
The environment may have affected the genes of people from China over a span 10,000 years, but no amount of environmental stimulus is going to change what that kid looks like now.  Does that make sense?
If the parents are relatively short, this kid will likely be short.  If he’s malnourished- maybe even shorter than his potential- but with the best nourishment he’ll still likely be shorter than the average person in the US.  Is this thinking flawed?
What I’m getting at is that the environment will have little to no effect over these shorter periods of time.  Tens of thousands of years of evolution within the relatively stable groups around the world affected by the environment and the genetic code changing in response to these different stimuli.

Read the article I linked to above about heights in Japan.  What I remember is that heights shot up by 7 inches over 70 years.  So enough of a change to bring the average height of Hapanese men within spitting distance of US men.  I think the difference in average height between Asian American and European American men is an inch or two.  Relatively small compared to the person to person variation in height.  Is that genetic?  Is is due to first generation immigrants being in the sample?  Is it due to a higher poverty rate amongst Asian Americans? I don’t know, but I do know that the data that weird and I refer to clearly indicates that a population’s average height is strongly affected be the environment.

There are many cases where there are obvious social factors (economic, political, cultural) that seem to drive athletic achievements in particular sports.  There are maybe a couple of cases where it’s possible that genetics are playing a significant role in some others.  Yet somehow you keep circling back to genetics being destiny.

 

[ Edited: 02 August 2021 04:53 by mapadofu]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3867
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
05 August 2021 08:20
 

Yeah, different areas of the world will produce people with different athletic abilities (ignoring possible motive that this question was yet another attempt to pigeonhole by race).  And that area of the world is CANADA – we’re the best.  Damian Warner is the world’s greatest athlete.  Question asked and answered.

 

 
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 >