Blacks and Whites in Sports--Is there a difference?
Chelsea007
> Doodling through Google, I found a number of postings about my book,
> "Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk
> About It?"
>
> Taboo has been widely reviewed in the best science and medical journals and
> is taught in many universities. Moreover, it was written with the direct
> input of a scholarly board of advisors, including some of the world's top
> geneticists, anthropologists and social scientists--black, white and Asian.
>
> I don't believe there is any question that "race"--defined not
> "folklorically" by skin color but using the notions developed by population
> geneticists to indicate gene frequencies as a result of insular and somewhat
> homogeneous genetic populations--is the most critical factor in the patterns
> that we see in terms of which population groups (ethnic, geographical,
> "racial") excel in sports. Clearly, there are many social and cultural
> factors involved in sports success, and there is the most critical factor of
> individual drive, desire, intelligence, etc....but if you don't have the
> 'raw' material, the genetically proscribed possibility, you can't become an
> ultra-elite athlete.
>
> As Joe Graves, an evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University (and an
> African American) has written, all the training in the world will not turn a
> Watusi into a world-class weightlifter or an Inuit Indian (Eskimo) into an
> NBA center. By the same token, it is clear that many (but not all) of the
> patterns we see in sports--such as the utter domination of weightlifting and
> many "power" Olympic type events by athletes of Eurasian ancestry--are
> heavily influenced by genetics and biology. The same genetically proscribed
> realities are key factors in the domination of distance running by East and
> North Africans and sprinting by athletes of primarily West African ancestry.
>
> Anyone interested, feel free to contact me directly. I would highly
> recommend checking out my website at http://www.jonentine.com for all kinds
> of background on these issues. I've put together an archive of articles by
> me and others related to Taboo and the issues that it raises. I put all that
> I could find (and was allowed to put up) from all over the world, some of
> which take issue with some of Taboo's conclusions. The site also has
> background on my board of advisors, a sample chapter from Taboo, etc.
>
> Regards,
Good science, good writing.
Chelsea
Brian
news:ce3ff649.01122...@posting.google.com:
This original poster has a narrow mind
If your "taboos" and genetic makeup were true
Why is there a 7 foot 8 inch basketball player from China?
Why would slow, white, Larry Bird have been so successful?
Why are their african american quarterbacks?
You're a racist prick hiding behind science
Bryce Lane
He's not that bad, I don't think he's anything like a "racist", but if he
had written a book called "My question-begging speculations on human genetic
variation and athletic performance" I don't think he would have made any
money. There are lots of reasons why athletes (individually or in groups)
may excell at one sport or another (genetic structure broadly stated is one
of them) and untill we can categorize, measure, isolate and specifically
control for all of them, its all just speculation, not science. Some
speculation is more lucrative than other speculation however.
The whole concept of the book is to congratulate himself for being willing
to "talk about race", then he proceeds to chatter away while deftly
providing no real answers, showing any sort of causality or even real
realtionships between his fuzzy correlations and skillfully avoiding going
out on any sort of limb that could get him in trouble with anyone. He
criticized others for being "pc"? What a joke.
If you want to have some real fun, look at the records in weightlifting,
throwing, high jump, long jump, pole vault and others which should show a
relation but don't. Its a really cloudy issue and books like this add not
thing to clearing any of it up.
What "conclusions" are there to take issue with? Its just another "hot
button" book title that never lives up to its promise. Just like a whole
pile of them that promise to "enlighten" and "discuss" controversial issues
and then wind up in the bargain bin at the outlet mall. If you put the title
"race and ______" on anything it will sell and the author will get patted on
the ass even if the pages are for all practical purposes blank.
Talking about "race" doesn't bother me a damn bit, I think it would be fun
to talk about science, statistics and how some people play with them in
order to turn a quick buck.
I get sick of this stuff and I often wonder why more people aren't hip to
this little "hot button" publishing game.
Bryce
rcp
Brian <webm...@footballjoint.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9186B65856AAAwe...@207.126.101.100...
No he doesn't. He approached the issue honestly with an open mind, and came
to some intersting conclusions as well as raising some good question.
> If your "taboos" and genetic makeup were true
> Why is there a 7 foot 8 inch basketball player from China?
You obviously understand little about probability, genetic variance,
standard deviation etc. if that example is supposed to "prove anything".
Example: I am 100% certain that males are taller than female (on average,
obviously).
Are you going to say, "well, Martha Smith is 7'6" therefore females are just
as tall as males?".
You can also state that people over 7'0" tall tend to have better chances of
being able to dunk a basketball, than those under 6'0. That does not mean
that there aren't a lot of tall people with shitty verticals, nor does it
mean that phenomenal athletes like Spud Webb don't exist. Try using a
little logic, dood.
Entine is not claiming that ALL blacks are superior at any given sport to
ALL whites or chinese, or whatnot. However, just as one can say that males
are superior sprinters compared to females, even though Jackie Joiner-Kersee
may be able to kick the vast majority of men's asses in sprinting, one can
say that west african descent Blacks are superior sprinters based on 10
million points of data. If the latter statement makes you a racist, then
the former statement would make you a sexist. That is just silly labeling
and name calling, avoiding the real issue of why certain groups dominate
certain sports, and what, if any, genetic factors account for the dominance.
> Why would slow, white, Larry Bird have been so successful?
Slow black basketball players have been successful too. Great speed is
neither sufficient nor necessary for success in basketball.
> Why are their african american quarterbacks?
Because the NFL finally pulled their head out their collective asses and
started recruiting and hiring them. Where does Entine claim that blacks
wouldn't be good quarterbacks? Nice strawman.
> You're a racist prick hiding behind science
This is one of the most popular ways to marginalize somebody. Call them a
racist, like Mr Entine obviously is not, and then anything they say is
"suspect". How "McCarthyesque" of you.
Whit
JSTONE9352
in a university library and I remember the
book crossing my desk one day.
It is an interesting thesis. I like to
keep an open mind about controversial
issues. No doubt people of some races
tend to dominate certain sports, the
exceptions I don't think necessarily
disprove the general theory that there
might be a genetic basis. It is a touchy
issue that many people would like to
avoid or get emotional about simply because any discussion of race is a
sensitive one.
Bryce Lane
"JSTONE9352" <jston...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011229202443...@mb-cs.aol.com...
I see no evidence of ANYONE wanting to avoid the topic. The book sold well
and people talk about it and the subjects it pretends to cover all the time.
People talk about "race" constantly. Where is this fearful-hushed lack of
conversation on the topic?
If the questions are phrased correctly they are not controversial. The
controversy is created. IT SELLS!
Bryce
ivy_mike
You already sound like a victim of the p.c. propaganda...
part of which tries to pretend that race is only a matter
of skin color. There are stark differences between the races
of human beings; involving more than just skin color. Only a
blind fool would try to claim otherwise.
> If your "taboos" and genetic makeup were true
> Why is there a 7 foot 8 inch basketball player from China?
This, my little friend, is what we'd call an *exception*. It should
be no mystery to even you that any guy this tall who is able to
put one foot in front of the other would be drawn to the game of
basketball, in which great height obviously gives a great advantage.
> Why would slow, white, Larry Bird have been so successful?
Another exception; the vast majority of star NBA players are not
white. And one *black* NBA player (can't recall name) once stated that
Bird would not even be considered a superstar if he were black. (BTW,
a white athlete would've been crucified for saying a similar thing about
a black athlete.)
> Why are their african american quarterbacks?
Because many of them are naturally good scramblers, and have strong
passing arms, not to mention the pressures on teams in the last 25
years to *have* black QBs. Athletes of equatorial African descent
excel at sports which require short bursts of strength, i.e. the
sports that involve punching, sprinting, jumping etc. There will
never be a "great white hope" in boxing. The world record long jump,
100 meters, etc., will never be held by a man of European or
Asian descent. And this fact, my friend, is not because the blacks
work any harder, or have more desire to win than the others, it is
soley due to genetics.
> You're a racist prick hiding behind science
Pull your head out of your butt and get a dose of reality.
--
Regards, IM
David Lewis
dozen different groups.
Brian
news:13077cb5.01122...@posting.google.com:
> Brian <webm...@footballjoint.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9186B65856AAAwe...@207.126.101.100>...
>>
>> This original poster has a narrow mind
>
> You already sound like a victim of the p.c. propaganda...
> part of which tries to pretend that race is only a matter
> of skin color. There are stark differences between the races
> of human beings; involving more than just skin color. Only a
> blind fool would try to claim otherwise.
PC Propaganda?
Or someone that grew up around plenty of african american and latin folk.
You're ignorant and thus a racist. The stark difference in races involves
culture and history not physical makeup. In fact the very fiber of this
country is based upon all races, religions, etc coexisting without
prejudice. That said, please leave. Find a nice home in afghanistan.
>
>> If your "taboos" and genetic makeup were true
>> Why is there a 7 foot 8 inch basketball player from China?
>
> This, my little friend, is what we'd call an *exception*. It should
> be no mystery to even you that any guy this tall who is able to
> put one foot in front of the other would be drawn to the game of
> basketball, in which great height obviously gives a great advantage.
>
Little? get over yourself
What is the difference in height between the average person living in the
USA, China, Africa? Do you know? then again, get over yourself. You have
no basis for that statement.
>> Why would slow, white, Larry Bird have been so successful?
>
> Another exception; the vast majority of star NBA players are not
> white. And one *black* NBA player (can't recall name) once stated that
> Bird would not even be considered a superstar if he were black. (BTW,
> a white athlete would've been crucified for saying a similar thing
> about a black athlete.)
Isaah Thomas said it. He was publicly scrutinized and he did apologize. he
lost all his sponsors and....was handled well. You don't understand
"Larry Legend" He had great hands, great instinct and was incredibly
smart. NONE of his game was based on athleticism that you boast of. If
YOU were correct, he and every other caucasian american would never have
played or had success in the NBA.
>
>> Why are their african american quarterbacks?
>
> Because many of them are naturally good scramblers, and have strong
> passing arms, not to mention the pressures on teams in the last 25
> years to *have* black QBs. Athletes of equatorial African descent
> excel at sports which require short bursts of strength, i.e. the
> sports that involve punching, sprinting, jumping etc. There will
> never be a "great white hope" in boxing. The world record long jump,
> 100 meters, etc., will never be held by a man of European or
> Asian descent. And this fact, my friend, is not because the blacks
> work any harder, or have more desire to win than the others, it is
> soley due to genetics.
>
There's been no pressure. In fact it was a long while between Doug
Williams and Randall Cunningham. Children emulate stars. Until Randall,
their really wasn't a star for them to emulate. Look what's happenned
since then. It's not a race thing. You don't just create a quarterback.
These players have been playing QB their whole life. As for your long jump
garbage. You're wrong. Olympic History proves just that.
>> You're a racist prick hiding behind science
>
> Pull your head out of your butt and get a dose of reality.
>
> --
> Regards, IM
Go back to your WASP meeting. I hear the Klan accidentally lynched a white
boy, ya better go try and save him
Bryce Lane
"David Lewis" <an...@host.com> wrote in message
news:anon-D08A45.2...@news.andara.com...
> I love the way this flame bait has been cross-posted to about half a
> dozen different groups.
Hmm, I didn't see that. You do have a point.
Bryce
Steve
I do think there is a grain of truth about scientists being afraid to
talk about genetics and human beings out of political concerns.
On the other hand I can understand why professionals don't want to go to
this place. Whole collections of ignoramuses are likely to
misunderstand and twist such "science" into support for simple bigotry.
Society as a whole ( any society ) is not ready to accept differences
while at the same time not using those differences as a basis for
dehumanization or otherwise devaluing people. Many people can't
simultaneously accept a generalization that is true at the group level
AND accept that truth that individuals of such groups can deviate from
those generalizations and still belong to those groups ( Women are bad
at math, your are a woman, you are good at math, you must be a
defective woman ).
All that is assuming that there *is* some scientific truth to be had
behind those anecdotal generalizations.
I will not accept racial/ethnic generalizations until I see hard numbers
for how traits are distributed. Until then its my anecdote against the
next guy/gal's anecdote. Yes, when I turn on the tv I see lots of black
athletes. I also see a lot of flabby, clutzy blacks when I go out into
the streets.
I also will not accept contemplation of such efforts until reliable
means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
For instance if you take the children of one those great Kenyan runners,
raise them at a low altitude, in a sedentary existence, and then sign
them up for high school track will they shine as runners?
Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
factors to be accounted for.
Steves Home Page:
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/
----------------------------------------------------------
The current population of the Earth is 6.2 billion people.
If current birth and death rates continue, the Earth's
population will nearly double in 40 years
Zero Population Growth web site:
http://www.zpg.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------
ivy_mike
>
> Go back to your WASP meeting. I hear the Klan accidentally lynched a white
> boy, ya better go try and save him
Pull your head out of your butt and get a dose of reality. And also
learn how to stick to facts in a debate; and go back to 8th grade
and learn a little basic grammar and spelling...just a suggestion.
Do these things and you might come across as a little less stupid
in future posts. Impress your friends!
--
Regards, IM
rcp
Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C2F2E98...@yahoo.com...
> I have mixed views about this issue.
>
> I do think there is a grain of truth about scientists being afraid to
> talk about genetics and human beings out of political concerns.
>
There is more than a grain of truth. Many scientists, or so-called
scientists will out and out admit, especially behind closed doors, that they
don't want to think about such matters, or discover if they are true,
because it can only lead to controversy and career risk. Furthermore, many
people who should be studying this stuff are in academia, where what side
you take in such political hot-potato issues, and that is the problem is
that these issues ARE politicized, can have serious ramifications on
professional advancement, tenure, etc. All one has to do is look at the
death threats, and other shite that professors at some universities like
Berkeley et al. have put up with because they dared suggest certain things
about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
racial differences on a physical/genetic/biological level. That can be
prosecuted, and has been, as a hate crime. A professor was prosecuted,
unsuccessfully for speaking and writing on this very subject.
As I referenced in another forum, as an example, SJ Gould finds such
statements about innate differences "deeply offensive". This is just silly
rhetoric. Science should not worry about hurting people's feelings. It
should be worried about objective truth, and postmodernism aside, there is
such a thing. Was it wrong for men to send astronauts into the firmament
because it might upset certain theists who believe that God was sitting up
there?
> On the other hand I can understand why professionals don't want to go to
> this place. Whole collections of ignoramuses are likely to
> misunderstand and twist such "science" into support for simple bigotry.
>
So what? Do we not seek knowledge because we are afraid some people might
misinterpret it? This attitude is exactly analogous to that of the catholic
church towards Galileo, a paternalistic and condescending attitude towards
what knowledge and inquiry should be open to public view, lest we cause
people hurt feelings, or confuse them with pesky evidence. It is a
totalitarian mindset that believes that inquiry should not be open, that
knowledge should be suppressed, and that certain subjects are taboo, because
sensitivity to people's feelings trumps knowledge. Furthermore, it is
ultimately condescending to all people, let alone people of certain races,
to say that members of any given group aren't mature enough to accept
whatever differences we may learn exist, upon study.
> Society as a whole ( any society ) is not ready to accept differences
> while at the same time not using those differences as a basis for
> dehumanization or otherwise devaluing people.
So, what you are saying is that we can't (in the words of Jack Nicholson)
"HANDLE THE TRUTH??!!"
Better scientists treat us like little sheeple and only feed us knowledge
about ourselves that makes us feel warm and fuzzy, that we are all the same,
that differences are only "skin deep" etc.?
Many people can't
> simultaneously accept a generalization that is true at the group level
> AND accept that truth that individuals of such groups can deviate from
> those generalizations and still belong to those groups ( Women are bad
> at math, your are a woman, you are good at math, you must be a
> defective woman ).
>
Many people are idiots. Crippling scientific inquiry and open debate into
fundamental matters of human differences and similarities out of fear of
these people is the sign of a totalitarian mindset. It also gives fuel to
bigots because they can claim that the govt/the media/academia/whomever is
hiding the truth. Would you rather have scientists, subject to the
scientific method and peer review inquiring into these matters, or bigots?
> All that is assuming that there *is* some scientific truth to be had
> behind those anecdotal generalizations.
>
word
> I will not accept racial/ethnic generalizations until I see hard numbers
> for how traits are distributed. Until then its my anecdote against the
> next guy/gal's anecdote. Yes, when I turn on the tv I see lots of black
> athletes. I also see a lot of flabby, clutzy blacks when I go out into
> the streets.
>
Why don't you read some of the literature and not rely on anecdotes, then?
Try Taboo, by Entine, for a start.
> I also will not accept contemplation of such efforts until reliable
> means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
You can not "accept" whatever you want. But, when we deal in human
behaviors, there will ALWAYS be cultural factors. However, despite cultural
differences we accept lots of differences between the genders for example,
like women are weaker on average, shorter on average, and fatter on average.
Nobody is sexist for admitting these realities. We are at least more honest
about gender/sex than we are about race. The problem is with people who
find the mere inquiry "offensive", who have made up their mind before even
looking at the evidence, and who are more concerned with how some people
might misconstrue the truth, than with what the truth is.
> For instance if you take the children of one those great Kenyan runners,
> raise them at a low altitude, in a sedentary existence, and then sign
> them up for high school track will they shine as runners?
>
Screw the Kenyans debate. Not a single white or asian descent male has ever
broken 10 seconds in the hundred meters. Blacks living in any number of
countries all over the world have done so many, many times. The evidence
for west african black's superiority at sprinting is numbingly overwhelming.
LOOK at the data.
> Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
> However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
> factors to be accounted for.
>
That is most certainly true.
Whit
Steve
rcp wrote:
> about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
> Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
My advice.....don't be rude to the Canadains :)
>
> So what? Do we not seek knowledge because we are afraid some people might
> misinterpret it?
Yes, but you temper it with responsibility. We don't live in a perfect
world. I agree with you that it is sad that people haven't found a way
to balance responsiblity, politics and pure science yet.
>>I also will not accept contemplation of such efforts until reliable
>>means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
>>
>
> You can not "accept" whatever you want.
I will not accept anything without adequate proof or examination.
> We are at least more honest
> about gender/sex than we are about race.
Bullshit.
Steve
David Cohen
"rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote:
>
> Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
> > However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
> > factors to be accounted for.
> >
> That is most certainly true.
>
No, it isn't. You are being too generous, Whitney. Bloodhounds and
greyhounds belong to the same species, but bloodhounds have genetic
differences that make them superior at scent tracking. Anybody got a problem
with that? No. OK, let's try again. Black West Africans and White Northern
Europeans belong to the same species, but Black West Africans have genetic
differences that make them superior at sprinting. Anybody got a problem with
that? Apparently so. Sure it's more complex, but denying the basic and
obvious is [insert choice of expletive here].
I feeling rather annoyed at the human race this morning. Maybe four straight
12 hour shifts dealing with human stupidity has affected me. And this diet
thing sucks :(
David
David Cohen
"Steve" <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> rcp wrote:
> > about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
> > Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
>
> My advice.....don't be rude to the Canadains :)
>
At least not while in Canada. Being prosecuted for what we in the US would
call free speech would suck. Although I bet Canadian prisons are nicer.
> >
> > So what? Do we not seek knowledge because we are afraid some people
might
> > misinterpret it?
>
> Yes, but you temper it with responsibility. We don't live in a perfect
> world. I agree with you that it is sad that people haven't found a way
> to balance responsiblity, politics and pure science yet.
Sure we have. Leave pure science the fuck alone. See, easy.
>
> >>I also will not accept contemplation of such efforts until reliable
> >>means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
> >>
> > You can not "accept" whatever you want.
>
> I will not accept anything without adequate proof or examination.
Of course, you want some "social responsibility" along with your adequate
proof or examination. Can't have too much of that disconcerting truth
getting out to the ignorant masses.
>
> > We are at least more honest
> > about gender/sex than we are about race.
>
> Bullshit.
Naive.
>
> Steve
>
> Home Page:
> http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/
"beforewisdom". huh? Got that right :)
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> The current population of the Earth is 6.2 billion people.
> If current birth and death rates continue, the Earth's
> population will nearly double in 40 years
>
> Zero Population Growth web site:
> http://www.zpg.org/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
Wow, Holy 1970's, Batman!! Talk about a discredited idea. I didn't even know
ZPG existed anymore. Remind me, again: is it global cooling with a new ice
age, or global warming with melting ice caps, that I'm supposed to be
worried about? Pseudo-science is just so difficult to keep up with.
David
rcp
David Cohen <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B3HX7.8086$yi.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
> > > However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
> > > factors to be accounted for.
> > >
> > That is most certainly true.
> >
> No, it isn't. You are being too generous, Whitney.
Yes, I get that comment a lot. :)
Bloodhounds and
> greyhounds belong to the same species, but bloodhounds have genetic
> differences that make them superior at scent tracking. Anybody got a
problem
> with that? No. OK, let's try again. Black West Africans and White Northern
> Europeans belong to the same species, but Black West Africans have genetic
> differences that make them superior at sprinting. Anybody got a problem
with
> that? Apparently so. Sure it's more complex, but denying the basic and
> obvious is [insert choice of expletive here].
>
I agree. But, a million points of data can't overcome cognitive dissonance
in those that espouse the egalitarian fiction.
> I feeling rather annoyed at the human race this morning. Maybe four
straight
> 12 hour shifts dealing with human stupidity has affected me. And this diet
> thing sucks :(
>
> David
As you well know, I can empathize.
Whit
rcp
>
>
> rcp wrote:
>
>
> > about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
> > Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
>
>
> My advice.....don't be rude to the Canadains :)
>
>
>
>
> >
> > So what? Do we not seek knowledge because we are afraid some people
might
> > misinterpret it?
>
>
> Yes, but you temper it with responsibility. We don't live in a perfect
> world. I agree with you that it is sad that people haven't found a way
> to balance responsiblity, politics and pure science yet.
>
>
> >>I also will not accept contemplation of such efforts until reliable
> >>means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
> >>
> >
> > You can not "accept" whatever you want.
>
>
> I will not accept anything without adequate proof or examination.
>
> > We are at least more honest
>
> > about gender/sex than we are about race.
>
>
> Bullshit.
>
>
> Steve
Radical feminist attempts notwithstanding, we can admit that
1) women are weaker
2) women are shorter
3) women are fatter
4) Men are more aggressive
5) men are more likely to be mentally retarded
etc. without being accused, by any but the most ridiculous idealogue, of
being "sexist". We do realize that these differences exist, and that they
are genetically based.
However, there are very few racial differences, apart from the completely
incontrovertible e.g. blacks tend to have darker skin than whites, or asians
tend to have less body hair than scandinavians, etc. that we will consider,
for risk of being "offensive".
One common thread in the race and gender thing is that we are more likely to
accept "positive" stereotypes/differentiation when they are applied to the
"oppressed" gender or race, then vice-versa.
Thus, the Grateful Dead could sing that the women were smarter without
offending anybody, or a movie could come out entitled "White Men Can't Jump"
and not bother anybody.
One of the reasons people are particularly sensitive to the racial sports
issue, is the fear that admitting that certain groups are genetically
superior at physical activity X, Y, or Z seems to suggest to them that they
are correlatively LESS mentally apt or something. There is absolutely no
deductive logic to that reasoning, but it is common, at least partly because
of the "dumb jock" stereotype. From what little psychometric analysis I
have seen on the issue, there is a POSITIVE correlation between athletic
ability and intelligence, not a negative correlation, anyways, which would
certainly not suggest that the dumb jock stereotype is valid.
In other words, saying West African Blacks are superior sprinters has
exactly no bearing whatsoever on claims that there are innate intelligence
differences, which would be a far more controversial subject for most
people.
Again, the gender issue is more accepted, in this area as well. It is
common knowledge in the field of psychology, for instance, that while men
have roughly the same AVERAGE intelligence than women, their standard
deviation is greater. Thus, there are more male super-geniuses and more
male morons and idiots than female. Kind of a tangent, there, sorry.
Whit
Elzinator
>
>Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3C2F2E98...@yahoo.com...
>> I have mixed views about this issue.
>>
>> I do think there is a grain of truth about scientists being afraid to
>> talk about genetics and human beings out of political concerns.
>>
>
>There is more than a grain of truth. Many scientists, or so-called
>scientists will out and out admit, especially behind closed doors, that they
>don't want to think about such matters, or discover if they are true,
>because it can only lead to controversy and career risk. Furthermore, many
>people who should be studying this stuff are in academia, where what side
>you take in such political hot-potato issues, and that is the problem is
>that these issues ARE politicized, can have serious ramifications on
>professional advancement, tenure, etc. All one has to do is look at the
>death threats, and other shite that professors at some universities like
>Berkeley et al. have put up with because they dared suggest certain things
>about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
>Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
>racial differences on a physical/genetic/biological level. That can be
>prosecuted, and has been, as a hate crime. A professor was prosecuted,
>unsuccessfully for speaking and writing on this very subject.
Unfortunately, scientific data is susceptible to human interpretation
and then social constraints restrict what is reported and how. The
science arena is not infallible nor protected from human politics,
morals and ethics. It overlaps our society just like anything else.
People will believe that which they want to believe, no matter what
evidence proves otherwise. Scientists are human and science is subject
to human interpretation.
There are games we all have to play, and the arena of science is no
different. Renegades are often prosecuted in one way or another.
>> Society as a whole ( any society ) is not ready to accept differences
>> while at the same time not using those differences as a basis for
>> dehumanization or otherwise devaluing people.
>
>So, what you are saying is that we can't (in the words of Jack Nicholson)
>"HANDLE THE TRUTH??!!"
>
>Better scientists treat us like little sheeple and only feed us knowledge
>about ourselves that makes us feel warm and fuzzy, that we are all the same,
>that differences are only "skin deep" etc.?
'Better scientists'??? I take issue with that, Whit. Many of our
greatest scientists were renegades, often ostracized by the
public/political arena and even the scientific community for adhering
to their discoveries. No, we do not always feed the public with what
makes them 'warm and fuzzy,' but present the data with explanations
that help people to understand them and the implication, especially
when it is controversial. But we can't change human nature.
>> Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
>> However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
>> factors to be accounted for.
>>
>
>That is most certainly true.
Sure, but people are not canines. Canines were selectively chosen and
bred for specific traits for thousands of years. That accelerates
evolution of traits. Human eugenics has been morally and ethically
avoided as you well know. If we had used similar selective pressure in
human populations over the thousands of years as we did with canines,
we would find similar differences in human traits. There are some
trait differences in humans, such as skin color, etc, but not to the
extent exemplified in dogs.
Differentiating between the genetic and environmental factors in human
traits is significantly difficult. That is why twin studies are so
popular. Controlling for variables in human studies is exceedingly
difficult. Not only are physiology and anatomy significant factors,
but also psychology. That complicates issues.
Elzi
Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
Lyle McDonald
Without getting dragged back into this debate, I should point out that
there is considerable (and increasing rapidly) data showing racial
differences in disease risk. For exmaple insulin resistance syndrome
and hypertension, both of which are more prevalent, as I recall, in
black females, than other groups. The example of Asian having more
trouble with alcohol (differences in liver enzymes as I recall), or
racial differences in lactose tolerance are also well established. I
vaguely recall some racial differences in drug disposition as well.
Of course these are all genetically based. It may also have relevance
in terms of treatment/prevention.
This sort of data is accepted readily by both the medical and lay
establishement as far as I can tell.
But suggest that there might be racial differences in something like
athletic performance, and suddenly you're the next Hitler looking for a
basis for the next eugenics purge.
this is because, as Whit pointed out in an earlier post, most people are
small minded idiots who lack critical thinking ability completely,
relying more on knee-jerk emotional belief systems than anything else.
Lyle
Elzinator
>
>"rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
>> > However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
>> > factors to be accounted for.
>> >
>> That is most certainly true.
>>
>No, it isn't. You are being too generous, Whitney. Bloodhounds and
>greyhounds belong to the same species, but bloodhounds have genetic
>differences that make them superior at scent tracking. Anybody got a problem
>with that? No. OK, let's try again. Black West Africans and White Northern
>Europeans belong to the same species, but Black West Africans have genetic
>differences that make them superior at sprinting. Anybody got a problem with
>that? Apparently so. Sure it's more complex, but denying the basic and
>obvious is [insert choice of expletive here].
Exactly. It's called 'human psychology.'
>I feeling rather annoyed at the human race this morning. Maybe four straight
>12 hour shifts dealing with human stupidity has affected me. And this diet
>thing sucks :(
I admire your patience.
Lyle McDonald
>
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 15:44:36 GMT, rcp wrote:
> >
> >Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> Society as a whole ( any society ) is not ready to accept differences
> >> while at the same time not using those differences as a basis for
> >> dehumanization or otherwise devaluing people.
> >
> >So, what you are saying is that we can't (in the words of Jack Nicholson)
> >"HANDLE THE TRUTH??!!"
> >
> >Better scientists treat us like little sheeple and only feed us knowledge
> >about ourselves that makes us feel warm and fuzzy, that we are all the same,
> >that differences are only "skin deep" etc.?
>
> 'Better scientists'??? I take issue with that, Whit.
He's not using 'better' as an adjective here.
It would be written more clearly as 'Better [that] scientists....'
Or 'It would be better [that] scientists....'
So chill the fuck out.
Lyle
Elzinator
>
>One of the reasons people are particularly sensitive to the racial sports
>issue, is the fear that admitting that certain groups are genetically
>superior at physical activity X, Y, or Z seems to suggest to them that they
>are correlatively LESS mentally apt or something. There is absolutely no
>deductive logic to that reasoning, but it is common, at least partly because
>of the "dumb jock" stereotype. From what little psychometric analysis I
>have seen on the issue, there is a POSITIVE correlation between athletic
>ability and intelligence, not a negative correlation, anyways, which would
>certainly not suggest that the dumb jock stereotype is valid.
>
>In other words, saying West African Blacks are superior sprinters has
>exactly no bearing whatsoever on claims that there are innate intelligence
>differences, which would be a far more controversial subject for most
>people.
>
>Again, the gender issue is more accepted, in this area as well. It is
>common knowledge in the field of psychology, for instance, that while men
>have roughly the same AVERAGE intelligence than women, their standard
>deviation is greater. Thus, there are more male super-geniuses and more
>male morons and idiots than female. Kind of a tangent, there, sorry.
So, men are more wishy-washy after all. ;)
rcp
Elzinator <elzi...@planetclaire.not> wrote in message
news:o9hu2u0oqnlskctmg...@4ax.com...
Well, in the long run, it really isn't as bad you make it sound. I mean it
is completely contrary to visual observation, and common sense, to believe
that the earth revolves around the sun. That idea was vigorously opposed by
scientists (as any radical theory is), clergy, and laymen alike. However,
eventually science wins out, and we believe what Occam's razor tells us to.
There are a million other examples of things we believe - germ theory,
interstellar distances, etc. - due to the advancement of science and that go
against what we would want to believe. It is just that at any given time,
there are a lot of issues that SEEM to outweigh all the others, but in the
long run - science wins.
Scientists are human and science is subject
> to human interpretation.
>
> There are games we all have to play, and the arena of science is no
> different. Renegades are often prosecuted in one way or another.
>
>
> >> Society as a whole ( any society ) is not ready to accept differences
> >> while at the same time not using those differences as a basis for
> >> dehumanization or otherwise devaluing people.
> >
> >So, what you are saying is that we can't (in the words of Jack Nicholson)
> >"HANDLE THE TRUTH??!!"
> >
> >Better scientists treat us like little sheeple and only feed us knowledge
> >about ourselves that makes us feel warm and fuzzy, that we are all the
same,
> >that differences are only "skin deep" etc.?
>
> 'Better scientists'??? I take issue with that, Whit. Many of our
> greatest scientists were renegades, often ostracized by the
> public/political arena and even the scientific community for adhering
> to their discoveries. No, we do not always feed the public with what
> makes them 'warm and fuzzy,' but present the data with explanations
> that help people to understand them and the implication, especially
> when it is controversial. But we can't change human nature.
>
You completely misparsed my grammer. I was saying that - more clearly
stated here "Are you saying it is better THAT scientists treat us..."
Emphasis on the "that".
I should have been more clear.
>
>
>
> >> Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
> >> However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
> >> factors to be accounted for.
> >>
> >
> >That is most certainly true.
>
> Sure, but people are not canines. Canines were selectively chosen and
> bred for specific traits for thousands of years. That accelerates
> evolution of traits. Human eugenics has been morally and ethically
> avoided as you well know. If we had used similar selective pressure in
> human populations over the thousands of years as we did with canines,
> we would find similar differences in human traits. There are some
> trait differences in humans, such as skin color, etc, but not to the
> extent exemplified in dogs.
>
True.
> Differentiating between the genetic and environmental factors in human
> traits is significantly difficult. That is why twin studies are so
> popular. Controlling for variables in human studies is exceedingly
> difficult. Not only are physiology and anatomy significant factors,
> but also psychology. That complicates issues.
>
>
> Elzi
Psychology is kewl.
Whit
scoob
rcp wrote in message ...
<snippage>
>
>Screw the Kenyans debate. Not a single white or asian descent male has
ever
>broken 10 seconds in the hundred meters. Blacks living in any number of
>countries all over the world have done so many, many times. The evidence
>for west african black's superiority at sprinting is numbingly
overwhelming.
>LOOK at the data.
>
Clearly, the 100M is culturally biased.
Jim
John M. Williams
>On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 16:14:25 GMT, David Cohen wrote:
>>
>>"rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
>>> > However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
>>> > factors to be accounted for.
>>> >
>>> That is most certainly true.
>>>
>>No, it isn't. You are being too generous, Whitney. Bloodhounds and
>>greyhounds belong to the same species, but bloodhounds have genetic
>>differences that make them superior at scent tracking. Anybody got a problem
>>with that? No. OK, let's try again. Black West Africans and White Northern
>>Europeans belong to the same species, but Black West Africans have genetic
>>differences that make them superior at sprinting. Anybody got a problem with
>>that? Apparently so. Sure it's more complex, but denying the basic and
>>obvious is [insert choice of expletive here].
>
>Exactly. It's called 'human psychology.'
It is beyond "human psychology." It is an attempt to forcibly
manipulate natural human understanding to fit "noble" egalitarian
values. It is forced indoctrination, much the same as, but
diametrically opposed to, Hitler's attempts to scientifically
establish the existence of the Aryan Master Race. Same bullshit,
different agenda.
--
John M. Williams jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com
------- http://www.enforcergraphics.f2s.com --------
------ Partnership for an Idiot-Free America -------
rcp
John M. Williams <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:ljlu2uci6as7rokfn...@4ax.com...
The King is dead. Long live the King.
Whit
Bryce Lane
> in terms of treatment/prevention.
>
> This sort of data is accepted readily by both the medical and lay
> establishement as far as I can tell.
>
> But suggest that there might be racial differences in something like
> athletic performance, and suddenly you're the next Hitler looking for a
> basis for the next eugenics purge.
>
> this is because, as Whit pointed out in an earlier post, most people are
> small minded idiots who lack critical thinking ability completely,
> relying more on knee-jerk emotional belief systems than anything else.
>
Yes, and in this little ad-hominem spew of yours lies absolute proof of your
own thesis.
Congratulations! You have freely elected yourself head of the club.
Bryce
> Lyle
Bryce Lane
> Differentiating between the genetic and environmental factors in human
> traits is significantly difficult. That is why twin studies are so
> popular. Controlling for variables in human studies is exceedingly
> difficult. Not only are physiology and anatomy significant factors,
> but also psychology. That complicates issues.
Thank you.
Bryce
Bryce Lane
"Bryce Lane" <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:8MJX7.67417$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> > Of course these are all genetically based. It may also have relevance
> > in terms of treatment/prevention.
> >
> > This sort of data is accepted readily by both the medical and lay
> > establishement as far as I can tell.
> >
> > But suggest that there might be racial differences in something like
> > athletic performance, and suddenly you're the next Hitler looking for a
> > basis for the next eugenics purge.
> >
> > this is because, as Whit pointed out in an earlier post, most people are
> > small minded idiots who lack critical thinking ability completely,
> > relying more on knee-jerk emotional belief systems than anything else.
Whit should also learn to use this "critical thinking" when it comes to
statistics and learning the difference between "I found something that SEEMS
to support what I already think so its gotta be true" and actually
constructing a real argument by process of reason. If he does not make any
real attempts at this then he should not critisise others.
I don't think of either of you (Lyle or Whit) as "small minded idiots" but
this comment is dangerously close to "projection".
Bryce
rcp
>
> "Bryce Lane" <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:8MJX7.67417$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> > > Of course these are all genetically based. It may also have relevance
> > > in terms of treatment/prevention.
> > >
> > > This sort of data is accepted readily by both the medical and lay
> > > establishement as far as I can tell.
> > >
> > > But suggest that there might be racial differences in something like
> > > athletic performance, and suddenly you're the next Hitler looking for
a
> > > basis for the next eugenics purge.
> > >
> > > this is because, as Whit pointed out in an earlier post, most people
are
> > > small minded idiots who lack critical thinking ability completely,
> > > relying more on knee-jerk emotional belief systems than anything else.
>
> Whit should also learn to use this "critical thinking" when it comes to
> statistics and learning the difference between "I found something that
SEEMS
> to support what I already think so its gotta be true"
Uh, no. I would never have even considered that west african blacks would
be superior sprinters prior to looking at the evidence. I assumed the exact
opposite, in fact, that there was no racial factor in sports performance.
Just like the gun control debate, it was the evidence that changed my
preconceived notions, not my preconceived notions that allowed me to
selectively filter evidence.
Of course, this debate should not be about personalities or what *I* think,
but what the evidence supports, so lets stick to the facts, not your minimal
understanding of where I am coming from as an individual.
and actually
> constructing a real argument by process of reason. If he does not make any
> real attempts at this then he should not critisise others.
>
What are you referring to.
> I don't think of either of you (Lyle or Whit) as "small minded idiots" but
> this comment is dangerously close to "projection".
>
> Bryce
Dude, chill with the penny psychology and stick to the facts.
Whit
>
>
>
Bryce Lane
"rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote in message
news:WpKX7.708$%C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
"West African blacks" is not a "race". You destroy your own argument for a
"racial basis" right there.
>
> Just like the gun control debate, it was the evidence that changed my
> preconceived notions, not my preconceived notions that allowed me to
> selectively filter evidence.
It was bad evidence. Would you like to examine Mr. Lott's bad math? Your
last excursions into polling and statistics was very poor and strangely
incompetent. I'm still really surprised that you called that "evidence".
>
> Of course, this debate should not be about personalities or what *I*
think,
> but what the evidence supports, so lets stick to the facts, not your
minimal
> understanding of where I am coming from as an individual.
Sure lets go with "the facts" I'm still waiting for you to present some.
Mostly you persist in making every question a political battle between
"liberals and conservatives" (or egalitarians) and giving us all textbook
lessons in most logical fallacies, mostly ad-hominems and false dilemas.
I've los talot of intellectual respect for you.
>
> and actually
> > constructing a real argument by process of reason. If he does not make
any
> > real attempts at this then he should not critisise others.
> >
>
> What are you referring to.
Most of what you write. Especially your strange ideas of what constitutes
"evidence".
>
> > I don't think of either of you (Lyle or Whit) as "small minded idiots"
but
> > this comment is dangerously close to "projection".
> >
> > Bryce
>
> Dude, chill with the penny psychology and stick to the facts.
It was the fact, when either of you get threatened by contrary information
it usually leads to some sort of ad-hominem, a tantrum or accusations of
people who dissagree with you being "idiots". Read your own posts.
Bryce
>
> Whit
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Jonathan
First, this Whit, whoever he is, talks sense. He's basically said all
that I would have said, except this-
Anyone who is so ignorant and foolish as to call someone "racist" for
suggesting that there are innate physical differences between races
genetically defined, consider what it means to be racist. Or, for that
matter, to be anything-"ist". It means to discriminate against people
of a certain race, sex, religion, whatever, on grounds of their being
of that race, sex, religion, where these features are irrelevant
criteria. So, if someone is refused a job simply because of the colour
of his skin, the person refusing him the job is being racist. When
women receive less pay than men for identical jobs, simply because
they are women, they are victims of sexism.
But if a director is casting a film about the life of a white man, and
a black man is silly enough to offer himself for the part, it isn't
racism on the part of the director to turn him down in favour of a
white man. Because the colour of his skin is relevant.
And even more blindingly obviously, it isn't racism when one simply
states that there are differences between people of different races.
Where's the discrimintaion, for fuck's sake?
There have been some in this thread who have dismissed the suggestion
that there actually is any reluctance to discuss this issue, but there
undoubtedly is. In modern liberal societies, where the supposedly
enlightened believe in meritocracy, there is a tendency to pretend
that all people are equally capable of all tasks. Anything that
encroaches on this naive ideal is seen as threatening. Unfortunately,
science is increasingly showing this ideal to be a nonsense. So those
who still cling to the ideal dismiss the science as propaganda, or
offer a ludicrous argument of the form, "That would be racist" (which
it wouldn't), "therefore it's not true."
Those who shout "racism" at the merest suggestion that there might be
differences between Eurasians, Africans, Aboriginals, Inuits,
whatever, should remember that "is" does not imply "ought". Just
because there are physical differences between races does not mean
that we ought to treat races differently. THAT would be racism.
Jonathan
Lyle McDonald
> I don't think of either of you (Lyle or Whit) as "small minded idiots" but
> this comment is dangerously close to "projection".
This from the man who said 'There is no such thing as a genetic limit'
and then went to endless machinations to defend the stance in the face
of endless data to the contrary.
Look up the word 'irony', Bryce.
Lyle
P.S. How come it's always the people who DO take a broad view to a topic
who are called small/close minded by those who DON'T/WON'T take the same view?
To clarify that statement, I vividly recall a situation on the old
training/nutrition list with good old Paul Moses (truly a small minded
fuckwit if ever there were one). This was when keto diets were just
becoming repopularized again.
A bunch of us were trying to defend a ketogenic diet as ONE option among
many for dieting. None of us EVER said it was the only option or
necessarily the best option. Well, none of the major advocates (which
included myself and Jeff Krabbe among others) did in any event. We said
it should be considered as one option for use under certain
circumstances ; nothing more.
Paul, on the other hand, refused to accept the POSSIBLE utility of such
a diet for dieting. Like Siff, Paul would let Tom McCullough post any
negative press about keto diets, but would refuse to let us post in
criticism of it. Nothing like an impartial moderator. ;)
At one point, Paul (recall, REFUSED to consider the possibility) called
the keto folks (who repeatedly pointed out it was one of many possible
approaches) closed minded.
Go fucking figure.
But that's what's happening here.
Bryce 'no genetic limits' is calling Lyle/Whit (both of whom have
pointed out repeatedly that genetics is only one of MANY contributing
factors, but that the dominance in sprinting can't be argued away by
anything but some genetic contribution) small minded.
No matter, in 10 or so years when the data is there, Bryce will most
likely be proven wrong and it still won't matter. NB: I consider the
possiblity that it will be disproven possible (i.e. that there are no
genetic issues at play), but not probable (simply considering all of the
other places where there are CLEAR genetic differences in physiology).
But that seems to be Bryce's defintino of small minded here: that you
actually consider all of hte possibilities, and make probability
statements based on the data that is available (and that data is
incontrovertbile in the 100m, a sport that is far less affected by
issues of equipement, etc than other sports ; why it's such a wonderful
example).
Blacks dominate completely and there is no sociological, economic or
other explanation that can be given. Whites are competitive in that
event in high school, maybe in college but there are NONE at the elite
level. NONE. It's not for a lack of trying, economics, sociology or
anything else. Leaving genetics. But I'm retreading ground I've gone
over before so I'm gonna stop there.
Anyhow, Bryce still can't explain (anymore than Siff) why nearly every
100m record is held by an African American without resorting to absurd
logical jumps ; anything to avoid the possibility that there are genetic
differences among races in terms of sporting ability.
Go fucking figure.
P.P.S. Although I certainly haven't discussed the issue with many
people, I do find it entertaining the discussing this topic with my
black friends usually just has them nodding their head in agreement with
me. It seems to be guilt ridden whites who can't deal with the
possibility. But it's a small sample to be sure.
P.P.P.S. What award do I get for making a P.S. that's longer than my post?
Elzinator
>
>
>> Differentiating between the genetic and environmental factors in human
>> traits is significantly difficult. That is why twin studies are so
>> popular. Controlling for variables in human studies is exceedingly
>> difficult. Not only are physiology and anatomy significant factors,
>> but also psychology. That complicates issues.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Bryce
For what? Stating the obvious? Lewontin and several others have
written numerous articles/books on this issue: nature vs. nurture. (A
good book was published just recently on it) While we can considerably
control the variables for most of the animal models we study, humans
are the most difficult to control for, especially behavioral genetics.
That is why many geneticists use isolated populations for study. But
even in these populations, we have the most confounding variable:
human psychology.
Does it really matter? Yes and no. Learning all we can about genetics
and genetic expression can aid us in manipulation of our environment
to promote expression of specific traits (the example of dog breeding
mentioned elsewhere is a perfect example). But that has ethical
considerations.
On the other hand, it can also help us treat diseases and illnesses.
As Lyle mentioned elsewhere, some diseases are highly correlated with
ethnicity because of generations of genetic 'imprinting.' For
instance, Hispanics and other ethnic groups tend to have higher
visceral fat accumulation than other Caucasians and are consequently
susceptible to associated metabolic diseases or pathophysiologies,
such as diabetes (see Steve Hefner's research). Modalities and
intervention strategies can be taught and integrated to prevent and
treat such diseases. But they don't always adopt them.
We as humans have the greatest ability and freedom to control and
manipulate our environment. But do we do so to optimize our genetic
potential? No. We have 'human nature' to consider as well. And
sometimes our psychology does not always agree with our biology on
what is 'best' for us as individuals and/or a race.
The same could be said for genetic propensities for athletic
performance.
Everyone may have the same genes, but they are not all expressed
equally, depending on their historical development as a subpopulation
(e.g. Pima Indians) and their environment (e.g. Pima Indians in our
Western society become morbidly obese and diabetic, but not in their
historical environment). A similar scenario could have evolved for
other traits (e.g. sprinting ability) in any given subpopulation (e.g.
Africans).
We should feel just as comfortable with our dissimilarities as we are
our similarities. And screw political correctness.
rcp
Yes, lets define terms here. Blacks as a group, a race, are still superior
to white or asians as sprinters. It just so happens that all the successful
sprinters are from a subset of the black race, specifically west african
blacks. There is no "one word" substitute for race when talking of west
african blacks, and you are correct that they are not a race. That was
imprecise wording on my part.
However, blacks are still, as a RACE, superior sprinters because every
single west african black is black (duh) and west african blacks dominate
sprinting. Most blacks in the US, for instance, are of west african
heritage, btw. It is just more specific to more specifically say west
african blacks, since they are the subset that dominate.
> >
> > Just like the gun control debate, it was the evidence that changed my
> > preconceived notions, not my preconceived notions that allowed me to
> > selectively filter evidence.
>
> It was bad evidence. Would you like to examine Mr. Lott's bad math? Your
> last excursions into polling and statistics was very poor and strangely
> incompetent. I'm still really surprised that you called that "evidence".
>
Lott is just the tip of the iceberg. There are numerous reasons why I do
not support "gun control" if by gun control one means restricting the right
of non-felons and non-psychos to get carry permits. There are arguments
from a rights basis, as well. Those, in my opinion, are far more important
than the stats. Yes, I said that. Stats are just a part of it. It is a
matter of fundamental rights. Even if I believed that there would be less
violent crime in the US if all guns magically dissapeared (which is
impossible anyways, with over 200 million in circulation), I still would
have issues with restricting the fundamental right of gun ownership and
carry, on a pure rights basis.
> >
> > Of course, this debate should not be about personalities or what *I*
> think,
> > but what the evidence supports, so lets stick to the facts, not your
> minimal
> > understanding of where I am coming from as an individual.
>
> Sure lets go with "the facts" I'm still waiting for you to present some.
> Mostly you persist in making every question a political battle between
> "liberals and conservatives" (or egalitarians) and giving us all textbook
> lessons in most logical fallacies, mostly ad-hominems and false dilemas.
> I've los talot of intellectual respect for you.
No, I don't. For your information, Entine is a "liberal Jew" to use his own
terminology. This is not a right vs. left issue. As a matter of fact,
there are several rightist publications that are on record as suppressing
evidence of black sprint superiority etc. out of fear of "appearing racist".
You are right that mindless egalitarians are a particular peeve of mine.
They are responsible for much of the muddle and misery surrounding PeeCee
horrors, and other attempts at quelling free expression.
And you are considering making a discussion into a "personal thing".
>
> >
> > and actually
> > > constructing a real argument by process of reason. If he does not make
> any
> > > real attempts at this then he should not critisise others.
> > >
> >
> > What are you referring to.
>
> Most of what you write. Especially your strange ideas of what constitutes
> "evidence".
>
Right. It is not evidence that no white male has ever broken 10 seconds,
that 494 of the top 500 100 meter sprint times are done by west african
blacks, etc.
> >
> > > I don't think of either of you (Lyle or Whit) as "small minded idiots"
> but
> > > this comment is dangerously close to "projection".
> > >
> > > Bryce
> >
> > Dude, chill with the penny psychology and stick to the facts.
>
> It was the fact, when either of you get threatened by contrary information
> it usually leads to some sort of ad-hominem, a tantrum or accusations of
> people who dissagree with you being "idiots". Read your own posts.
>
> Bryce
Dude, that guy was an idiot. His entire argument was sentiment mentality.
There was not a single acknowledgment of what the facts were in regards to
differential performance etc. and several comments that the reason that this
should not be studied, is that it might lead to, for lack of a better term,
hurt feelings.
I rarely call people idiots, but sometimes a glaring buffoon is a glaring
buffoon.
Whit
>
> >
> > Whit
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Elzinator
>Elzinator <elzi...@planetclaire.not> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 16:14:25 GMT, David Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>>"rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
>>>> > However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
>>>> > factors to be accounted for.
>>>> >
>>>> That is most certainly true.
>>>>
>>>No, it isn't. You are being too generous, Whitney. Bloodhounds and
>>>greyhounds belong to the same species, but bloodhounds have genetic
>>>differences that make them superior at scent tracking. Anybody got a problem
>>>with that? No. OK, let's try again. Black West Africans and White Northern
>>>Europeans belong to the same species, but Black West Africans have genetic
>>>differences that make them superior at sprinting. Anybody got a problem with
>>>that? Apparently so. Sure it's more complex, but denying the basic and
>>>obvious is [insert choice of expletive here].
>>
>>Exactly. It's called 'human psychology.'
>
>It is beyond "human psychology." It is an attempt to forcibly
>manipulate natural human understanding to fit "noble" egalitarian
>values. It is forced indoctrination, much the same as, but
>diametrically opposed to, Hitler's attempts to scientifically
>establish the existence of the Aryan Master Race. Same bullshit,
>different agenda.
However, not every person shares the same agenda.
Some choose to believe because they desperately want to. Simple as
that.
rcp
> >
> > It was the fact, when either of you get threatened by contrary
information
> > it usually leads to some sort of ad-hominem, a tantrum or accusations of
> > people who dissagree with you being "idiots". Read your own posts.
> >
> > Bryce
Dude, I just reread the post. What I said was "many people are idiots". How
is that ad hominem, a tantrum, etc? That's pretty damn bland, especially
for MFW. I did not call the poster an idiot.
Whit
Robert Dorf
"Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
news:3C2F791E...@onr.com...
<Snip>
> P.P.P.S. What award do I get for making a P.S. that's longer than my post?
The Positively Scrumptious Three Snaps and a Wiggle Cluster Certificate.
Bryce Lane
> Those who shout "racism" at the merest suggestion that there might be
> differences between Eurasians, Africans, Aboriginals, Inuits,
> whatever, should remember that "is" does not imply "ought". Just
> because there are physical differences between races does not mean
> that we ought to treat races differently. THAT would be racism.
Actually this is a good point here in the way you separated this. You see
examples of "iz-ought fallacies" everywhere.
There are differences as you say, but they do not break down in any
definitive way between what we describe as "races". It is amazing to me that
there is as LITTLE difference in athletic performance as there seems to be.
Its still not enough of a factor to eliminate other possible causes or
contributions. It seems that given the evolutionany/enviromental factors at
work there should be MORE of a difference, but there isn't. Thats
interesting, really interesting!
At this point we can't separate, eviromental, socialogical, adaptative
(training) or even nutritional factors apart in any scientifically reliable
or significant way so at present the issue is indeterminative, cloudy and
poorly understood even as to what we should really be looking for. Acting to
differentiate people (or predict probable performance) on anything other
than actual performance is at this point a silly politically based pile of
nonsense, no matter which "side" it comes from.
To actually show a athletic difference between "races" one would have to
define (replicably and objectively) specifically in biological terms what is
meant by "race" and then show tight correlations between the averages (yes
"averages") of different groupings. Thats just the start. You would also
have to "weed out" all other performance related factors and isolate it down
to actuall biological causitive factors. You would also have to show that
other well defined "races" do not posses these causitive factors or posess
them in definitively smaller quantities. It ain't been done, we're not even
close.
It may be politically provocative to say that there are performance
differences between races but to prove that you have to prove that there are
definitive difference between more than only a few on either end of the
scale (it would be a statistical miracle if there were not some odd stuff at
the extremes). To prove differences between races you have to prove that any
randomly chosen person of one race has to have a a high probability of
significant performance difference in relation of any chosen person of
another. This has to apply to at least most of the defined groups.
I don't think it matter who is afraid to be "talking about race", its not
what we should be talking about. There are much better ways to go after
this. The argument presented as a "racial difference" is a false dilema.
Bryce
>
> Jonathan
Bryce Lane
"Ad hominem" is not necessarily a personal attack. It is the fallacy of
"doubt based purely on source, without recourse to reason". "Many people"
have different opinions than you, "many people" are still right in spite of
that ;-)
You are alway carping about "presenting evidence", why don't you try it? Why
dont' you try constructing a simple reasoned argument based on something
other than "read this book" or "liberals talk like that, therefore its
false"? Why don't you go through something step by step like I have on many
occasions and simply lay out a rational basis for why you thing something
may or may not be the case and leave the "liberal and conservative" canards
out of it.
Bryce
>
> Whit
>
>
>
Bryce Lane
"Elzinator" <elzi...@planetclaire.not> wrote in message
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:18:28 GMT, Bryce Lane wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Differentiating between the genetic and environmental factors in human
> >> traits is significantly difficult. That is why twin studies are so
> >> popular. Controlling for variables in human studies is exceedingly
> >> difficult. Not only are physiology and anatomy significant factors,
> >> but also psychology. That complicates issues.
> >
> >Thank you.
> >
> >Bryce
>
> For what? Stating the obvious? Lewontin and several others have
> written numerous articles/books on this issue: nature vs. nurture. (A
> good book was published just recently on it) While we can considerably
> control the variables for most of the animal models we study, humans
> are the most difficult to control for, especially behavioral genetics.
> That is why many geneticists use isolated populations for study. But
> even in these populations, we have the most confounding variable:
> human psychology.
I thank you for "stating the obvious" as I have several times. I've also
made the psychology point, I think you are making.
>
> Does it really matter? Yes and no. Learning all we can about genetics
> and genetic expression can aid us in manipulation of our environment
> to promote expression of specific traits (the example of dog breeding
> mentioned elsewhere is a perfect example). But that has ethical
> considerations.
It sure does.
>
> On the other hand, it can also help us treat diseases and illnesses.
> As Lyle mentioned elsewhere, some diseases are highly correlated with
> ethnicity because of generations of genetic 'imprinting.' For
> instance, Hispanics and other ethnic groups tend to have higher
> visceral fat accumulation than other Caucasians and are consequently
> susceptible to associated metabolic diseases or pathophysiologies,
> such as diabetes (see Steve Hefner's research). Modalities and
> intervention strategies can be taught and integrated to prevent and
> treat such diseases. But they don't always adopt them.
Yes, but this is not what people are discussing and it applies to only
limited subsets of ethnicity groupings.
>
> We as humans have the greatest ability and freedom to control and
> manipulate our environment. But do we do so to optimize our genetic
> potential? No. We have 'human nature' to consider as well. And
> sometimes our psychology does not always agree with our biology on
> what is 'best' for us as individuals and/or a race.
Ok
>
> The same could be said for genetic propensities for athletic
> performance.
>
> Everyone may have the same genes, but they are not all expressed
> equally, depending on their historical development as a subpopulation
> (e.g. Pima Indians) and their environment (e.g. Pima Indians in our
> Western society become morbidly obese and diabetic, but not in their
> historical environment). A similar scenario could have evolved for
> other traits (e.g. sprinting ability) in any given subpopulation (e.g.
> Africans).
>
> We should feel just as comfortable with our dissimilarities as we are
> our similarities. And screw political correctness.
You've made my points for me.
1.) Athletic performance is a question where many interweaving factors
cannot be conveniently separated.
2.) Trying to categorize, quantify and predict athletic performance by
"racial" criteria is impossible (at present) and silly.
So where is the fight coming from? I've said this dozens of time in the last
year.
Bryce
Bryce Lane
>
> > I don't think of either of you (Lyle or Whit) as "small minded idiots"
but
> > this comment is dangerously close to "projection".
>
> This from the man who said 'There is no such thing as a genetic limit'
> and then went to endless machinations to defend the stance in the face
> of endless data to the contrary.
Show me one!
Then prove to me to a scientific certainlty that this limit you post is
indeed "genetic".
Please, go for it. It is a rainy day here and I need some cheering up.
Bryce
Lyle McDonald
him. Mainly just to watch him scramble.
Now, I'm ONLY going to look at the 100m sprint event because that's
what's at issue here. Other sports become far more complicated for
reasons you'll understand by the time you get to the end of this.
First, let's start with a rather simple presumption (that I can't
imagine anyone could logically argue against): athletes who succeed at a
given sport are the ones who will continue in that sport. Put
different, elite sport is self-selecting (by definition) for the
athletes who do the best at that sport. Because if you don't cut it,
you don't make it to the elite level.
Now, with that in mind, consider the statistics: the top 100 100m sprint
records are held by blacks. All of them. Not many, not most, not a
high percentage. All of them. Every elite sprinter in the top 100 at
that distance is black. Every one without an exception.
Oh yeah, for simplicity, and to avoid a lot of worrisome writing
machinations, I'm just going to compare black vs. white, although white
should be taken to include pretty much all other racial subgroups.
I'm also only dealing with elite performance here. If you start
thinking in terms of averages, the discussion becomes meaningless. Sure
you can find an individual white who is faster than an individual black
just like you can find an individual woman who's stronger than an
individual man. That's obvious, at least it should be. This is a debate
about the elite, the far right hand part of the curve where you've
eliminated 99.9% of the population already ; not the average or the
individual. We're comparing the fastest blacks to the fastest whites.
And the fact taht there are NO elite white sprinters in the top 100
records. That simple datum alone should be sufficient to settle this
argument but apparently it's not.
Now, ignoring genetics for the second, let's look at the possible
contributions to ultimate sporting performance. I'll be making
reference to other sports as I go for reasons you'll understand.
1. First, note that ALL cultures run. Running has been part of human
locomotion since we started upright. So we can discount arguments on
that grounds right off the bat. This isn't true of all sports, mind
you. It should be pretty clear that countries with no snow aren't
likely to produce a lot of winter sports stars, simply for a lack of
availability/exposure to the sport. For running this is NOT the case.
Everybody runs. So that's a non-variable.
1a. Elite sprinting definitely has many biomechanical quirks so it is a
bit erroneous to lump running in with sprinting. That gets into the
access to good/competent coaching which I hit a little below.
1.5 (this just occured to me hence the numbering): Sprinting is an
individual sport. There is no risk of crappy teammates affecting your
performance or anything like that. It's you against the clock (and the
other sprinters).
2. Subjective judging or biased refereeing: While this is certainly an
issue in many sports (cf. gymnastics, basketball, football), in
sprinting it's simple: the fastest guy is the winner. Problems with
people starting early are handled by electronics (so there can't be any
judging bias) and the finishes are electronic as well, so no bias there.
He who runs the fastest wins, without anything else coloring it. No
argument, no debate, whoever gets from point a to point b the fastest is
the winner. A non-variable in the 100 m sprint.
3. Equipment: shoes, clothes, kewl sunglasses (sprinters all come with a
certain attitude so that's free). Sprinting is not a sport where
throwing thousands of dollars at equipment makes a huge difference in
performance. Contrast this with something like cycling where spending
20,000$ on a slightly lighter bike frame (I refer to the titanium bikes
used by the US Cycling team a few years back) can significantly impact
performance. Or where making major aerodynamic changes to the bike (I
refer to the sprint bike that was outlawed a few years ago). Charlie
Francis (in his excellent book "Speed Trap") does mention that getting
Ben Johnson, as a 14 year old, better shoes improved his running ; as
well, Johnson lost a race in the rain because his tattered clothing
became soaked with water. In any event, the last time I watched
sprinting championships, most of the guys were in pretty much identical
clothing. Equipment might play a role at a lower level of competition
(high school, maybe college) because someone who can afford better
sprint cleats might have an advantage. This ties into #4 (see below)
and should favor whites anyhow. At the elite level, with the kinds of
sponsorhip involved, I imagine all of the athletes are in pretty
identical equipment ; certianly nobody is in gear that's going to
significantly affect performance. So there's another non-variable.
4. Economics: First and foremost, running doesn't have much in the way
of economic requirements in the first place. A flat space to run and
shoes (yes, I realize that elite sprinters do get into aerodynamic
clothing but see 3 ; this isn't like cycling where you can cut wind
resistance by a huge amount with aero equipment). As well, there is the
issue of money to go to training camps (see Francis' book 'Speed Trap'
to read about the problems he had in Canada getting the funds for it).
However, unless global economics have changed since I last heard about
it, the average white has better economic advantages than the average
black. So even if economics were a factor, it should favor whites, not
blacks. So we can elminate that as well as a cause of black sprint dominance.
4a. Another economic factor sometimes brought up is the use of sport to
'get out', that is for a lower class individual to avoid living, working
and dying a low class-existence. Limited by educational and finiancial
possibilies, some sell drugs or get into a gang, others use sports, many
do neither. Considering that only a very select few sprinters make good
money from sprinting (contrasted to something like football or
basketball where there are a lot more money making possibilities), I
would tend to doubt this having a strong effect. I consider it
possible, but not terribly probable.
5. Access to coaching: this ties in with economics. In many sports (cf.
ice skating, gymnastics), being able to afford coaching at quite an
expense to the family for many years. Ice skating has skates, coaching,
ice time, choreographers, costume makes, etc. Gymnastics has similar
requirements (assuming you even have access to a good gym/coaching which
is why many gymnasts leave their families and go live/train with a
specific coach in another location). This generally relegates those
sports to upper middle class or higher families simply from the expense
alone (yes, there are a few exceptions but they are very few and far
between). I'm no expert on the dynamics of sprint coaching but most go
from high school (coaches freely available, whether they are competent
or not is another issue) to college (again, any successful high school
track athletes will likely go to a college with a good sprint program
and have access to coaching). Beyond that, I don't know. Do sprinters
require private coaching and if so, how much does it cost? In any
event, if it is economically troublesome to get/find a private sprint
coach, this should again favor whites on average (see 4). So that's
eliminated as a cause of black sprint dominance.
5a. There's also the issue of not just finding coaching but finding a
competent coach. Once again, at the elite level, all of the athletes
pretty much (by definition) have to have competent coaches. IF not,
they don't get to the elite level. In any event, I would highly doubt
that black sprinters somehow have better access to competent coaches
than white sprinters. So I considerit a non issue.
6. Cultural history in the sport: this plays a role in many sports (cf.
contrast the popularity of weightlifting in Russia or Bulgaria with the
us ; long-distance running is huge in Kenya and many young athletes are
drawn toward it for that reasons) and can affect how many people go into
a certain sport or not. Does this impact sprinting? I don't know for
sure but I would tend to doubt it. AT least in the US, black sports
stars (at least those who would be commonly known) are in basketball,
football and those sports. I hate basketball and football and I can
still name at least a few of the top athletes ; with sprinting, I can
probably come up with more names than most but only because training
stuff is my field of interest. I daresay that even sports
non-enthusiasts know who someone like Michael Jordan or Deion Sanders
is, but they couldn't tell you about Linford Christie or any of the
other recent sprinters (most only know about Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson
because of the huge controversy ; and probably Jess Owens for obvious
reasons). Are black sprinters 'stars' in the black community in the
same way that other black sports stars are? I don't know for sure but
again I consider it unlikely. The sport is too niche and you just don't
see sprinting plastered all over the tv like the other sports (even
Tiger Woods has far more exposure than the last Olympic 100m sprint gold
medalist). So despite the prevalance of black sprint stars, I would
tend to doubt this is greatly affecting who tries to succeed at sprinting.
7. Drive to succeed: This ties in with some of the other factors but
lemme just say that it would surprise me if there were any significant
differences in terms of internal drive to succeed between black and
white sprinters (or athletes in general). At the elite level, all of the
athletes have that level of drive ; if they didn't, they wouldn't make
it to the elite level (nb: I knew a gymnast one time who was quite
possibly the most gifted guy I had ever seen. He was also one of the
laziest and he never got anywhere because he never applied his extreme
gifts or trained hard). Quite to the contrary, those same white high
school sprinters who were probably pretty damn driven, start getting
their asses handed to them at higher levels of competition ; all despite
a huge internal drive. That is, no matter how hard they work, they
simply can't compete. So I would tend to eliminate this as a variable
in any sport, especially at the elite level. Sure, a motivated average
athlete may beat an unmotivated good athlete by training harder but at
the elite level, you just don't see unmotivated people period.
8. Drugs: It would surprise me if blacks have more or better access to
performance enhancing drugs than whites. Considering the economics
involved in obtaining them (either finding a doc who will give them to
you for enough money or travelling to where they can be obtained), that
would tend to favor whites again. And even if there are statisticaly
more black drug dealers (I don't know this to be the case), most don't
deal with dianabol and GH in the first place. So I don't consider that
much of a variable favoring blacks.
Hmm, did I forget anything? Nothing else comes to mind outside of
physiological factors but so far every variable I can think of that
affects sprint performance is either a non-variable or favors whites.
And yet blacks still hold the top 100 records.
That is to say, in other sports, the above issue become far more
complicated. Physiology or not, if a given individual doesn't have
acess to a given sport (i.e. no snow, can't afford the caoching, can't
afford teh equipment), they won't succeed. Making arguments to the
effect of 'Why don't you see elite black gymnasts?' pretty dumb.
Because of prevailing issues of economics and availability (not to
mention a complete lack of cultural influence) it's not a sport that
most get into.
One of the more entertaining spurious arguments on this topic I saw was
in one of the reviews of Entine's book on Amazon. Some mental genius
asked how come the Irish dominated running in the 20's and 30's and the
Kenyans weren't anywhere to be seen. Apparently he didn't realize that
blacks weren't generally allowed to compete in the first place or
couldn't get from their home country to the events.
But those are all non-issues in sprinting. You simply can't explain
black sprinting dominance on any of those characteristics (which do
apply to other sports).
If I were a gambling man (and I'm not) that would certainly lead me to
logically conclude that it's some inherent physiological (meaning
genetic) advantage that is prevalent more commonly in blacks than
whites. Considering the profound differences in racial physiology seen
otherwise, to deny the possibility is simply rediculous. To prove it of
course will require years of research (and this assumes that such
research goes forward). First you have to find the genes involved in
performance (and there are likely many) and then see if those genes
occur more often in blacks of a certain descent. Certainly not
impossible to do but it will take time.
I should also note that even if there are physiological advantages for
black sprinters, that still doesn't mean that they don't have to train
their asses off and apply themselves for many many years, with the high
likelihood that they still won't make it to the top. There seems to be
an atttitude that if you start admitting to genetic/physiological
advantages, it takes away from the athletes' hard work. This can be the
case at lower levels and lots of gifted but motivated athletes can coast
by and still do well. At the elite level it's an impossibility.
Elite sporting performance is a combination of environment (1-9 above) + genetics.
But if 1-9 are non-variables (or in some cases favor whites in the first
place) that leaves some inherent genetic/physiological advantage(s) as
the only explanation for the sporting dominance that is obvious to
anyone who will look at the record books.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> Ok, Bryce wants a cohesive argument from me about this, I'll give it to
> him. Mainly just to watch him scramble.
<huge Snippage>
Oh yeah, ephedrine good.
Lyle
Robert Dorf
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
> news:3C2F791E...@onr.com...
> > Bryce Lane <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > I don't think of either of you (Lyle or Whit) as "small minded idiots"
> but
> > > this comment is dangerously close to "projection".
> >
> > This from the man who said 'There is no such thing as a genetic limit'
> > and then went to endless machinations to defend the stance in the face
> > of endless data to the contrary.
>
> Show me one!
No human being will ever swim nude from the Antarctic to Iceland using only
their nostrils.
> Then prove to me to a scientific certainlty that this limit you post is
> indeed "genetic".
Nope. Can't prove it. Just a gut feeling. But I could do some argument by
analogy and such.
> Please, go for it. It is a rainy day here and I need some cheering up.
Somewhere, someone physically attractive is almost certainly nude.
Well, that always cheers me up.
Bryce Lane
> > Show me one!
>
> No human being will ever swim nude from the Antarctic to Iceland using
only
> their nostrils.
Ok, I guess you got me on that one. It might have been Jack LaLanne but he's
getting too old for that kind of crap.
>
> > Then prove to me to a scientific certainlty that this limit you post is
> > indeed "genetic".
>
> Nope. Can't prove it. Just a gut feeling. But I could do some argument
by
> analogy and such.
As I said, Jack is too old and our one chance is gone.
>
> > Please, go for it. It is a rainy day here and I need some cheering up.
>
> Somewhere, someone physically attractive is almost certainly nude.
Yes, but where?
Bryce
Bryce Lane
"Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
news:3C2F897E...@onr.com...
> Ok, Bryce wants a cohesive argument from me about this, I'll give it to
> him. Mainly just to watch him scramble.
>
> Now, I'm ONLY going to look at the 100m sprint event because that's
> what's at issue here. Other sports become far more complicated for
> reasons you'll understand by the time you get to the end of this.
>
> First, let's start with a rather simple presumption (that I can't
> imagine anyone could logically argue against): athletes who succeed at a
> given sport are the ones who will continue in that sport. Put
> different, elite sport is self-selecting (by definition) for the
> athletes who do the best at that sport. Because if you don't cut it,
> you don't make it to the elite level.
Already you are on shaky ground. Many people continues in sports they don't
win at well past people who do.
Many people who are initially dissapointing at lower levels tend to do much
better later. Powerlifting is a particularly enlightening case to look at.
Consider also that many people never even get an opportunity to try.
>
> Now, with that in mind, consider the statistics: the top 100 100m sprint
> records are held by blacks. All of them. Not many, not most, not a
> high percentage. All of them. Every elite sprinter in the top 100 at
> that distance is black. Every one without an exception.
Now look at related sports that should utilize similar athletic qualities
and there is no correlation at all.
This entire statement is a false set up. Want to do a pop-quiz on the
logical falacies here?
>
> Oh yeah, for simplicity, and to avoid a lot of worrisome writing
> machinations, I'm just going to compare black vs. white, although white
> should be taken to include pretty much all other racial subgroups.
"For simplicities sake" you just invalidated your entire argument through
"overgenerality".
The same thing that separates "fast black guys" from "slow black guys" is
also what may separate "blacks" from "whites" in your analysis, so obviously
your grouping is invalid.
You can also separate the world into "hammers and cats" everything can be
made to fit in either category. Your grouping is irrelevant and logically
trivial.
>
> I'm also only dealing with elite performance here. If you start
> thinking in terms of averages, the discussion becomes meaningless. Sure
> you can find an individual white who is faster than an individual black
> just like you can find an individual woman who's stronger than an
> individual man. That's obvious, at least it should be. This is a debate
> about the elite, the far right hand part of the curve where you've
> eliminated 99.9% of the population already ; not the average or the
> individual. We're comparing the fastest blacks to the fastest whites.
> And the fact taht there are NO elite white sprinters in the top 100
> records. That simple datum alone should be sufficient to settle this
> argument but apparently it's not.
You have not controlled for enviroment, nutrition (adult or childhood
particularly), enviromental or psychological factors (group or individual)
so however you try to dress it up, your speculation is meaningless. You were
right about that.
Also to "compare groups" you need to work with averages of at least a
numerically significant part of both groups and have a high probability of
being right with the rest, otherwise you are comparing "subgoups" that are
not clearly or relevantly defined. If you say there is a "difference in
performance between blacks and whites" you have to prove within a resonable
margin that it is a difference between blacks and whites and not just an
unexplainable variation between poorly defined subgroups.
This+ this = so it must be this , is invalid since all the contributing
factors in this equation are not quantified, controled for or in many cases
even known. Nice logic but your information is selective and hightly
incomplete.
>
> Now, ignoring genetics for the second, let's look at the possible
> contributions to ultimate sporting performance. I'll be making
> reference to other sports as I go for reasons you'll understand.
>
> 1. First, note that ALL cultures run. Running has been part of human
> locomotion since we started upright. So we can discount arguments on
> that grounds right off the bat. This isn't true of all sports, mind
> you. It should be pretty clear that countries with no snow aren't
> likely to produce a lot of winter sports stars, simply for a lack of
> availability/exposure to the sport. For running this is NOT the case.
> Everybody runs. So that's a non-variable.
Oh, most everyone HAS run, but how many people or groups of people in the
world use it as their main mode of transportation especially at higher
altitudes?
It is a variable, and your premises here is trivial, gratuitious and silly.
>
> 1a. Elite sprinting definitely has many biomechanical quirks so it is a
> bit erroneous to lump running in with sprinting. That gets into the
> access to good/competent coaching which I hit a little below.
>
> 1.5 (this just occured to me hence the numbering): Sprinting is an
> individual sport. There is no risk of crappy teammates affecting your
> performance or anything like that. It's you against the clock (and the
> other sprinters).
Powerlifting is also an "individual sport" where there are many other people
in the room. There are lifts I KNOW I wouldnt' have made if it were not for
my friends and even my "competition" cheering me on. The english fellow who
broke the 4 min. mile said he could never have done it if it wasn't for
people realizing what he was on the way to doing and cheering him on.
Sprinting is not only about the race, you need support and practice and if
you don't have it you will lose.
Also the attitude of those around you can affect everything about your
performance unless you are autistic or a complete sociopath. There is plenty
of track footage about where everyone just has a "bad day" and mysteriously
they all do it together. Anyone who has watched what sometimes comes after a
bad gymnastics performance knows this.
Again you are discounting an important point.
>
> 2. Subjective judging or biased refereeing: While this is certainly an
> issue in many sports (cf. gymnastics, basketball, football), in
> sprinting it's simple: the fastest guy is the winner. Problems with
> people starting early are handled by electronics (so there can't be any
> judging bias) and the finishes are electronic as well, so no bias there.
> He who runs the fastest wins, without anything else coloring it. No
> argument, no debate, whoever gets from point a to point b the fastest is
> the winner. A non-variable in the 100 m sprint.
Yep, its not subjective.
>
> 3. Equipment: shoes, clothes, kewl sunglasses (sprinters all come with a
> certain attitude so that's free). Sprinting is not a sport where
> throwing thousands of dollars at equipment makes a huge difference in
> performance. Contrast this with something like cycling where spending
> 20,000$ on a slightly lighter bike frame (I refer to the titanium bikes
> used by the US Cycling team a few years back) can significantly impact
> performance. Or where making major aerodynamic changes to the bike (I
> refer to the sprint bike that was outlawed a few years ago). Charlie
> Francis (in his excellent book "Speed Trap") does mention that getting
> Ben Johnson, as a 14 year old, better shoes improved his running ; as
> well, Johnson lost a race in the rain because his tattered clothing
> became soaked with water. In any event, the last time I watched
> sprinting championships, most of the guys were in pretty much identical
> clothing. Equipment might play a role at a lower level of competition
> (high school, maybe college) because someone who can afford better
> sprint cleats might have an advantage. This ties into #4 (see below)
> and should favor whites anyhow. At the elite level, with the kinds of
> sponsorhip involved, I imagine all of the athletes are in pretty
> identical equipment ; certianly nobody is in gear that's going to
> significantly affect performance. So there's another non-variable.
Agreed here, but this is trivial.
>
> 4. Economics: First and foremost, running doesn't have much in the way
> of economic requirements in the first place. A flat space to run and
> shoes (yes, I realize that elite sprinters do get into aerodynamic
> clothing but see 3 ; this isn't like cycling where you can cut wind
> resistance by a huge amount with aero equipment). As well, there is the
> issue of money to go to training camps (see Francis' book 'Speed Trap'
> to read about the problems he had in Canada getting the funds for it).
> However, unless global economics have changed since I last heard about
> it, the average white has better economic advantages than the average
> black. So even if economics were a factor, it should favor whites, not
> blacks. So we can elminate that as well as a cause of black sprint
dominance.
You ignore the economic fact that many people in some areas of the world
don't run for fun. They run to get around. They can't afford a car, bicycle
or scooter and don't have access anyway. They spend alot of time on their
feet and life is a "training camp", they dont' have to pay. This is
geographical, logistical and economic, not "racial".
>
> 4a. Another economic factor sometimes brought up is the use of sport to
> 'get out', that is for a lower class individual to avoid living, working
> and dying a low class-existence. Limited by educational and finiancial
> possibilies, some sell drugs or get into a gang, others use sports, many
> do neither. Considering that only a very select few sprinters make good
> money from sprinting (contrasted to something like football or
> basketball where there are a lot more money making possibilities), I
> would tend to doubt this having a strong effect. I consider it
> possible, but not terribly probable.
Jesus Christ, the unfounded and trivial assumptions here!
>
> 5. Access to coaching: this ties in with economics. In many sports (cf.
> ice skating, gymnastics), being able to afford coaching at quite an
> expense to the family for many years. Ice skating has skates, coaching,
> ice time, choreographers, costume makes, etc. Gymnastics has similar
> requirements (assuming you even have access to a good gym/coaching which
> is why many gymnasts leave their families and go live/train with a
> specific coach in another location). This generally relegates those
> sports to upper middle class or higher families simply from the expense
> alone (yes, there are a few exceptions but they are very few and far
> between). I'm no expert on the dynamics of sprint coaching but most go
> from high school (coaches freely available, whether they are competent
> or not is another issue) to college (again, any successful high school
> track athletes will likely go to a college with a good sprint program
> and have access to coaching). Beyond that, I don't know. Do sprinters
> require private coaching and if so, how much does it cost? In any
> event, if it is economically troublesome to get/find a private sprint
> coach, this should again favor whites on average (see 4). So that's
> eliminated as a cause of black sprint dominance.
If running is your way of life and the way of life to those around you, how
much formal "coaching" do you need?
There is also the question of athletic national pride. You know like
weightlifting in Bulgaria. Every coutry seems to have some sort of niche and
it doesn't correlate at all with "race"
>
> 5a. There's also the issue of not just finding coaching but finding a
> competent coach. Once again, at the elite level, all of the athletes
> pretty much (by definition) have to have competent coaches. IF not,
> they don't get to the elite level. In any event, I would highly doubt
> that black sprinters somehow have better access to competent coaches
> than white sprinters. So I considerit a non issue.
it is.
>
> 6. Cultural history in the sport: this plays a role in many sports (cf.
> contrast the popularity of weightlifting in Russia or Bulgaria with the
> us ; long-distance running is huge in Kenya and many young athletes are
> drawn toward it for that reasons) and can affect how many people go into
> a certain sport or not. Does this impact sprinting? I don't know for
> sure but I would tend to doubt it. AT least in the US, black sports
> stars (at least those who would be commonly known) are in basketball,
> football and those sports. I hate basketball and football and I can
> still name at least a few of the top athletes ; with sprinting, I can
> probably come up with more names than most but only because training
> stuff is my field of interest. I daresay that even sports
> non-enthusiasts know who someone like Michael Jordan or Deion Sanders
> is, but they couldn't tell you about Linford Christie or any of the
> other recent sprinters (most only know about Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson
> because of the huge controversy ; and probably Jess Owens for obvious
> reasons). Are black sprinters 'stars' in the black community in the
> same way that other black sports stars are? I don't know for sure but
> again I consider it unlikely. The sport is too niche and you just don't
> see sprinting plastered all over the tv like the other sports (even
> Tiger Woods has far more exposure than the last Olympic 100m sprint gold
> medalist). So despite the prevalance of black sprint stars, I would
> tend to doubt this is greatly affecting who tries to succeed at sprinting.
"Tend to doubt" doesn't constitute an argument. This is a good try though,
there may be something here or there may not.
You dont' get rich with this.
>
> 7. Drive to succeed: This ties in with some of the other factors but
> lemme just say that it would surprise me if there were any significant
> differences in terms of internal drive to succeed between black and
> white sprinters (or athletes in general). At the elite level, all of the
> athletes have that level of drive ; if they didn't, they wouldn't make
> it to the elite level (nb: I knew a gymnast one time who was quite
> possibly the most gifted guy I had ever seen. He was also one of the
> laziest and he never got anywhere because he never applied his extreme
> gifts or trained hard). Quite to the contrary, those same white high
> school sprinters who were probably pretty damn driven, start getting
> their asses handed to them at higher levels of competition ; all despite
> a huge internal drive. That is, no matter how hard they work, they
> simply can't compete. So I would tend to eliminate this as a variable
> in any sport, especially at the elite level. Sure, a motivated average
> athlete may beat an unmotivated good athlete by training harder but at
> the elite level, you just don't see unmotivated people period.
Again you take a very powerful and relevant factor and proceed to minimize
it with nothing more than anecdotes and suppositions.
If you suppose falsely that you have no chance and that others dominate the
sport, that is a big problem. People have blown it on alot less than that,
lots of people, many times.
>
> 8. Drugs: It would surprise me if blacks have more or better access to
> performance enhancing drugs than whites. Considering the economics
> involved in obtaining them (either finding a doc who will give them to
> you for enough money or travelling to where they can be obtained), that
> would tend to favor whites again. And even if there are statisticaly
> more black drug dealers (I don't know this to be the case), most don't
> deal with dianabol and GH in the first place. So I don't consider that
> much of a variable favoring blacks.
No.
>
> Hmm, did I forget anything? Nothing else comes to mind outside of
> physiological factors but so far every variable I can think of that
> affects sprint performance is either a non-variable or favors whites.
> And yet blacks still hold the top 100 records.
Just because you can't think of it or you can manage in your own mind to
trivialize it, doesn't mean it is the case.
>
> That is to say, in other sports, the above issue become far more
> complicated. Physiology or not, if a given individual doesn't have
> acess to a given sport (i.e. no snow, can't afford the caoching, can't
> afford teh equipment), they won't succeed. Making arguments to the
> effect of 'Why don't you see elite black gymnasts?' pretty dumb.
> Because of prevailing issues of economics and availability (not to
> mention a complete lack of cultural influence) it's not a sport that
> most get into.
You do see elite black gymnasts.
>
> One of the more entertaining spurious arguments on this topic I saw was
> in one of the reviews of Entine's book on Amazon. Some mental genius
> asked how come the Irish dominated running in the 20's and 30's and the
> Kenyans weren't anywhere to be seen. Apparently he didn't realize that
> blacks weren't generally allowed to compete in the first place or
> couldn't get from their home country to the events.
Yep, I'll agree on that one.
>
> But those are all non-issues in sprinting. You simply can't explain
> black sprinting dominance on any of those characteristics (which do
> apply to other sports).
"Can't explain this" does not equal " so must be that". I think "don't know"
or "needs more work" might be a better answer
>
> If I were a gambling man (and I'm not) that would certainly lead me to
> logically conclude that it's some inherent physiological (meaning
> genetic) advantage that is prevalent more commonly in blacks than
> whites. Considering the profound differences in racial physiology seen
> otherwise, to deny the possibility is simply rediculous. To prove it of
> course will require years of research (and this assumes that such
> research goes forward). First you have to find the genes involved in
> performance (and there are likely many) and then see if those genes
> occur more often in blacks of a certain descent. Certainly not
> impossible to do but it will take time.
You are dead-on here.
>
> I should also note that even if there are physiological advantages for
> black sprinters, that still doesn't mean that they don't have to train
> their asses off and apply themselves for many many years, with the high
> likelihood that they still won't make it to the top. There seems to be
> an atttitude that if you start admitting to genetic/physiological
> advantages, it takes away from the athletes' hard work. This can be the
> case at lower levels and lots of gifted but motivated athletes can coast
> by and still do well. At the elite level it's an impossibility.
yep.
>
> Elite sporting performance is a combination of environment (1-9 above) +
genetics.
> But if 1-9 are non-variables (or in some cases favor whites in the first
> place) that leaves some inherent genetic/physiological advantage(s) as
> the only explanation for the sporting dominance that is obvious to
> anyone who will look at the record books.
If and only if, otherwise the argument falls flat.
Thanks, its nice when people try to talk like humans around here.
Bryce
>
> Lyle
David Winters
Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> writes:
> Without getting dragged back into this debate,
Ha.
I should point out that
> there is considerable (and increasing rapidly) data showing racial
> differences in disease risk. For exmaple insulin resistance syndrome
> and hypertension, both of which are more prevalent, as I recall, in
> black females, than other groups. The example of Asian having more
> trouble with alcohol (differences in liver enzymes as I recall),
Aren't there also general male/female differences in alcohol effects
with women being affected more strongly, above and beyond the
differences that can be expected by women generally massing less?
D.
--
By March I'll have enough mass to bend light to a significant degree.
-- Rob Stone
Lyle McDonald
>
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> writes:
> > Without getting dragged back into this debate,
>
> Ha.
I tried.
Sorta.
>
> I should point out that
> > there is considerable (and increasing rapidly) data showing racial
> > differences in disease risk. For exmaple insulin resistance syndrome
> > and hypertension, both of which are more prevalent, as I recall, in
> > black females, than other groups. The example of Asian having more
> > trouble with alcohol (differences in liver enzymes as I recall),
>
> Aren't there also general male/female differences in alcohol effects
> with women being affected more strongly, above and beyond the
> differences that can be expected by women generally massing less?
I wasn't aware of it offhand so I did a quick Medline search. And the
answer appears to be yes (1). Which has some wonderful implications for
those seeking New Year's company (drink up ladies....).
And although it's totally unrelated, I found the title of this one to be
hysterical. But I'm easily amused.
Capraro RL. Why college men drink: alcohol, adventure, and the paradox
of masculinity. J Am Coll Health. 2000 May;48(6):307-15. Review. No
abstract available.
Paradox?
Lyle
****
1. Alcohol Res Health 1999;23(1):55-64
Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
Gender differences in moderate drinking effects.
Mumenthaler MS, Taylor JL, O'Hara R, Yesavage JA.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
School of Medicine, California, USA.
Women appear to become more impaired than men after drinking equivalent
amounts of alcohol, achieving higher blood alcohol concentrations even
when doses are adjusted for body weight. This finding may be
attributable in part to gender differences in total body water content.
Men and women appear to eliminate approximately the same total amount of
alcohol per unit body weight per hour. However, women seem to
eliminate significantly more alcohol per unit of lean body mass per hour
than men. Some studies report that women are more susceptible than men
to alcohol-related impairment of cognitive performance, especially in
tasks involving delayed memory or divided attention functions.
Psychomotor performance impairment, however,
does not appear to be affected by gender. This article provides an
overview of alcohol metabolism (pharmacokinetics) and reviews recent
studies on gender differences in alcohol absorption, distribution,
elimination, and impairment. Speculation that gender differences in
alcohol pharmacokinetics or
alcohol-induced performance impairment may be caused by the menstrual
cycle and variations in female sex hormones are discussed. It is
concluded that the menstrual cycle is unlikely to influence alcohol pharmacokinetics.
Elzinator
>
>Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> writes:
>> Without getting dragged back into this debate,
>
>Ha.
>
> I should point out that
>> there is considerable (and increasing rapidly) data showing racial
>> differences in disease risk. For exmaple insulin resistance syndrome
>> and hypertension, both of which are more prevalent, as I recall, in
>> black females, than other groups. The example of Asian having more
>> trouble with alcohol (differences in liver enzymes as I recall),
>
>Aren't there also general male/female differences in alcohol effects
>with women being affected more strongly, above and beyond the
>differences that can be expected by women generally massing less?
Yes. Lyle already mentioned one (liver enzymes), but also the enzyme
in the gut (dehydrogenase) and body water.
Elzinator
>David Winters wrote:
>>
>> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> writes:
>> > Without getting dragged back into this debate,
>>
>> Ha.
>
>I tried.
>Sorta.
>
>>
>> I should point out that
>> > there is considerable (and increasing rapidly) data showing racial
>> > differences in disease risk. For exmaple insulin resistance syndrome
>> > and hypertension, both of which are more prevalent, as I recall, in
>> > black females, than other groups. The example of Asian having more
>> > trouble with alcohol (differences in liver enzymes as I recall),
>>
>> Aren't there also general male/female differences in alcohol effects
>> with women being affected more strongly, above and beyond the
>> differences that can be expected by women generally massing less?
>
>I wasn't aware of it offhand so I did a quick Medline search. And the
>answer appears to be yes (1).
Aside from the body water issue, there is a gender difference in the
dehydrogenase enzyme in the gut as well as the liver. A portion of
ethanol is metabolized in the gut as well as in the liver.
Apparently, there may be some modulation of either enzyme expression
or activity by sex hormones in both of these tissues (for this
specific enzyme).
John M. Williams
We aren't really talking about individual beliefs. We are talking
about social indoctrination, where the believers in egalitarianism,
aka The Dreaded Equality Police, want us to believe that there are no
genetic difference in athletic performance based on racial phenotypes.
This indoctrination is enforced by angry accusations that anyone who
believes differently is criminally bigoted.
>Some choose to believe because they desperately want to. Simple as
>that.
Idiots may believe as they wish, and efforts to convince them
otherwise will inevitably fail. My concern is with the massive social
guilt trip, buttressed by much of our academia, which forces young
minds to believe what common sense tells them is false, all because
they are deathly in fear of being labeled racists.
--
John M. Williams jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com
------- http://www.enforcergraphics.f2s.com --------
------ Partnership for an Idiot-Free America -------
Steve
John M. Williams wrote:
> Idiots may believe as they wish, and efforts to convince them
> otherwise will inevitably fail. My concern is with the massive social
> guilt trip, buttressed by much of our academia, which forces young
> minds to believe what common sense tells them is false, all because
> they are deathly in fear of being labeled racists.
I do think there is a real issue of responsibilty to be looked at in
terms of science. Do you really want to take a "let them publish
whatever they want and let people _just_ deal with it" attitude for
every issue? What about publishing atomic secrets, directions for
making pipe bombs, or new ways to make anthrax on the web?
If it was up to me I would give scientists and academics complete
protection from any kind of research censure as long as they could back
up their statements with facts.
What kind of protection is acceptable though? Is iron clad tenure
enough or do you want a gurantee of funding?
Steve
Home Page:
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/
----------------------------------------------------------
The current population of the Earth is 6.2 billion people.
If current birth and death rates continue, the Earth's
population will nearly double in 40 years
Zero Population Growth web site:
http://www.zpg.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Rosh
> "rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:WpKX7.708$%C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > preconceived notions, not my preconceived notions that allowed me to
> > selectively filter evidence.
>
> It was bad evidence. Would you like to examine Mr. Lott's bad math? Your
> last excursions into polling and statistics was very poor and strangely
> incompetent. I'm still really surprised that you called that "evidence".
>
So what is wrong with Lott's math? Academics at over 40 universities
have examined the same data now. There are a few critical pieces, but
even after doing things like removing 87 percent of the observations
(counties with fewer than 100,000 people and Florida), they still find
some benefit and no cost from right-to-carry laws. What about all of
Lott's work on one-gun-a-month rules, safe storage laws, state waiting
periods and background checks, the Brady Act, etc.. Can you name even
one academic who has challenged Lott's work on any of those other gun
control laws?
David Cohen
"David Winters" <win...@GIRI.INTRO.CS.CMU.EDU> wrote in message
news:m3heq8x...@GIRI.INTRO.CS.CMU.EDU...
>
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> writes:
> > Without getting dragged back into this debate,
>
> Ha.
>
> I should point out that
> > there is considerable (and increasing rapidly) data showing racial
> > differences in disease risk. For exmaple insulin resistance syndrome
> > and hypertension, both of which are more prevalent, as I recall, in
> > black females, than other groups. The example of Asian having more
> > trouble with alcohol (differences in liver enzymes as I recall),
>
> Aren't there also general male/female differences in alcohol effects
> with women being affected more strongly, above and beyond the
> differences that can be expected by women generally massing less?
>
to explain that!
David
rcp
>
> > Those who shout "racism" at the merest suggestion that there might be
> > differences between Eurasians, Africans, Aboriginals, Inuits,
> > whatever, should remember that "is" does not imply "ought". Just
> > because there are physical differences between races does not mean
> > that we ought to treat races differently. THAT would be racism.
>
> Actually this is a good point here in the way you separated this. You see
> examples of "iz-ought fallacies" everywhere.
>
> There are differences as you say, but they do not break down in any
> definitive way between what we describe as "races". It is amazing to me
that
> there is as LITTLE difference in athletic performance as there seems to
be.
> Its still not enough of a factor to eliminate other possible causes or
> contributions. It seems that given the evolutionany/enviromental factors
at
> work there should be MORE of a difference, but there isn't. Thats
> interesting, really interesting!
>
> At this point we can't separate, eviromental, socialogical, adaptative
> (training) or even nutritional factors apart in any scientifically
reliable
> or significant way so at present the issue is indeterminative, cloudy and
> poorly understood even as to what we should really be looking for.
Bull. We do it all the time with gender, we do it in forensic pathology (we
can most certainly tell differences between races of long deceased bodies
for example) in regards to race, we do it with medicine in regards to race,
etc.
It will never be possible to COMPLETELY separate sociological, cultural
factors etc. from genetic factors. Partly because we don't live in petri
dishes, and partly because culture is ultimately a function of biology
anyways.
That is completely different than saying that we can't say things
conclusively, or convincingly about racial, gender, or whatever differences.
It is sticking our heads in the sand, to say that we can't do it. We
generally HAVEN'T done it, because it is such a political hot-potato, and
people are so vilified for doing it. It is high time we encouraged
scientific exploration into these areas, as opposed to discouraging it.
Acting to
> differentiate people (or predict probable performance) on anything other
> than actual performance is at this point a silly politically based pile of
> nonsense, no matter which "side" it comes from.
>
We can already do it.
I will predict that in the next 10 years, greater than 95% of the top 100
meter sprinters in the world will be black, more specifically most of them
will be of West African Ancestry.
I will predict that in the next 10 years, at least 98% of the top OLing
totals for lifters of over 85 kilos bodyweight will be by men.
etc.
Over large population groups, these things are better than probable, they
are completely certain, unless some freak plague wipes out a good portion of
the earth's population on a selective basis.
> To actually show a athletic difference between "races" one would have to
> define (replicably and objectively) specifically in biological terms what
is
> meant by "race" and then show tight correlations between the averages (yes
> "averages") of different groupings.
First of all, plenty of people (including Entine) concede that athletic
superiority does not come down to specific races, of which most people
recognize only 3, but subsets thereof. However, just as all squares are
rectangles, all west african blacks are blacks, therefore we are still
making statements about race.
Furthermore, it is not just about averages.
It is also about deviation from the mean. This is most telling in the
example of IQ as demonstrated by Eysenck and others. Men and Women have
almost exactly the same average IQ. However, they have very different
VARIANCES. So, even though the average man has the same IQ as the average
woman, if one were to take 10,000 men and 10,000 women, you will have
significantly more male geniuses and dunces than their female counterparts.
We do not yet know if some of the physical performance differences work
under this structure. So, even if it was true that the AVERAGE west african
black was not faster than the AVERAGE white or asian (and I am not saying
that is true, I am just giving an example), it does not follow that in a
given sample population, there would not be greater #'s of superior black
sprinters compared to white sprinters.
Thats just the start. You would also
> have to "weed out" all other performance related factors and isolate it
down
> to actuall biological causitive factors. You would also have to show that
> other well defined "races" do not posses these causitive factors or posess
> them in definitively smaller quantities. It ain't been done, we're not
even
> close.
>
No, this does not have to be done, to show that West African blacks are
superior sprinters.
Prior to the discovery of testosterone etc. we did not know WHY men were
stronger than women (on average).
This did not mean that anybody could not look at the evidence and make the
claim that men ARE stronger than women a priori to finding out the reason
WHY.
This is critical. One of the arguments that you, and others use, against
the sprint superiority thing is that you claim that since we can't find WHY
west african blacks are better sprinters than whites or asians, that we
cannot say THAT they are better sprinters due to biology.
This is a fallacy. Just as we could say that men are stronger due to their
biology (not due to cultural factors etc.) PRIOR to the discovery of WHY men
are stronger (mostly having to do with testosterone), we can say that West
African blacks are faster than whites and asians PRIOR to knowing why.
Recognize that this is a common, but still bogus fallacy you commit here.
> It may be politically provocative to say that there are performance
> differences between races but to prove that you have to prove that there
are
> definitive difference between more than only a few on either end of the
> scale (it would be a statistical miracle if there were not some odd stuff
at
> the extremes). To prove differences between races you have to prove that
any
> randomly chosen person of one race has to have a a high probability of
> significant performance difference in relation of any chosen person of
> another. This has to apply to at least most of the defined groups.
>
No, it does not. Again, I think that the evidence shows that west african
blacks ARE on average- faster. You are using the same "averaging" fallacy I
mentioned earlier. However, even if they were not faster ON average, it
does not therefore follow that the fastest men on earth might not always be
west african blacks, if their deviation from the mean is greater.
> I don't think it matter who is afraid to be "talking about race", its not
> what we should be talking about. There are much better ways to go after
> this. The argument presented as a "racial difference" is a false dilema.
>
> Bryce
It is a racial difference, in that there are no west african blacks among
the white or asian race. Therefore, it is still a racial delineation.
However, you are correct in that it is more precise to say that West African
blacks are superior sprinters, not just blacks, for reasons stated.
Whit
rcp
David Cohen <sammi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i0SX7.9827$yi.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
<Bryce>
But we can't eliminate the cultural and sociological factors that could
contribute to this, therefore it is totally inconclusive that it is based
purely on biological gender differences.
</Bryce>
Whit
>
>
>
Adam Fahy
> Bryce Lane <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:DyKX7.68821$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
>>"West African blacks" is not a "race". You destroy your own argument for a
>>"racial basis" right there.
> Yes, lets define terms here. Blacks as a group, a race, are still superior
> to white or asians as sprinters. It just so happens that all the successful
> sprinters are from a subset of the black race, specifically west african
> blacks.
Uh... so if every other "subset" of blacks were, as a group, poor
sprinters, it would still be accurate to say that blacks, as a group,
are superior sprinters, just because of the fact that West African
blacks are the dominant force?
IMO this is a skewed logic at best. FE, if it were found that the
Japanese were particularly resistant to a certain disease or ailment, we
would not say that Asians, as a group or race, share this
characteristic. We would say that it was specific to the Japanese, and
try to use that info in our persuit of knowledge re: that subject.
-Adam
Lyle McDonald
I don't trust anything that bleeds for 5 days and doesn't die.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
I'd get in your shit about being nitpicky but I'm the last person who
should be doing that.
Use a find/replace command to replace all instances of 'black' with
'individuals of West African descent' if it'll make you happy. The
first is simply easier to type than the second. My post was long enough
as it is but I should have made a clarification that 'black' in this
conetxt (wrt: sprint performance) meant 'individuals of West African descent'.
Semantic game playing still doesn't change anything, although it's a
good way to try and deflect the argument from what's actually being
discussed (both Bryce and Siff are really good at this). To whit (as
opposed to 'to Whit') that 'individuals of West African descent dominate
100m sprinting compared to all other races for reasons that can NOT be
attributed to any sociological/economic factors, leaving some sort of
inherited physiological advantage as the only explanation.'
Playing semantic games over the definition of what a 'race' actually is
is just another way of trying to deflect it as well. If you can't stand
a caucasian, asian, black, etc. next to one another and see clear
phenotypical differences (resulting from clear genotypical differences),
you're too stupid to live and you certainly shouldn't reproduce because
you'll make stupid kids. Whether we all came from the same original
group or not, the billions of years of evolution obviously (to anyone
with eyes to see and a brain to think) led to major differences in
physiology. Fine, the term 'race' is problematic but it expresses what
we're talking about. Debating its meaning is simply another way to
deflect the argument from the real topic.
And the fact that most humans share something like 99+% of their DNA
with one another is an irrelevancy as well, for the reason in the above
paragraph. First realize that with over 100,000 different genes (or
whatever the exact number is), even a 1% difference means 1000 genes
which can vary. Assuming each gene controlled ONE phenotypical
expression, that still allows for 1000 potential differences between two
folks who share 99% of their DNA. More than enough to cover the
observed differences. But that's not how it works.
Any of those thousand genes can interact with one other gene, two other
genes, three other genes.....one thousand genes.....100,000 other genes
in the body to result in a phenotypic difference. So that 1000 gene
difference allows for a billion fold difference in phenotype. Even if
you're just looking at those 1000 genes, the possible combinations are
1000! (1000X999X998.....X1) which is a huge ass number (my HP maxes out
at 99 to the 99th because it can't show a number that large).
Even a 10 gene difference (say we're 99.9% identical), noting that each
of those 10 genes could interact with any of the other 99,990 genes in
any number of ways allows for at least a 999,990 fold difference between
two folks who are identical except for those 10 genes. Obviously the
tiny amount that we don't share is more than sufficient to generate
clear phenotypical differences in things from appearance to hypertension
risk to most other physiological processes. How anyone can therefore
believe that it is an impossibility that such small differences could
just as easily lead to differences in innate athletic ability is simply rediculous.
Men and women share most of hte same genetic code and NOBODY would argue
that the small difference can't explain the HUGE differences in innate
physiology. Yet somehow the same concept becomes impossible when you're
talking about 'race'.
What....ever.
Lyle
Lester Long
news:3C30930E...@earthlink.net...
> -Adam
I think we all knew what Whit meant. At least I did.
Lester
>
rcp
Lester Long <lo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a0q7f4$l57$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Adam Fahy" <af...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3C30930E...@earthlink.net...
> > rcp wrote:
> >
> > > Bryce Lane <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > > news:DyKX7.68821$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> >
> >
> > >>"West African blacks" is not a "race". You destroy your own argument
for
> a
> > >>"racial basis" right there.
> >
> >
> > > Yes, lets define terms here. Blacks as a group, a race, are still
> superior
> > > to white or asians as sprinters. It just so happens that all the
> successful
> > > sprinters are from a subset of the black race, specifically west
african
> > > blacks.
> >
> >
> > Uh... so if every other "subset" of blacks were, as a group, poor
> > sprinters, it would still be accurate to say that blacks, as a group,
> > are superior sprinters, just because of the fact that West African
> > blacks are the dominant force?
> >
I really don't want to get in a semantic wank, so in a word ... yes. MOST
blacks, in the USA for instance, are of West African descent. So, saying
black is almost like a proxy for saying west african black, here. In other
countries, it isn't as true. But yes, on a purely literal level, since all
west african blacks are part of the group: blacks, then blacks as a group
encomapass the greatest sprinters in the world.
> > IMO this is a skewed logic at best. FE, if it were found that the
> > Japanese were particularly resistant to a certain disease or ailment, we
> > would not say that Asians, as a group or race, share this
> > characteristic. We would say that it was specific to the Japanese, and
> > try to use that info in our persuit of knowledge re: that subject.
>
> > -Adam
>
> I think we all knew what Whit meant. At least I did.
>
> Lester
Yes. It is an unecessary tangent. We know what we are talking about here-
a subset of the group called blacks, and that is blacks of west african
descent.
Whit
> >
>
>
rcp
Jonathan
> Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3C2F3CE3...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > rcp wrote:
> >
> >
> > > about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
> > > Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
> >
> >
> > My advice.....don't be rude to the Canadains :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > So what? Do we not seek knowledge because we are afraid some people
> might
> > > misinterpret it?
> >
> >
> > Yes, but you temper it with responsibility. We don't live in a perfect
> > world. I agree with you that it is sad that people haven't found a way
> > to balance responsiblity, politics and pure science yet.
> >
> >
> > >>I also will not accept contemplation of such efforts until reliable
> > >>means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You can not "accept" whatever you want.
> >
> >
> > I will not accept anything without adequate proof or examination.
> >
> > > We are at least more honest
>
> > > about gender/sex than we are about race.
> >
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> >
> > Steve
>
> Radical feminist attempts notwithstanding, we can admit that
>
> 1) women are weaker
> 2) women are shorter
> 3) women are fatter
> 4) Men are more aggressive
> 5) men are more likely to be mentally retarded
>
> etc. without being accused, by any but the most ridiculous idealogue, of
> being "sexist". We do realize that these differences exist, and that they
> are genetically based.
>
> However, there are very few racial differences, apart from the completely
> incontrovertible e.g. blacks tend to have darker skin than whites, or asians
> tend to have less body hair than scandinavians, etc. that we will consider,
> for risk of being "offensive".
>
> One common thread in the race and gender thing is that we are more likely to
> accept "positive" stereotypes/differentiation when they are applied to the
> "oppressed" gender or race, then vice-versa.
>
> Thus, the Grateful Dead could sing that the women were smarter without
> offending anybody, or a movie could come out entitled "White Men Can't Jump"
> and not bother anybody.
>
> One of the reasons people are particularly sensitive to the racial sports
> issue, is the fear that admitting that certain groups are genetically
> superior at physical activity X, Y, or Z seems to suggest to them that they
> are correlatively LESS mentally apt or something. There is absolutely no
> deductive logic to that reasoning, but it is common, at least partly because
> of the "dumb jock" stereotype. From what little psychometric analysis I
> have seen on the issue, there is a POSITIVE correlation between athletic
> ability and intelligence, not a negative correlation, anyways, which would
> certainly not suggest that the dumb jock stereotype is valid.
>
> In other words, saying West African Blacks are superior sprinters has
> exactly no bearing whatsoever on claims that there are innate intelligence
> differences, which would be a far more controversial subject for most
> people.
>
> Again, the gender issue is more accepted, in this area as well. It is
> common knowledge in the field of psychology, for instance, that while men
> have roughly the same AVERAGE intelligence than women, their standard
> deviation is greater. Thus, there are more male super-geniuses and more
> male morons and idiots than female. Kind of a tangent, there, sorry.
>
> Whit
Not at all. Very refreshing to find that there are actually plenty of
sensible, intelligent people who read this newsgroup.
Jonathan
P.G. Felton
> Brian <webm...@footballjoint.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9186B65856AAAwe...@207.126.101.100>...
> >
> > This original poster has a narrow mind
>
> You already sound like a victim of the p.c. propaganda...
> part of which tries to pretend that race is only a matter
> of skin color. There are stark differences between the races
> of human beings; involving more than just skin color. Only a
> blind fool would try to claim otherwise.
>
> > If your "taboos" and genetic makeup were true
> > Why is there a 7 foot 8 inch basketball player from China?
>
> This, my little friend, is what we'd call an *exception*. It should
> be no mystery to even you that any guy this tall who is able to
> put one foot in front of the other would be drawn to the game of
> basketball, in which great height obviously gives a great advantage.
>
> > Why would slow, white, Larry Bird have been so successful?
>
> Another exception; the vast majority of star NBA players are not
> white. And one *black* NBA player (can't recall name) once stated that
> Bird would not even be considered a superstar if he were black. (BTW,
> a white athlete would've been crucified for saying a similar thing about
> a black athlete.)
>
> > Why are their african american quarterbacks?
>
> Because many of them are naturally good scramblers, and have strong
> passing arms, not to mention the pressures on teams in the last 25
> years to *have* black QBs. Athletes of equatorial African descent
> excel at sports which require short bursts of strength, i.e. the
> sports that involve punching, sprinting, jumping etc.
But apparently not weightlifting?
> There will
> never be a "great white hope" in boxing. The world record long jump,
> 100 meters, etc., will never be held by a man of European or
> Asian descent.
Records are broken rarely but the world records for the long jump has been
held by Europeans as has the 200m. More to the point the 200m at the World
track championships this year was won by a Greek, by your logic how could this be?
> And this fact, my friend, is not because the blacks
> work any harder, or have more desire to win than the others, it is
> soley due to genetics.
This is a grossly insulting remark suggesting that black athletes who succeed do so
don't have to work at it! All the record holders that I know got there by years of hard
work and talent, none of them ever achieved it solely by virtue of their genetics.
Phil.
>
>
> > You're a racist prick hiding behind science
>
> Pull your head out of your butt and get a dose of reality.
>
> --
> Regards, IM
Mary Rosh
> >
> > Just like the gun control debate, it was the evidence that changed my
> > preconceived notions, not my preconceived notions that allowed me to
> > selectively filter evidence.
>
> It was bad evidence. Would you like to examine Mr. Lott's bad math? Your
> last excursions into polling and statistics was very poor and strangely
> incompetent. I'm still really surprised that you called that "evidence".
>
So what is wrong with Lott's math? Academics at over 40 universities
have examined the same data now. There are a few critical pieces, but
even after doing things like removing 87 percent of the observations
(counties with fewer than 100,000 people and Florida), they still find
some benefit and no cost from right-to-carry laws. What about all of
Lott's work on one-gun-a-month rules, safe storage laws, state waiting
periods and background checks, the Brady Act, etc.. Can you name even
one academic who has challenged Lott's work on any of those other gun
control laws?
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!198.6.0.123!uunet!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: mary...@aol.com (Mary Rosh)
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <23fa92fe.01123...@posting.google.com>
Control: cancel <23fa92fe.01123...@posting.google.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 05:56:25 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.23fa92fe.0...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792289 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:51:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:51:29 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
Comment: Anarchy! Fuck You!
X-Commentary: I love NewsAgent 1.10, Sandblaster Build 74 (19 March 1999) and the Polaris Cancel Engine V. 6.1
X-Unacanc3l: yes
This message was cancelled from within Mozilla...not
Jonathan
> > I have mixed views about this issue.
> >
> > I do think there is a grain of truth about scientists being afraid to
> > talk about genetics and human beings out of political concerns.
> >
>
> There is more than a grain of truth. Many scientists, or so-called
> scientists will out and out admit, especially behind closed doors, that they
> don't want to think about such matters, or discover if they are true,
> because it can only lead to controversy and career risk. Furthermore, many
> people who should be studying this stuff are in academia, where what side
> you take in such political hot-potato issues, and that is the problem is
> that these issues ARE politicized, can have serious ramifications on
> professional advancement, tenure, etc. All one has to do is look at the
> death threats, and other shite that professors at some universities like
> Berkeley et al. have put up with because they dared suggest certain things
> about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
> Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
> prosecuted, and has been, as a hate crime. A professor was prosecuted,
> unsuccessfully for speaking and writing on this very subject.
>
> As I referenced in another forum, as an example, SJ Gould finds such
> statements about innate differences "deeply offensive". This is just silly
> rhetoric. Science should not worry about hurting people's feelings. It
> should be worried about objective truth, and postmodernism aside, there is
> such a thing. Was it wrong for men to send astronauts into the firmament
> because it might upset certain theists who believe that God was sitting up
> there?
>
> > On the other hand I can understand why professionals don't want to go to
> > this place. Whole collections of ignoramuses are likely to
> > misunderstand and twist such "science" into support for simple bigotry.
> >
>
> So what? Do we not seek knowledge because we are afraid some people might
> church towards Galileo, a paternalistic and condescending attitude towards
> what knowledge and inquiry should be open to public view, lest we cause
> people hurt feelings, or confuse them with pesky evidence. It is a
> totalitarian mindset that believes that inquiry should not be open, that
> knowledge should be suppressed, and that certain subjects are taboo, because
> sensitivity to people's feelings trumps knowledge. Furthermore, it is
> ultimately condescending to all people, let alone people of certain races,
> to say that members of any given group aren't mature enough to accept
> whatever differences we may learn exist, upon study.
>
> > Society as a whole ( any society ) is not ready to accept differences
> > while at the same time not using those differences as a basis for
> > dehumanization or otherwise devaluing people.
>
> So, what you are saying is that we can't (in the words of Jack Nicholson)
> "HANDLE THE TRUTH??!!"
>
> Better scientists treat us like little sheeple and only feed us knowledge
> about ourselves that makes us feel warm and fuzzy, that we are all the same,
> that differences are only "skin deep" etc.?
>
> Many people can't
> > simultaneously accept a generalization that is true at the group level
> > AND accept that truth that individuals of such groups can deviate from
> > those generalizations and still belong to those groups ( Women are bad
> > at math, your are a woman, you are good at math, you must be a
> > defective woman ).
> >
>
> Many people are idiots. Crippling scientific inquiry and open debate into
> fundamental matters of human differences and similarities out of fear of
> these people is the sign of a totalitarian mindset. It also gives fuel to
> bigots because they can claim that the govt/the media/academia/whomever is
> hiding the truth. Would you rather have scientists, subject to the
> scientific method and peer review inquiring into these matters, or bigots?
>
> > All that is assuming that there *is* some scientific truth to be had
> > behind those anecdotal generalizations.
> >
>
> word
>
> > I will not accept racial/ethnic generalizations until I see hard numbers
> > for how traits are distributed. Until then its my anecdote against the
> > next guy/gal's anecdote. Yes, when I turn on the tv I see lots of black
> > athletes. I also see a lot of flabby, clutzy blacks when I go out into
> > the streets.
> >
>
> Why don't you read some of the literature and not rely on anecdotes, then?
> Try Taboo, by Entine, for a start.
>
> > I also will not accept contemplation of such efforts until reliable
> > means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
>
> behaviors, there will ALWAYS be cultural factors. However, despite cultural
> differences we accept lots of differences between the genders for example,
> like women are weaker on average, shorter on average, and fatter on average.
> Nobody is sexist for admitting these realities. We are at least more honest
> about gender/sex than we are about race. The problem is with people who
> find the mere inquiry "offensive", who have made up their mind before even
> looking at the evidence, and who are more concerned with how some people
> might misconstrue the truth, than with what the truth is.
>
> > For instance if you take the children of one those great Kenyan runners,
> > raise them at a low altitude, in a sedentary existence, and then sign
> > them up for high school track will they shine as runners?
> >
>
> Screw the Kenyans debate. Not a single white or asian descent male has ever
> broken 10 seconds in the hundred meters. Blacks living in any number of
> countries all over the world have done so many, many times. The evidence
> for west african black's superiority at sprinting is numbingly overwhelming.
> LOOK at the data.
>
> > Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
> > However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
> > factors to be accounted for.
> >
>
> That is most certainly true.
>
First, this Whit, whoever he is, talks sense. He's basically said all
that I would have said, except this-
Anyone who is so ignorant and foolish as to call someone "racist" for
suggesting that there are innate physical differences between races
genetically defined, consider what it means to be racist. Or, for that
matter, to be anything-"ist". It means to discriminate against people
of a certain race, sex, religion, whatever, on grounds of their being
of that race, sex, religion, where these features are irrelevant
criteria. So, if someone is refused a job simply because of the colour
of his skin, the person refusing him the job is being racist. When
women receive less pay than men for identical jobs, simply because
they are women, they are victims of sexism.
But if a director is casting a film about the life of a white man, and
a black man is silly enough to offer himself for the part, it isn't
racism on the part of the director to turn him down in favour of a
white man. Because the colour of his skin is relevant.
And even more blindingly obviously, it isn't racism when one simply
states that there are differences between people of different races.
Where's the discrimintaion, for fuck's sake?
There have been some in this thread who have dismissed the suggestion
that there actually is any reluctance to discuss this issue, but there
undoubtedly is. In modern liberal societies, where the supposedly
enlightened believe in meritocracy, there is a tendency to pretend
that all people are equally capable of all tasks. Anything that
encroaches on this naive ideal is seen as threatening. Unfortunately,
science is increasingly showing this ideal to be a nonsense. So those
who still cling to the ideal dismiss the science as propaganda, or
offer a ludicrous argument of the form, "That would be racist" (which
it wouldn't), "therefore it's not true."
Those who shout "racism" at the merest suggestion that there might be
differences between Eurasians, Africans, Aboriginals, Inuits,
whatever, should remember that "is" does not imply "ought". Just
because there are physical differences between races does not mean
that we ought to treat races differently. THAT would be racism.
Jonathan
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: linnt...@hotmail.com (Jonathan)
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <35f9666d.01123...@posting.google.com>
Control: cancel <35f9666d.01123...@posting.google.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:02:01 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.35f9666d.0...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792606 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:56:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:56:46 GMT
Lyle McDonald
> >> Society as a whole ( any society ) is not ready to accept differences
> >> while at the same time not using those differences as a basis for
> >> dehumanization or otherwise devaluing people.
> >
> >So, what you are saying is that we can't (in the words of Jack Nicholson)
> >"HANDLE THE TRUTH??!!"
> >
> >Better scientists treat us like little sheeple and only feed us knowledge
> >about ourselves that makes us feel warm and fuzzy, that we are all the same,
> >that differences are only "skin deep" etc.?
>
> 'Better scientists'??? I take issue with that, Whit.
He's not using 'better' as an adjective here.
It would be written more clearly as 'Better [that] scientists....'
Or 'It would be better [that] scientists....'
So chill the fuck out.
Lyle
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2F4A1B...@onr.com>
Control: cancel <3C2F4A1B...@onr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:52:04 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2F4...@onr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792398 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:53:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:53:18 GMT
Lyle McDonald
> >
> >
> > rcp wrote:
> >
> >
> > > about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
> > > Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> might
> > > misinterpret it?
> >
> >
> > world. I agree with you that it is sad that people haven't found a way
> > to balance responsiblity, politics and pure science yet.
> >
> >
> > >>means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You can not "accept" whatever you want.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > about gender/sex than we are about race.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve
>
> Radical feminist attempts notwithstanding, we can admit that
>
> 1) women are weaker
> 2) women are shorter
> 3) women are fatter
> 4) Men are more aggressive
> 5) men are more likely to be mentally retarded
>
> etc. without being accused, by any but the most ridiculous idealogue, of
> being "sexist". We do realize that these differences exist, and that they
> are genetically based.
>
> However, there are very few racial differences, apart from the completely
> incontrovertible e.g. blacks tend to have darker skin than whites, or asians
> tend to have less body hair than scandinavians, etc. that we will consider,
> for risk of being "offensive".
Without getting dragged back into this debate, I should point out that
there is considerable (and increasing rapidly) data showing racial
differences in disease risk. For exmaple insulin resistance syndrome
and hypertension, both of which are more prevalent, as I recall, in
black females, than other groups. The example of Asian having more
trouble with alcohol (differences in liver enzymes as I recall), or
racial differences in lactose tolerance are also well established. I
vaguely recall some racial differences in drug disposition as well.
Of course these are all genetically based. It may also have relevance
in terms of treatment/prevention.
This sort of data is accepted readily by both the medical and lay
establishement as far as I can tell.
But suggest that there might be racial differences in something like
athletic performance, and suddenly you're the next Hitler looking for a
basis for the next eugenics purge.
this is because, as Whit pointed out in an earlier post, most people are
small minded idiots who lack critical thinking ability completely,
relying more on knee-jerk emotional belief systems than anything else.
Lyle
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.compaq.com!uunet!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2F497E...@onr.com>
Control: cancel <3C2F497E...@onr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:07:46 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2F4...@onr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792745 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:59:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:59:05 GMT
Steve
I do think there is a grain of truth about scientists being afraid to
talk about genetics and human beings out of political concerns.
On the other hand I can understand why professionals don't want to go to
this place. Whole collections of ignoramuses are likely to
misunderstand and twist such "science" into support for simple bigotry.
Society as a whole ( any society ) is not ready to accept differences
while at the same time not using those differences as a basis for
dehumanization or otherwise devaluing people. Many people can't
simultaneously accept a generalization that is true at the group level
AND accept that truth that individuals of such groups can deviate from
those generalizations and still belong to those groups ( Women are bad
at math, your are a woman, you are good at math, you must be a
defective woman ).
All that is assuming that there *is* some scientific truth to be had
behind those anecdotal generalizations.
I will not accept racial/ethnic generalizations until I see hard numbers
for how traits are distributed. Until then its my anecdote against the
next guy/gal's anecdote. Yes, when I turn on the tv I see lots of black
athletes. I also see a lot of flabby, clutzy blacks when I go out into
the streets.
I also will not accept contemplation of such efforts until reliable
means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
For instance if you take the children of one those great Kenyan runners,
raise them at a low altitude, in a sedentary existence, and then sign
them up for high school track will they shine as runners?
Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
factors to be accounted for.
Steves Home Page:
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/
----------------------------------------------------------
The current population of the Earth is 6.2 billion people.
If current birth and death rates continue, the Earth's
population will nearly double in 40 years
Zero Population Growth web site:
http://www.zpg.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Steve <steves...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2F2E98...@yahoo.com>
Control: cancel <3C2F2E98...@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:48:57 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2F...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792536 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:55:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:55:36 GMT
Steve
rcp wrote:
> about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
> Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
My advice.....don't be rude to the Canadains :)
>
> So what? Do we not seek knowledge because we are afraid some people might
> misinterpret it?
Yes, but you temper it with responsibility. We don't live in a perfect
world. I agree with you that it is sad that people haven't found a way
to balance responsiblity, politics and pure science yet.
>>I also will not accept contemplation of such efforts until reliable
>>means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
>>
>
> You can not "accept" whatever you want.
I will not accept anything without adequate proof or examination.
> We are at least more honest
> about gender/sex than we are about race.
Bullshit.
Steve
Home Page:
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/
----------------------------------------------------------
The current population of the Earth is 6.2 billion people.
If current birth and death rates continue, the Earth's
population will nearly double in 40 years
Zero Population Growth web site:
http://www.zpg.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!osa.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Steve <steves...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2F3CE3...@yahoo.com>
Control: cancel <3C2F3CE3...@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:29:24 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2F...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792482 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:54:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:54:42 GMT
Lyle McDonald
> I don't think of either of you (Lyle or Whit) as "small minded idiots" but
> this comment is dangerously close to "projection".
This from the man who said 'There is no such thing as a genetic limit'
and then went to endless machinations to defend the stance in the face
of endless data to the contrary.
Look up the word 'irony', Bryce.
Lyle
P.S. How come it's always the people who DO take a broad view to a topic
who are called small/close minded by those who DON'T/WON'T take the same view?
To clarify that statement, I vividly recall a situation on the old
training/nutrition list with good old Paul Moses (truly a small minded
fuckwit if ever there were one). This was when keto diets were just
becoming repopularized again.
A bunch of us were trying to defend a ketogenic diet as ONE option among
many for dieting. None of us EVER said it was the only option or
necessarily the best option. Well, none of the major advocates (which
included myself and Jeff Krabbe among others) did in any event. We said
it should be considered as one option for use under certain
circumstances ; nothing more.
Paul, on the other hand, refused to accept the POSSIBLE utility of such
a diet for dieting. Like Siff, Paul would let Tom McCullough post any
negative press about keto diets, but would refuse to let us post in
criticism of it. Nothing like an impartial moderator. ;)
At one point, Paul (recall, REFUSED to consider the possibility) called
the keto folks (who repeatedly pointed out it was one of many possible
approaches) closed minded.
Go fucking figure.
But that's what's happening here.
Bryce 'no genetic limits' is calling Lyle/Whit (both of whom have
pointed out repeatedly that genetics is only one of MANY contributing
factors, but that the dominance in sprinting can't be argued away by
anything but some genetic contribution) small minded.
No matter, in 10 or so years when the data is there, Bryce will most
likely be proven wrong and it still won't matter. NB: I consider the
possiblity that it will be disproven possible (i.e. that there are no
genetic issues at play), but not probable (simply considering all of the
other places where there are CLEAR genetic differences in physiology).
But that seems to be Bryce's defintino of small minded here: that you
actually consider all of hte possibilities, and make probability
statements based on the data that is available (and that data is
incontrovertbile in the 100m, a sport that is far less affected by
issues of equipement, etc than other sports ; why it's such a wonderful
example).
Blacks dominate completely and there is no sociological, economic or
other explanation that can be given. Whites are competitive in that
event in high school, maybe in college but there are NONE at the elite
level. NONE. It's not for a lack of trying, economics, sociology or
anything else. Leaving genetics. But I'm retreading ground I've gone
over before so I'm gonna stop there.
Anyhow, Bryce still can't explain (anymore than Siff) why nearly every
100m record is held by an African American without resorting to absurd
logical jumps ; anything to avoid the possibility that there are genetic
differences among races in terms of sporting ability.
Go fucking figure.
P.P.S. Although I certainly haven't discussed the issue with many
people, I do find it entertaining the discussing this topic with my
black friends usually just has them nodding their head in agreement with
me. It seems to be guilt ridden whites who can't deal with the
possibility. But it's a small sample to be sure.
P.P.P.S. What award do I get for making a P.S. that's longer than my post?
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2F791E...@onr.com>
Control: cancel <3C2F791E...@onr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:33:28 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2F7...@onr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792099 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:48:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:48:19 GMT
Lyle McDonald
him. Mainly just to watch him scramble.
Now, I'm ONLY going to look at the 100m sprint event because that's
what's at issue here. Other sports become far more complicated for
reasons you'll understand by the time you get to the end of this.
First, let's start with a rather simple presumption (that I can't
imagine anyone could logically argue against): athletes who succeed at a
given sport are the ones who will continue in that sport. Put
different, elite sport is self-selecting (by definition) for the
athletes who do the best at that sport. Because if you don't cut it,
you don't make it to the elite level.
Now, with that in mind, consider the statistics: the top 100 100m sprint
records are held by blacks. All of them. Not many, not most, not a
high percentage. All of them. Every elite sprinter in the top 100 at
that distance is black. Every one without an exception.
Oh yeah, for simplicity, and to avoid a lot of worrisome writing
machinations, I'm just going to compare black vs. white, although white
should be taken to include pretty much all other racial subgroups.
I'm also only dealing with elite performance here. If you start
thinking in terms of averages, the discussion becomes meaningless. Sure
you can find an individual white who is faster than an individual black
just like you can find an individual woman who's stronger than an
individual man. That's obvious, at least it should be. This is a debate
about the elite, the far right hand part of the curve where you've
eliminated 99.9% of the population already ; not the average or the
individual. We're comparing the fastest blacks to the fastest whites.
And the fact taht there are NO elite white sprinters in the top 100
records. That simple datum alone should be sufficient to settle this
argument but apparently it's not.
Now, ignoring genetics for the second, let's look at the possible
contributions to ultimate sporting performance. I'll be making
reference to other sports as I go for reasons you'll understand.
1. First, note that ALL cultures run. Running has been part of human
locomotion since we started upright. So we can discount arguments on
that grounds right off the bat. This isn't true of all sports, mind
you. It should be pretty clear that countries with no snow aren't
likely to produce a lot of winter sports stars, simply for a lack of
availability/exposure to the sport. For running this is NOT the case.
Everybody runs. So that's a non-variable.
1a. Elite sprinting definitely has many biomechanical quirks so it is a
bit erroneous to lump running in with sprinting. That gets into the
access to good/competent coaching which I hit a little below.
1.5 (this just occured to me hence the numbering): Sprinting is an
individual sport. There is no risk of crappy teammates affecting your
performance or anything like that. It's you against the clock (and the
other sprinters).
2. Subjective judging or biased refereeing: While this is certainly an
issue in many sports (cf. gymnastics, basketball, football), in
sprinting it's simple: the fastest guy is the winner. Problems with
people starting early are handled by electronics (so there can't be any
judging bias) and the finishes are electronic as well, so no bias there.
He who runs the fastest wins, without anything else coloring it. No
argument, no debate, whoever gets from point a to point b the fastest is
the winner. A non-variable in the 100 m sprint.
3. Equipment: shoes, clothes, kewl sunglasses (sprinters all come with a
certain attitude so that's free). Sprinting is not a sport where
throwing thousands of dollars at equipment makes a huge difference in
performance. Contrast this with something like cycling where spending
20,000$ on a slightly lighter bike frame (I refer to the titanium bikes
used by the US Cycling team a few years back) can significantly impact
performance. Or where making major aerodynamic changes to the bike (I
refer to the sprint bike that was outlawed a few years ago). Charlie
Francis (in his excellent book "Speed Trap") does mention that getting
Ben Johnson, as a 14 year old, better shoes improved his running ; as
well, Johnson lost a race in the rain because his tattered clothing
became soaked with water. In any event, the last time I watched
sprinting championships, most of the guys were in pretty much identical
clothing. Equipment might play a role at a lower level of competition
(high school, maybe college) because someone who can afford better
sprint cleats might have an advantage. This ties into #4 (see below)
and should favor whites anyhow. At the elite level, with the kinds of
sponsorhip involved, I imagine all of the athletes are in pretty
identical equipment ; certianly nobody is in gear that's going to
significantly affect performance. So there's another non-variable.
4. Economics: First and foremost, running doesn't have much in the way
of economic requirements in the first place. A flat space to run and
shoes (yes, I realize that elite sprinters do get into aerodynamic
clothing but see 3 ; this isn't like cycling where you can cut wind
resistance by a huge amount with aero equipment). As well, there is the
issue of money to go to training camps (see Francis' book 'Speed Trap'
to read about the problems he had in Canada getting the funds for it).
However, unless global economics have changed since I last heard about
it, the average white has better economic advantages than the average
black. So even if economics were a factor, it should favor whites, not
blacks. So we can elminate that as well as a cause of black sprint dominance.
4a. Another economic factor sometimes brought up is the use of sport to
'get out', that is for a lower class individual to avoid living, working
and dying a low class-existence. Limited by educational and finiancial
possibilies, some sell drugs or get into a gang, others use sports, many
do neither. Considering that only a very select few sprinters make good
money from sprinting (contrasted to something like football or
basketball where there are a lot more money making possibilities), I
would tend to doubt this having a strong effect. I consider it
possible, but not terribly probable.
5. Access to coaching: this ties in with economics. In many sports (cf.
ice skating, gymnastics), being able to afford coaching at quite an
expense to the family for many years. Ice skating has skates, coaching,
ice time, choreographers, costume makes, etc. Gymnastics has similar
requirements (assuming you even have access to a good gym/coaching which
is why many gymnasts leave their families and go live/train with a
specific coach in another location). This generally relegates those
sports to upper middle class or higher families simply from the expense
alone (yes, there are a few exceptions but they are very few and far
between). I'm no expert on the dynamics of sprint coaching but most go
from high school (coaches freely available, whether they are competent
or not is another issue) to college (again, any successful high school
track athletes will likely go to a college with a good sprint program
and have access to coaching). Beyond that, I don't know. Do sprinters
require private coaching and if so, how much does it cost? In any
event, if it is economically troublesome to get/find a private sprint
coach, this should again favor whites on average (see 4). So that's
eliminated as a cause of black sprint dominance.
5a. There's also the issue of not just finding coaching but finding a
competent coach. Once again, at the elite level, all of the athletes
pretty much (by definition) have to have competent coaches. IF not,
they don't get to the elite level. In any event, I would highly doubt
that black sprinters somehow have better access to competent coaches
than white sprinters. So I considerit a non issue.
6. Cultural history in the sport: this plays a role in many sports (cf.
contrast the popularity of weightlifting in Russia or Bulgaria with the
us ; long-distance running is huge in Kenya and many young athletes are
drawn toward it for that reasons) and can affect how many people go into
a certain sport or not. Does this impact sprinting? I don't know for
sure but I would tend to doubt it. AT least in the US, black sports
stars (at least those who would be commonly known) are in basketball,
football and those sports. I hate basketball and football and I can
still name at least a few of the top athletes ; with sprinting, I can
probably come up with more names than most but only because training
stuff is my field of interest. I daresay that even sports
non-enthusiasts know who someone like Michael Jordan or Deion Sanders
is, but they couldn't tell you about Linford Christie or any of the
other recent sprinters (most only know about Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson
because of the huge controversy ; and probably Jess Owens for obvious
reasons). Are black sprinters 'stars' in the black community in the
same way that other black sports stars are? I don't know for sure but
again I consider it unlikely. The sport is too niche and you just don't
see sprinting plastered all over the tv like the other sports (even
Tiger Woods has far more exposure than the last Olympic 100m sprint gold
medalist). So despite the prevalance of black sprint stars, I would
tend to doubt this is greatly affecting who tries to succeed at sprinting.
7. Drive to succeed: This ties in with some of the other factors but
lemme just say that it would surprise me if there were any significant
differences in terms of internal drive to succeed between black and
white sprinters (or athletes in general). At the elite level, all of the
athletes have that level of drive ; if they didn't, they wouldn't make
it to the elite level (nb: I knew a gymnast one time who was quite
possibly the most gifted guy I had ever seen. He was also one of the
laziest and he never got anywhere because he never applied his extreme
gifts or trained hard). Quite to the contrary, those same white high
school sprinters who were probably pretty damn driven, start getting
their asses handed to them at higher levels of competition ; all despite
a huge internal drive. That is, no matter how hard they work, they
simply can't compete. So I would tend to eliminate this as a variable
in any sport, especially at the elite level. Sure, a motivated average
athlete may beat an unmotivated good athlete by training harder but at
the elite level, you just don't see unmotivated people period.
8. Drugs: It would surprise me if blacks have more or better access to
performance enhancing drugs than whites. Considering the economics
involved in obtaining them (either finding a doc who will give them to
you for enough money or travelling to where they can be obtained), that
would tend to favor whites again. And even if there are statisticaly
more black drug dealers (I don't know this to be the case), most don't
deal with dianabol and GH in the first place. So I don't consider that
much of a variable favoring blacks.
Hmm, did I forget anything? Nothing else comes to mind outside of
physiological factors but so far every variable I can think of that
affects sprint performance is either a non-variable or favors whites.
And yet blacks still hold the top 100 records.
That is to say, in other sports, the above issue become far more
complicated. Physiology or not, if a given individual doesn't have
acess to a given sport (i.e. no snow, can't afford the caoching, can't
afford teh equipment), they won't succeed. Making arguments to the
effect of 'Why don't you see elite black gymnasts?' pretty dumb.
Because of prevailing issues of economics and availability (not to
mention a complete lack of cultural influence) it's not a sport that
most get into.
One of the more entertaining spurious arguments on this topic I saw was
in one of the reviews of Entine's book on Amazon. Some mental genius
asked how come the Irish dominated running in the 20's and 30's and the
Kenyans weren't anywhere to be seen. Apparently he didn't realize that
blacks weren't generally allowed to compete in the first place or
couldn't get from their home country to the events.
But those are all non-issues in sprinting. You simply can't explain
black sprinting dominance on any of those characteristics (which do
apply to other sports).
If I were a gambling man (and I'm not) that would certainly lead me to
logically conclude that it's some inherent physiological (meaning
genetic) advantage that is prevalent more commonly in blacks than
whites. Considering the profound differences in racial physiology seen
otherwise, to deny the possibility is simply rediculous. To prove it of
course will require years of research (and this assumes that such
research goes forward). First you have to find the genes involved in
performance (and there are likely many) and then see if those genes
occur more often in blacks of a certain descent. Certainly not
impossible to do but it will take time.
I should also note that even if there are physiological advantages for
black sprinters, that still doesn't mean that they don't have to train
their asses off and apply themselves for many many years, with the high
likelihood that they still won't make it to the top. There seems to be
an atttitude that if you start admitting to genetic/physiological
advantages, it takes away from the athletes' hard work. This can be the
case at lower levels and lots of gifted but motivated athletes can coast
by and still do well. At the elite level it's an impossibility.
Elite sporting performance is a combination of environment (1-9 above) + genetics.
But if 1-9 are non-variables (or in some cases favor whites in the first
place) that leaves some inherent genetic/physiological advantage(s) as
the only explanation for the sporting dominance that is obvious to
anyone who will look at the record books.
Lyle
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsxfer.visi.net!63.208.208.143.MISMATCH!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2F897E...@onr.com>
Control: cancel <3C2F897E...@onr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:40:31 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2F8...@onr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009791972 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:46:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:46:12 GMT
Lyle McDonald
>
> Ok, Bryce wants a cohesive argument from me about this, I'll give it to
> him. Mainly just to watch him scramble.
<huge Snippage>
Oh yeah, ephedrine good.
Lyle
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!198.6.0.123!uunet!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2F89E8...@onr.com>
Control: cancel <3C2F89E8...@onr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:31:07 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2F8...@onr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009791966 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:46:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:46:06 GMT
Lyle McDonald
>
I tried.
Sorta.
>
> I should point out that
> > there is considerable (and increasing rapidly) data showing racial
> > differences in disease risk. For exmaple insulin resistance syndrome
> > and hypertension, both of which are more prevalent, as I recall, in
> > black females, than other groups. The example of Asian having more
> > trouble with alcohol (differences in liver enzymes as I recall),
>
> Aren't there also general male/female differences in alcohol effects
> with women being affected more strongly, above and beyond the
> differences that can be expected by women generally massing less?
I wasn't aware of it offhand so I did a quick Medline search. And the
answer appears to be yes (1). Which has some wonderful implications for
those seeking New Year's company (drink up ladies....).
And although it's totally unrelated, I found the title of this one to be
hysterical. But I'm easily amused.
Capraro RL. Why college men drink: alcohol, adventure, and the paradox
of masculinity. J Am Coll Health. 2000 May;48(6):307-15. Review. No
abstract available.
Paradox?
Lyle
****
1. Alcohol Res Health 1999;23(1):55-64
Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
Gender differences in moderate drinking effects.
Mumenthaler MS, Taylor JL, O'Hara R, Yesavage JA.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
School of Medicine, California, USA.
Women appear to become more impaired than men after drinking equivalent
amounts of alcohol, achieving higher blood alcohol concentrations even
when doses are adjusted for body weight. This finding may be
attributable in part to gender differences in total body water content.
Men and women appear to eliminate approximately the same total amount of
alcohol per unit body weight per hour. However, women seem to
eliminate significantly more alcohol per unit of lean body mass per hour
than men. Some studies report that women are more susceptible than men
to alcohol-related impairment of cognitive performance, especially in
tasks involving delayed memory or divided attention functions.
Psychomotor performance impairment, however,
does not appear to be affected by gender. This article provides an
overview of alcohol metabolism (pharmacokinetics) and reviews recent
studies on gender differences in alcohol absorption, distribution,
elimination, and impairment. Speculation that gender differences in
alcohol pharmacokinetics or
alcohol-induced performance impairment may be caused by the menstrual
cycle and variations in female sex hormones are discussed. It is
concluded that the menstrual cycle is unlikely to influence alcohol pharmacokinetics.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2FA082...@onr.com>
Control: cancel <3C2FA082...@onr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:00:03 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2FA...@onr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792533 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:55:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:55:33 GMT
scoob
rcp wrote in message ...
<snippage>
>
>Screw the Kenyans debate. Not a single white or asian descent male has
ever
>broken 10 seconds in the hundred meters. Blacks living in any number of
>countries all over the world have done so many, many times. The evidence
>for west african black's superiority at sprinting is numbingly
overwhelming.
>LOOK at the data.
>
Clearly, the 100M is culturally biased.
Jim
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "scoob" <jfp...@inilnospam.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <3c2f59c1$0$35576$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net>
Control: cancel <3c2f59c1$0$35576$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:29:23 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3c2f59c1$0$35576$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792279 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:51:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:51:19 GMT
John M. Williams
>John M. Williams wrote:
>>Elzinator <elzi...@planetclaire.not> wrote:
>>
>>> David Cohen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
>>>>> > factors to be accounted for.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>greyhounds belong to the same species, but bloodhounds have genetic
>>>>differences that make them superior at scent tracking. Anybody got a problem
>>>>with that? No. OK, let's try again. Black West Africans and White Northern
>>>>Europeans belong to the same species, but Black West Africans have genetic
>>>>differences that make them superior at sprinting. Anybody got a problem with
>>>>that? Apparently so. Sure it's more complex, but denying the basic and
>>>>obvious is [insert choice of expletive here].
>>>
>>>Exactly. It's called 'human psychology.'
>>
>>It is beyond "human psychology." It is an attempt to forcibly
>>manipulate natural human understanding to fit "noble" egalitarian
>>values. It is forced indoctrination, much the same as, but
>>diametrically opposed to, Hitler's attempts to scientifically
>>establish the existence of the Aryan Master Race. Same bullshit,
>>different agenda.
>
>However, not every person shares the same agenda.
We aren't really talking about individual beliefs. We are talking
about social indoctrination, where the believers in egalitarianism,
aka The Dreaded Equality Police, want us to believe that there are no
genetic difference in athletic performance based on racial phenotypes.
This indoctrination is enforced by angry accusations that anyone who
believes differently is criminally bigoted.
>Some choose to believe because they desperately want to. Simple as
>that.
Idiots may believe as they wish, and efforts to convince them
otherwise will inevitably fail. My concern is with the massive social
guilt trip, buttressed by much of our academia, which forces young
minds to believe what common sense tells them is false, all because
they are deathly in fear of being labeled racists.
--
John M. Williams jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com
------- http://www.enforcergraphics.f2s.com --------
------ Partnership for an Idiot-Free America -------
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: John M. Williams <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <6bbv2u85m6eosu8k1...@4ax.com>
Control: cancel <6bbv2u85m6eosu8k1...@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:06:21 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.6bbv2u85m6eos...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009791811 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:43:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:43:31 GMT
Bryce Lane
> in terms of treatment/prevention.
>
> This sort of data is accepted readily by both the medical and lay
> establishement as far as I can tell.
>
> But suggest that there might be racial differences in something like
> athletic performance, and suddenly you're the next Hitler looking for a
> basis for the next eugenics purge.
>
> this is because, as Whit pointed out in an earlier post, most people are
> small minded idiots who lack critical thinking ability completely,
> relying more on knee-jerk emotional belief systems than anything else.
>
Yes, and in this little ad-hominem spew of yours lies absolute proof of your
own thesis.
Congratulations! You have freely elected yourself head of the club.
Bryce
> Lyle
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "Bryce Lane" <joand...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <8MJX7.67417$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Control: cancel <8MJX7.67417$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:13:29 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.8MJX7.67417$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792199 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:49:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:49:59 GMT
rcp
>
>
> > about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
> > Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
>
>
> My advice.....don't be rude to the Canadains :)
>
>
>
>
> >
> > So what? Do we not seek knowledge because we are afraid some people
might
> > misinterpret it?
>
>
> Yes, but you temper it with responsibility. We don't live in a perfect
> world. I agree with you that it is sad that people haven't found a way
> to balance responsiblity, politics and pure science yet.
>
>
> >>I also will not accept contemplation of such efforts until reliable
> >>means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
> >>
> >
> > You can not "accept" whatever you want.
>
>
> I will not accept anything without adequate proof or examination.
>
> > We are at least more honest
>
> > about gender/sex than we are about race.
>
>
> Bullshit.
>
>
> Steve
Radical feminist attempts notwithstanding, we can admit that
1) women are weaker
2) women are shorter
3) women are fatter
4) Men are more aggressive
5) men are more likely to be mentally retarded
etc. without being accused, by any but the most ridiculous idealogue, of
being "sexist". We do realize that these differences exist, and that they
are genetically based.
However, there are very few racial differences, apart from the completely
incontrovertible e.g. blacks tend to have darker skin than whites, or asians
tend to have less body hair than scandinavians, etc. that we will consider,
for risk of being "offensive".
One common thread in the race and gender thing is that we are more likely to
Whit
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!newshub1.wanet.net!uunet!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "rcp" <r...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <8KHX7.402$%C1.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Control: cancel <8KHX7.402$%C1.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:17:46 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.8KHX7.402$%C1.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792757 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:59:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:59:17 GMT
Bryce Lane
> Differentiating between the genetic and environmental factors in human
> traits is significantly difficult. That is why twin studies are so
> popular. Controlling for variables in human studies is exceedingly
> difficult. Not only are physiology and anatomy significant factors,
> but also psychology. That complicates issues.
Thank you.
Bryce
>
>
> Elzi
>
> Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!zeus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.compaq.com!uunet!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "Bryce Lane" <joand...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <8MJX7.67418$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Control: cancel <8MJX7.67418$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:25:47 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.8MJX7.67418$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792196 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:49:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:49:56 GMT
David Cohen
> > Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
> > However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
> > factors to be accounted for.
> >
> That is most certainly true.
>
No, it isn't. You are being too generous, Whitney. Bloodhounds and
greyhounds belong to the same species, but bloodhounds have genetic
differences that make them superior at scent tracking. Anybody got a problem
with that? No. OK, let's try again. Black West Africans and White Northern
Europeans belong to the same species, but Black West Africans have genetic
differences that make them superior at sprinting. Anybody got a problem with
that? Apparently so. Sure it's more complex, but denying the basic and
obvious is [insert choice of expletive here].
I feeling rather annoyed at the human race this morning. Maybe four straight
12 hour shifts dealing with human stupidity has affected me. And this diet
thing sucks :(
David
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <B3HX7.8086$yi.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Control: cancel <B3HX7.8086$yi.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:16:01 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.B3HX7.8086$yi.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792501 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:55:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:55:01 GMT
rcp
John M. Williams <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:ljlu2uci6as7rokfn...@4ax.com...
> Elzinator <elzi...@planetclaire.not> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 16:14:25 GMT, David Cohen wrote:
> >>
> >>"rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> > Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
> >>> > However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
> >>> > factors to be accounted for.
> >>> >
> >>> That is most certainly true.
> >>>
> >>No, it isn't. You are being too generous, Whitney. Bloodhounds and
> >>greyhounds belong to the same species, but bloodhounds have genetic
> >>differences that make them superior at scent tracking. Anybody got a
problem
> >>with that? No. OK, let's try again. Black West Africans and White
Northern
> >>Europeans belong to the same species, but Black West Africans have
genetic
> >>differences that make them superior at sprinting. Anybody got a problem
with
> >>that? Apparently so. Sure it's more complex, but denying the basic and
> >>obvious is [insert choice of expletive here].
> >
>
> It is beyond "human psychology." It is an attempt to forcibly
> manipulate natural human understanding to fit "noble" egalitarian
> values. It is forced indoctrination, much the same as, but
> diametrically opposed to, Hitler's attempts to scientifically
> establish the existence of the Aryan Master Race. Same bullshit,
> different agenda.
The King is dead. Long live the King.
Whit
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "rcp" <r...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <AeJX7.8412$yi.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Control: cancel <AeJX7.8412$yi.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:33:20 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.AeJX7.8412$yi.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792252 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:50:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:50:52 GMT
Bryce Lane
> Bryce Lane <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
>
> > I don't think of either of you (Lyle or Whit) as "small minded idiots"
but
> > this comment is dangerously close to "projection".
>
> This from the man who said 'There is no such thing as a genetic limit'
> and then went to endless machinations to defend the stance in the face
> of endless data to the contrary.
Show me one!
Then prove to me to a scientific certainlty that this limit you post is
indeed "genetic".
Please, go for it. It is a rainy day here and I need some cheering up.
Bryce
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "Bryce Lane" <joand...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <CALX7.68877$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Control: cancel <CALX7.68877$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:32:54 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.CALX7.68877$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009791995 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:46:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:46:35 GMT
Bryce Lane
> > > > Of course these are all genetically based. It may also have
relevance
> > > > in terms of treatment/prevention.
> > > >
> > > > This sort of data is accepted readily by both the medical and lay
> > > > establishement as far as I can tell.
> > > >
> > > > But suggest that there might be racial differences in something like
> > > > athletic performance, and suddenly you're the next Hitler looking
for
> a
> > > > basis for the next eugenics purge.
> > > >
> > > > this is because, as Whit pointed out in an earlier post, most people
> are
> > > > small minded idiots who lack critical thinking ability completely,
> > > > relying more on knee-jerk emotional belief systems than anything
else.
> >
> > statistics and learning the difference between "I found something that
> SEEMS
> > to support what I already think so its gotta be true"
>
> Uh, no. I would never have even considered that west african blacks would
> be superior sprinters prior to looking at the evidence. I assumed the
exact
> opposite, in fact, that there was no racial factor in sports performance.
"West African blacks" is not a "race". You destroy your own argument for a
"racial basis" right there.
>
> Just like the gun control debate, it was the evidence that changed my
> preconceived notions, not my preconceived notions that allowed me to
> selectively filter evidence.
It was bad evidence. Would you like to examine Mr. Lott's bad math? Your
last excursions into polling and statistics was very poor and strangely
incompetent. I'm still really surprised that you called that "evidence".
>
> Of course, this debate should not be about personalities or what *I*
think,
> but what the evidence supports, so lets stick to the facts, not your
minimal
> understanding of where I am coming from as an individual.
Sure lets go with "the facts" I'm still waiting for you to present some.
Mostly you persist in making every question a political battle between
"liberals and conservatives" (or egalitarians) and giving us all textbook
lessons in most logical fallacies, mostly ad-hominems and false dilemas.
I've los talot of intellectual respect for you.
>
> and actually
> > constructing a real argument by process of reason. If he does not make
any
> > real attempts at this then he should not critisise others.
> >
>
> What are you referring to.
Most of what you write. Especially your strange ideas of what constitutes
"evidence".
>
> > I don't think of either of you (Lyle or Whit) as "small minded idiots"
but
> > this comment is dangerously close to "projection".
> >
> > Bryce
>
> Dude, chill with the penny psychology and stick to the facts.
It was the fact, when either of you get threatened by contrary information
it usually leads to some sort of ad-hominem, a tantrum or accusations of
people who dissagree with you being "idiots". Read your own posts.
Bryce
>
> Whit
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "Bryce Lane" <joand...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <DyKX7.68821$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Control: cancel <DyKX7.68821$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:43:30 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.DyKX7.68821$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792612 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:56:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:56:52 GMT
rcp
> >
> > It was the fact, when either of you get threatened by contrary
information
> > it usually leads to some sort of ad-hominem, a tantrum or accusations of
> > people who dissagree with you being "idiots". Read your own posts.
> >
> > Bryce
Dude, I just reread the post. What I said was "many people are idiots". How
is that ad hominem, a tantrum, etc? That's pretty damn bland, especially
for MFW. I did not call the poster an idiot.
Whit
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "rcp" <r...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <E6LX7.821$%C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Control: cancel <E6LX7.821$%C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:59:43 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.E6LX7.821$%C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792056 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:47:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:47:36 GMT
rcp
> I have mixed views about this issue.
>
> I do think there is a grain of truth about scientists being afraid to
> talk about genetics and human beings out of political concerns.
>
There is more than a grain of truth. Many scientists, or so-called
scientists will out and out admit, especially behind closed doors, that they
don't want to think about such matters, or discover if they are true,
because it can only lead to controversy and career risk. Furthermore, many
people who should be studying this stuff are in academia, where what side
you take in such political hot-potato issues, and that is the problem is
that these issues ARE politicized, can have serious ramifications on
professional advancement, tenure, etc. All one has to do is look at the
death threats, and other shite that professors at some universities like
Berkeley et al. have put up with because they dared suggest certain things
about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
racial differences on a physical/genetic/biological level. That can be
prosecuted, and has been, as a hate crime. A professor was prosecuted,
unsuccessfully for speaking and writing on this very subject.
As I referenced in another forum, as an example, SJ Gould finds such
statements about innate differences "deeply offensive". This is just silly
rhetoric. Science should not worry about hurting people's feelings. It
should be worried about objective truth, and postmodernism aside, there is
such a thing. Was it wrong for men to send astronauts into the firmament
because it might upset certain theists who believe that God was sitting up
there?
> On the other hand I can understand why professionals don't want to go to
> this place. Whole collections of ignoramuses are likely to
> misunderstand and twist such "science" into support for simple bigotry.
>
So what? Do we not seek knowledge because we are afraid some people might
misinterpret it? This attitude is exactly analogous to that of the catholic
church towards Galileo, a paternalistic and condescending attitude towards
what knowledge and inquiry should be open to public view, lest we cause
people hurt feelings, or confuse them with pesky evidence. It is a
totalitarian mindset that believes that inquiry should not be open, that
knowledge should be suppressed, and that certain subjects are taboo, because
sensitivity to people's feelings trumps knowledge. Furthermore, it is
ultimately condescending to all people, let alone people of certain races,
to say that members of any given group aren't mature enough to accept
whatever differences we may learn exist, upon study.
> Society as a whole ( any society ) is not ready to accept differences
> while at the same time not using those differences as a basis for
> dehumanization or otherwise devaluing people.
So, what you are saying is that we can't (in the words of Jack Nicholson)
"HANDLE THE TRUTH??!!"
Better scientists treat us like little sheeple and only feed us knowledge
about ourselves that makes us feel warm and fuzzy, that we are all the same,
that differences are only "skin deep" etc.?
Many people can't
> simultaneously accept a generalization that is true at the group level
> AND accept that truth that individuals of such groups can deviate from
> those generalizations and still belong to those groups ( Women are bad
> at math, your are a woman, you are good at math, you must be a
> defective woman ).
>
Many people are idiots. Crippling scientific inquiry and open debate into
fundamental matters of human differences and similarities out of fear of
these people is the sign of a totalitarian mindset. It also gives fuel to
bigots because they can claim that the govt/the media/academia/whomever is
hiding the truth. Would you rather have scientists, subject to the
scientific method and peer review inquiring into these matters, or bigots?
> All that is assuming that there *is* some scientific truth to be had
> behind those anecdotal generalizations.
>
word
> I will not accept racial/ethnic generalizations until I see hard numbers
> for how traits are distributed. Until then its my anecdote against the
> next guy/gal's anecdote. Yes, when I turn on the tv I see lots of black
> athletes. I also see a lot of flabby, clutzy blacks when I go out into
> the streets.
>
Why don't you read some of the literature and not rely on anecdotes, then?
Try Taboo, by Entine, for a start.
> I also will not accept contemplation of such efforts until reliable
> means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
You can not "accept" whatever you want. But, when we deal in human
behaviors, there will ALWAYS be cultural factors. However, despite cultural
differences we accept lots of differences between the genders for example,
like women are weaker on average, shorter on average, and fatter on average.
Nobody is sexist for admitting these realities. We are at least more honest
about gender/sex than we are about race. The problem is with people who
find the mere inquiry "offensive", who have made up their mind before even
looking at the evidence, and who are more concerned with how some people
might misconstrue the truth, than with what the truth is.
> For instance if you take the children of one those great Kenyan runners,
> raise them at a low altitude, in a sedentary existence, and then sign
> them up for high school track will they shine as runners?
>
Screw the Kenyans debate. Not a single white or asian descent male has ever
broken 10 seconds in the hundred meters. Blacks living in any number of
countries all over the world have done so many, many times. The evidence
for west african black's superiority at sprinting is numbingly overwhelming.
LOOK at the data.
> Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
> However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
> factors to be accounted for.
>
That is most certainly true.
Whit
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "rcp" <r...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <EDGX7.258$%C1.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Control: cancel <EDGX7.258$%C1.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:33:30 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.EDGX7.258$%C1.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792778 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:59:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:59:38 GMT
rcp
Yes, lets define terms here. Blacks as a group, a race, are still superior
to white or asians as sprinters. It just so happens that all the successful
sprinters are from a subset of the black race, specifically west african
blacks. There is no "one word" substitute for race when talking of west
african blacks, and you are correct that they are not a race. That was
imprecise wording on my part.
However, blacks are still, as a RACE, superior sprinters because every
single west african black is black (duh) and west african blacks dominate
sprinting. Most blacks in the US, for instance, are of west african
heritage, btw. It is just more specific to more specifically say west
african blacks, since they are the subset that dominate.
> >
> > Just like the gun control debate, it was the evidence that changed my
> > preconceived notions, not my preconceived notions that allowed me to
> > selectively filter evidence.
>
> It was bad evidence. Would you like to examine Mr. Lott's bad math? Your
> last excursions into polling and statistics was very poor and strangely
> incompetent. I'm still really surprised that you called that "evidence".
>
Lott is just the tip of the iceberg. There are numerous reasons why I do
not support "gun control" if by gun control one means restricting the right
of non-felons and non-psychos to get carry permits. There are arguments
from a rights basis, as well. Those, in my opinion, are far more important
than the stats. Yes, I said that. Stats are just a part of it. It is a
matter of fundamental rights. Even if I believed that there would be less
violent crime in the US if all guns magically dissapeared (which is
impossible anyways, with over 200 million in circulation), I still would
have issues with restricting the fundamental right of gun ownership and
carry, on a pure rights basis.
> >
> > Of course, this debate should not be about personalities or what *I*
> think,
> > but what the evidence supports, so lets stick to the facts, not your
> minimal
> > understanding of where I am coming from as an individual.
>
> Sure lets go with "the facts" I'm still waiting for you to present some.
> Mostly you persist in making every question a political battle between
> "liberals and conservatives" (or egalitarians) and giving us all textbook
> lessons in most logical fallacies, mostly ad-hominems and false dilemas.
> I've los talot of intellectual respect for you.
No, I don't. For your information, Entine is a "liberal Jew" to use his own
terminology. This is not a right vs. left issue. As a matter of fact,
there are several rightist publications that are on record as suppressing
evidence of black sprint superiority etc. out of fear of "appearing racist".
You are right that mindless egalitarians are a particular peeve of mine.
They are responsible for much of the muddle and misery surrounding PeeCee
horrors, and other attempts at quelling free expression.
And you are considering making a discussion into a "personal thing".
>
> >
> > and actually
> > > constructing a real argument by process of reason. If he does not make
> any
> > > real attempts at this then he should not critisise others.
> > >
> >
> > What are you referring to.
>
> Most of what you write. Especially your strange ideas of what constitutes
> "evidence".
>
Right. It is not evidence that no white male has ever broken 10 seconds,
that 494 of the top 500 100 meter sprint times are done by west african
blacks, etc.
> >
> > > I don't think of either of you (Lyle or Whit) as "small minded idiots"
> but
> > > this comment is dangerously close to "projection".
> > >
> > > Bryce
> >
> > Dude, chill with the penny psychology and stick to the facts.
>
> It was the fact, when either of you get threatened by contrary information
> it usually leads to some sort of ad-hominem, a tantrum or accusations of
> people who dissagree with you being "idiots". Read your own posts.
>
> Bryce
Dude, that guy was an idiot. His entire argument was sentiment mentality.
There was not a single acknowledgment of what the facts were in regards to
differential performance etc. and several comments that the reason that this
should not be studied, is that it might lead to, for lack of a better term,
hurt feelings.
I rarely call people idiots, but sometimes a glaring buffoon is a glaring
buffoon.
Whit
>
> >
> > Whit
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "rcp" <r...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <EZKX7.782$%C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Control: cancel <EZKX7.782$%C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:15:53 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.EZKX7.782$%C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792089 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:48:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:48:09 GMT
rcp
Elzinator <elzi...@planetclaire.not> wrote in message
news:o9hu2u0oqnlskctmg...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 15:44:36 GMT, rcp wrote:
> >
> >news:3C2F2E98...@yahoo.com...
> >> I have mixed views about this issue.
> >>
> >> I do think there is a grain of truth about scientists being afraid to
> >> talk about genetics and human beings out of political concerns.
> >>
> >
> >There is more than a grain of truth. Many scientists, or so-called
> >scientists will out and out admit, especially behind closed doors, that
they
> >don't want to think about such matters, or discover if they are true,
> >because it can only lead to controversy and career risk. Furthermore,
many
> >people who should be studying this stuff are in academia, where what side
> >you take in such political hot-potato issues, and that is the problem is
> >that these issues ARE politicized, can have serious ramifications on
> >professional advancement, tenure, etc. All one has to do is look at the
> >death threats, and other shite that professors at some universities like
> >Berkeley et al. have put up with because they dared suggest certain
things
> >about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
> >Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
> >racial differences on a physical/genetic/biological level. That can be
> >prosecuted, and has been, as a hate crime. A professor was prosecuted,
> >unsuccessfully for speaking and writing on this very subject.
>
> and then social constraints restrict what is reported and how. The
> science arena is not infallible nor protected from human politics,
> morals and ethics. It overlaps our society just like anything else.
>
> People will believe that which they want to believe, no matter what
> evidence proves otherwise.
Well, in the long run, it really isn't as bad you make it sound. I mean it
is completely contrary to visual observation, and common sense, to believe
that the earth revolves around the sun. That idea was vigorously opposed by
scientists (as any radical theory is), clergy, and laymen alike. However,
eventually science wins out, and we believe what Occam's razor tells us to.
There are a million other examples of things we believe - germ theory,
interstellar distances, etc. - due to the advancement of science and that go
against what we would want to believe. It is just that at any given time,
there are a lot of issues that SEEM to outweigh all the others, but in the
long run - science wins.
Scientists are human and science is subject
> to human interpretation.
>
> There are games we all have to play, and the arena of science is no
> different. Renegades are often prosecuted in one way or another.
>
>
> >> Society as a whole ( any society ) is not ready to accept differences
> >> while at the same time not using those differences as a basis for
> >> dehumanization or otherwise devaluing people.
> >
> >So, what you are saying is that we can't (in the words of Jack Nicholson)
> >"HANDLE THE TRUTH??!!"
> >
> >Better scientists treat us like little sheeple and only feed us knowledge
> >about ourselves that makes us feel warm and fuzzy, that we are all the
same,
> >that differences are only "skin deep" etc.?
>
> 'Better scientists'??? I take issue with that, Whit. Many of our
> greatest scientists were renegades, often ostracized by the
> public/political arena and even the scientific community for adhering
> to their discoveries. No, we do not always feed the public with what
> makes them 'warm and fuzzy,' but present the data with explanations
> that help people to understand them and the implication, especially
> when it is controversial. But we can't change human nature.
>
You completely misparsed my grammer. I was saying that - more clearly
stated here "Are you saying it is better THAT scientists treat us..."
Emphasis on the "that".
I should have been more clear.
>
>
>
> >> Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
> >> However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
> >> factors to be accounted for.
> >>
> >
> >That is most certainly true.
>
> Sure, but people are not canines. Canines were selectively chosen and
> bred for specific traits for thousands of years. That accelerates
> evolution of traits. Human eugenics has been morally and ethically
> avoided as you well know. If we had used similar selective pressure in
> human populations over the thousands of years as we did with canines,
> we would find similar differences in human traits. There are some
> trait differences in humans, such as skin color, etc, but not to the
> extent exemplified in dogs.
>
True.
> Differentiating between the genetic and environmental factors in human
> traits is significantly difficult. That is why twin studies are so
> popular. Controlling for variables in human studies is exceedingly
> difficult. Not only are physiology and anatomy significant factors,
> but also psychology. That complicates issues.
>
>
> Elzi
Psychology is kewl.
Whit
>
> Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "rcp" <r...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <HUHX7.420$%C1.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Control: cancel <HUHX7.420$%C1.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:47:00 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.HUHX7.420$%C1.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792395 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:53:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:53:15 GMT
David Cohen
"Steve" <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> rcp wrote:
> > about this very subject. Heck, in some purportedly free countries, like
> > Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
>
> My advice.....don't be rude to the Canadains :)
>
At least not while in Canada. Being prosecuted for what we in the US would
call free speech would suck. Although I bet Canadian prisons are nicer.
> >
> > So what? Do we not seek knowledge because we are afraid some people
might
> > misinterpret it?
>
> Yes, but you temper it with responsibility. We don't live in a perfect
> world. I agree with you that it is sad that people haven't found a way
> to balance responsiblity, politics and pure science yet.
Sure we have. Leave pure science the fuck alone. See, easy.
>
> >>I also will not accept contemplation of such efforts until reliable
> >>means are available for separating out cultural and economic factors.
> >>
> > You can not "accept" whatever you want.
>
> I will not accept anything without adequate proof or examination.
Of course, you want some "social responsibility" along with your adequate
proof or examination. Can't have too much of that disconcerting truth
getting out to the ignorant masses.
>
> > We are at least more honest
> > about gender/sex than we are about race.
>
> Bullshit.
Naive.
>
> Steve
>
> Home Page:
> http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/
"beforewisdom". huh? Got that right :)
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> The current population of the Earth is 6.2 billion people.
> If current birth and death rates continue, the Earth's
> population will nearly double in 40 years
>
> Zero Population Growth web site:
> http://www.zpg.org/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
Wow, Holy 1970's, Batman!! Talk about a discredited idea. I didn't even know
ZPG existed anymore. Remind me, again: is it global cooling with a new ice
age, or global warming with melting ice caps, that I'm supposed to be
worried about? Pseudo-science is just so difficult to keep up with.
David
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "David Cohen" <sammi...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <MhHX7.8133$yi.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Control: cancel <MhHX7.8133$yi.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:56:11 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.MhHX7.8133$yi.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792468 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:54:28 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:54:28 GMT
Bryce Lane
"Elzinator" <elzi...@planetclaire.not> wrote in message
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:18:28 GMT, Bryce Lane wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Differentiating between the genetic and environmental factors in human
> >> traits is significantly difficult. That is why twin studies are so
> >> popular. Controlling for variables in human studies is exceedingly
> >> difficult. Not only are physiology and anatomy significant factors,
> >> but also psychology. That complicates issues.
> >
> >
> >Bryce
>
> For what? Stating the obvious? Lewontin and several others have
> written numerous articles/books on this issue: nature vs. nurture. (A
> good book was published just recently on it) While we can considerably
> control the variables for most of the animal models we study, humans
> are the most difficult to control for, especially behavioral genetics.
> That is why many geneticists use isolated populations for study. But
> even in these populations, we have the most confounding variable:
> human psychology.
I thank you for "stating the obvious" as I have several times. I've also
made the psychology point, I think you are making.
>
> Does it really matter? Yes and no. Learning all we can about genetics
> and genetic expression can aid us in manipulation of our environment
> to promote expression of specific traits (the example of dog breeding
> mentioned elsewhere is a perfect example). But that has ethical
> considerations.
It sure does.
>
> On the other hand, it can also help us treat diseases and illnesses.
> As Lyle mentioned elsewhere, some diseases are highly correlated with
> ethnicity because of generations of genetic 'imprinting.' For
> instance, Hispanics and other ethnic groups tend to have higher
> visceral fat accumulation than other Caucasians and are consequently
> susceptible to associated metabolic diseases or pathophysiologies,
> such as diabetes (see Steve Hefner's research). Modalities and
> intervention strategies can be taught and integrated to prevent and
> treat such diseases. But they don't always adopt them.
Yes, but this is not what people are discussing and it applies to only
limited subsets of ethnicity groupings.
>
> We as humans have the greatest ability and freedom to control and
> manipulate our environment. But do we do so to optimize our genetic
> potential? No. We have 'human nature' to consider as well. And
> sometimes our psychology does not always agree with our biology on
> what is 'best' for us as individuals and/or a race.
Ok
>
> The same could be said for genetic propensities for athletic
> performance.
>
> Everyone may have the same genes, but they are not all expressed
> equally, depending on their historical development as a subpopulation
> (e.g. Pima Indians) and their environment (e.g. Pima Indians in our
> Western society become morbidly obese and diabetic, but not in their
> historical environment). A similar scenario could have evolved for
> other traits (e.g. sprinting ability) in any given subpopulation (e.g.
> Africans).
>
> We should feel just as comfortable with our dissimilarities as we are
> our similarities. And screw political correctness.
You've made my points for me.
1.) Athletic performance is a question where many interweaving factors
cannot be conveniently separated.
2.) Trying to categorize, quantify and predict athletic performance by
"racial" criteria is impossible (at present) and silly.
So where is the fight coming from? I've said this dozens of time in the last
year.
Bryce
>
>
> Elzi
>
> Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "Bryce Lane" <joand...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <PvLX7.68864$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Control: cancel <PvLX7.68864$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:38:13 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.PvLX7.68864$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792004 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:46:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:46:44 GMT
Bryce Lane
>
>
> > >
> > > It was the fact, when either of you get threatened by contrary
> information
> > > it usually leads to some sort of ad-hominem, a tantrum or accusations
of
> > > people who dissagree with you being "idiots". Read your own posts.
> > >
> > > Bryce
>
How
> is that ad hominem, a tantrum, etc? That's pretty damn bland, especially
> for MFW. I did not call the poster an idiot.
"Ad hominem" is not necessarily a personal attack. It is the fallacy of
"doubt based purely on source, without recourse to reason". "Many people"
have different opinions than you, "many people" are still right in spite of
that ;-)
You are alway carping about "presenting evidence", why don't you try it? Why
dont' you try constructing a simple reasoned argument based on something
other than "read this book" or "liberals talk like that, therefore its
false"? Why don't you go through something step by step like I have on many
occasions and simply lay out a rational basis for why you thing something
may or may not be the case and leave the "liberal and conservative" canards
out of it.
Bryce
>
> Whit
>
>
>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "Bryce Lane" <joand...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <OvLX7.68863$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Control: cancel <OvLX7.68863$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:40:22 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.OvLX7.68863$WK1.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792008 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:46:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:46:48 GMT
Bryce Lane
> > Show me one!
>
> No human being will ever swim nude from the Antarctic to Iceland using
only
> their nostrils.
Ok, I guess you got me on that one. It might have been Jack LaLanne but he's
getting too old for that kind of crap.
>
> > Then prove to me to a scientific certainlty that this limit you post is
> > indeed "genetic".
>
> Nope. Can't prove it. Just a gut feeling. But I could do some argument
by
> analogy and such.
As I said, Jack is too old and our one chance is gone.
>
> > Please, go for it. It is a rainy day here and I need some cheering up.
>
> Somewhere, someone physically attractive is almost certainly nude.
Yes, but where?
Bryce
>
> Well, that always cheers me up.
>
>
>
>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!198.6.0.123!uunet!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "Bryce Lane" <joand...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <RbMX7.67566$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Control: cancel <RbMX7.67566$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:40:20 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.RbMX7.67566$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009791945 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:45:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:45:45 GMT
rcp
Bryce Lane <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:qYJX7.67420$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
>
> "Bryce Lane" <joand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:8MJX7.67417$fo5.16...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> > > Of course these are all genetically based. It may also have relevance
> > > in terms of treatment/prevention.
> > >
> > > This sort of data is accepted readily by both the medical and lay
> > > establishement as far as I can tell.
> > >
> > > But suggest that there might be racial differences in something like
> > > athletic performance, and suddenly you're the next Hitler looking for
a
> > > basis for the next eugenics purge.
> > >
> > > this is because, as Whit pointed out in an earlier post, most people
are
> > > small minded idiots who lack critical thinking ability completely,
> > > relying more on knee-jerk emotional belief systems than anything else.
>
> Whit should also learn to use this "critical thinking" when it comes to
> statistics and learning the difference between "I found something that
SEEMS
> to support what I already think so its gotta be true"
Uh, no. I would never have even considered that west african blacks would
be superior sprinters prior to looking at the evidence. I assumed the exact
opposite, in fact, that there was no racial factor in sports performance.
Just like the gun control debate, it was the evidence that changed my
preconceived notions, not my preconceived notions that allowed me to
selectively filter evidence.
Of course, this debate should not be about personalities or what *I* think,
but what the evidence supports, so lets stick to the facts, not your minimal
understanding of where I am coming from as an individual.
and actually
> constructing a real argument by process of reason. If he does not make any
> real attempts at this then he should not critisise others.
>
What are you referring to.
> I don't think of either of you (Lyle or Whit) as "small minded idiots" but
> this comment is dangerously close to "projection".
>
> Bryce
Dude, chill with the penny psychology and stick to the facts.
Whit
>
>
>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: "rcp" <r...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <WpKX7.708$%C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Control: cancel <WpKX7.708$%C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:31:02 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.WpKX7.708$%C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792139 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:48:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:48:59 GMT
Elzinator
>
>
>> Differentiating between the genetic and environmental factors in human
>> traits is significantly difficult. That is why twin studies are so
>> popular. Controlling for variables in human studies is exceedingly
>> difficult. Not only are physiology and anatomy significant factors,
>> but also psychology. That complicates issues.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Bryce
For what? Stating the obvious? Lewontin and several others have
written numerous articles/books on this issue: nature vs. nurture. (A
good book was published just recently on it) While we can considerably
control the variables for most of the animal models we study, humans
are the most difficult to control for, especially behavioral genetics.
That is why many geneticists use isolated populations for study. But
even in these populations, we have the most confounding variable:
human psychology.
Does it really matter? Yes and no. Learning all we can about genetics
and genetic expression can aid us in manipulation of our environment
to promote expression of specific traits (the example of dog breeding
mentioned elsewhere is a perfect example). But that has ethical
considerations.
On the other hand, it can also help us treat diseases and illnesses.
As Lyle mentioned elsewhere, some diseases are highly correlated with
ethnicity because of generations of genetic 'imprinting.' For
instance, Hispanics and other ethnic groups tend to have higher
visceral fat accumulation than other Caucasians and are consequently
susceptible to associated metabolic diseases or pathophysiologies,
such as diabetes (see Steve Hefner's research). Modalities and
intervention strategies can be taught and integrated to prevent and
treat such diseases. But they don't always adopt them.
We as humans have the greatest ability and freedom to control and
manipulate our environment. But do we do so to optimize our genetic
potential? No. We have 'human nature' to consider as well. And
sometimes our psychology does not always agree with our biology on
what is 'best' for us as individuals and/or a race.
The same could be said for genetic propensities for athletic
performance.
Everyone may have the same genes, but they are not all expressed
equally, depending on their historical development as a subpopulation
(e.g. Pima Indians) and their environment (e.g. Pima Indians in our
Western society become morbidly obese and diabetic, but not in their
historical environment). A similar scenario could have evolved for
other traits (e.g. sprinting ability) in any given subpopulation (e.g.
Africans).
We should feel just as comfortable with our dissimilarities as we are
our similarities. And screw political correctness.
Elzi
Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Elzinator <elzi...@planetclaire.not>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <aotu2ugi8tcin2esd...@4ax.com>
Control: cancel <aotu2ugi8tcin2esd...@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:16:08 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.aotu2ugi8tcin...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792615 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:56:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:56:55 GMT
Elzinator
>Elzinator <elzi...@planetclaire.not> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>"rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
>>>> > factors to be accounted for.
>>>> >
>>>> That is most certainly true.
>>>>
>>>greyhounds belong to the same species, but bloodhounds have genetic
>>>differences that make them superior at scent tracking. Anybody got a problem
>>>with that? No. OK, let's try again. Black West Africans and White Northern
>>>Europeans belong to the same species, but Black West Africans have genetic
>>>differences that make them superior at sprinting. Anybody got a problem with
>>>that? Apparently so. Sure it's more complex, but denying the basic and
>>>obvious is [insert choice of expletive here].
>>
>>Exactly. It's called 'human psychology.'
>
>It is beyond "human psychology." It is an attempt to forcibly
>manipulate natural human understanding to fit "noble" egalitarian
>values. It is forced indoctrination, much the same as, but
>diametrically opposed to, Hitler's attempts to scientifically
>establish the existence of the Aryan Master Race. Same bullshit,
>different agenda.
However, not every person shares the same agenda.
Some choose to believe because they desperately want to. Simple as
that.
Elzi
Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Elzinator <elzi...@planetclaire.not>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <bdvu2uoq9d36stj5d...@4ax.com>
Control: cancel <bdvu2uoq9d36stj5d...@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:16:19 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.bdvu2uoq9d36s...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792079 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:47:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:47:59 GMT
Elzinator
>David Winters wrote:
>>
>> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> writes:
>> > Without getting dragged back into this debate,
>>
>> Ha.
>
>I tried.
>Sorta.
>
>>
>> I should point out that
>> > there is considerable (and increasing rapidly) data showing racial
>> > differences in disease risk. For exmaple insulin resistance syndrome
>> > and hypertension, both of which are more prevalent, as I recall, in
>> > black females, than other groups. The example of Asian having more
>> > trouble with alcohol (differences in liver enzymes as I recall),
>>
>> Aren't there also general male/female differences in alcohol effects
>> with women being affected more strongly, above and beyond the
>> differences that can be expected by women generally massing less?
>
>I wasn't aware of it offhand so I did a quick Medline search. And the
>answer appears to be yes (1).
Aside from the body water issue, there is a gender difference in the
dehydrogenase enzyme in the gut as well as the liver. A portion of
ethanol is metabolized in the gut as well as in the liver.
Apparently, there may be some modulation of either enzyme expression
or activity by sex hormones in both of these tissues (for this
specific enzyme).
Elzi
Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Elzinator <elzi...@planetclaire.not>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <eaav2ugnm57k2d1jq...@4ax.com>
Control: cancel <eaav2ugnm57k2d1jq...@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:09:59 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.eaav2ugnm57k2...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009791836 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:43:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:43:56 GMT
John M. Williams
>On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 16:14:25 GMT, David Cohen wrote:
>>
>>"rcp" <r...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
>>> > However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
>>> > factors to be accounted for.
>>> >
>>> That is most certainly true.
>>>
>>No, it isn't. You are being too generous, Whitney. Bloodhounds and
>>greyhounds belong to the same species, but bloodhounds have genetic
>>differences that make them superior at scent tracking. Anybody got a problem
>>with that? No. OK, let's try again. Black West Africans and White Northern
>>Europeans belong to the same species, but Black West Africans have genetic
>>differences that make them superior at sprinting. Anybody got a problem with
>>that? Apparently so. Sure it's more complex, but denying the basic and
>>obvious is [insert choice of expletive here].
>
>Exactly. It's called 'human psychology.'
It is beyond "human psychology." It is an attempt to forcibly
manipulate natural human understanding to fit "noble" egalitarian
values. It is forced indoctrination, much the same as, but
diametrically opposed to, Hitler's attempts to scientifically
establish the existence of the Aryan Master Race. Same bullshit,
different agenda.
--
John M. Williams jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com
------- http://www.enforcergraphics.f2s.com --------
------ Partnership for an Idiot-Free America -------
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: John M. Williams <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <ljlu2uci6as7rokfn...@4ax.com>
Control: cancel <ljlu2uci6as7rokfn...@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:43:53 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.ljlu2uci6as7r...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792262 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:51:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:51:02 GMT
David Winters
Ha.
I should point out that
> there is considerable (and increasing rapidly) data showing racial
> differences in disease risk. For exmaple insulin resistance syndrome
> and hypertension, both of which are more prevalent, as I recall, in
> black females, than other groups. The example of Asian having more
> trouble with alcohol (differences in liver enzymes as I recall),
Aren't there also general male/female differences in alcohol effects
with women being affected more strongly, above and beyond the
differences that can be expected by women generally massing less?
D.
--
By March I'll have enough mass to bend light to a significant degree.
-- Rob Stone
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: David Winters <win...@GIRI.INTRO.CS.CMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <m3heq8x...@GIRI.INTRO.CS.CMU.EDU>
Control: cancel <m3heq8x...@GIRI.INTRO.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:42:08 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.m3h...@GIRI.INTRO.CS.CMU.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009791892 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:44:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:44:52 GMT
Elzinator
>
>Steve <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3C2F2E98...@yahoo.com...
>> I have mixed views about this issue.
>>
>> I do think there is a grain of truth about scientists being afraid to
>> talk about genetics and human beings out of political concerns.
>>
>
>There is more than a grain of truth. Many scientists, or so-called
>scientists will out and out admit, especially behind closed doors, that they
>don't want to think about such matters, or discover if they are true,
>because it can only lead to controversy and career risk. Furthermore, many
>people who should be studying this stuff are in academia, where what side
>you take in such political hot-potato issues, and that is the problem is
>that these issues ARE politicized, can have serious ramifications on
>professional advancement, tenure, etc. All one has to do is look at the
>death threats, and other shite that professors at some universities like
>Berkeley et al. have put up with because they dared suggest certain things
>Canada, it is criminally prosecutable to suggest that there are robust
>prosecuted, and has been, as a hate crime. A professor was prosecuted,
>unsuccessfully for speaking and writing on this very subject.
Unfortunately, scientific data is susceptible to human interpretation
and then social constraints restrict what is reported and how. The
science arena is not infallible nor protected from human politics,
morals and ethics. It overlaps our society just like anything else.
People will believe that which they want to believe, no matter what
evidence proves otherwise. Scientists are human and science is subject
to human interpretation.
There are games we all have to play, and the arena of science is no
different. Renegades are often prosecuted in one way or another.
>> Society as a whole ( any society ) is not ready to accept differences
>> while at the same time not using those differences as a basis for
>> dehumanization or otherwise devaluing people.
>
>So, what you are saying is that we can't (in the words of Jack Nicholson)
>"HANDLE THE TRUTH??!!"
>
>Better scientists treat us like little sheeple and only feed us knowledge
>about ourselves that makes us feel warm and fuzzy, that we are all the same,
>that differences are only "skin deep" etc.?
'Better scientists'??? I take issue with that, Whit. Many of our
greatest scientists were renegades, often ostracized by the
public/political arena and even the scientific community for adhering
to their discoveries. No, we do not always feed the public with what
makes them 'warm and fuzzy,' but present the data with explanations
that help people to understand them and the implication, especially
when it is controversial. But we can't change human nature.
>> Genetic differences between groups do exist. Ask any dog breeder.
>> However before you can apply such talk to people there are a lot of
>> factors to be accounted for.
>>
>
>That is most certainly true.
Sure, but people are not canines. Canines were selectively chosen and
bred for specific traits for thousands of years. That accelerates
evolution of traits. Human eugenics has been morally and ethically
avoided as you well know. If we had used similar selective pressure in
human populations over the thousands of years as we did with canines,
we would find similar differences in human traits. There are some
trait differences in humans, such as skin color, etc, but not to the
extent exemplified in dogs.
Differentiating between the genetic and environmental factors in human
traits is significantly difficult. That is why twin studies are so
popular. Controlling for variables in human studies is exceedingly
difficult. Not only are physiology and anatomy significant factors,
but also psychology. That complicates issues.
Elzi
Reality is an illusion created by an intelligence deficiency.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Elzinator <elzi...@planetclaire.not>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,misc.fitness.weights
Subject: cmsg cancel <o9hu2u0oqnlskctmg...@4ax.com>
Control: cancel <o9hu2u0oqnlskctmg...@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:27:18 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.o9hu2u0oqnlsk...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009792415 100 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 09:53:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 09:53:35 GMT