PDA

View Full Version : Why black people are so talented in 100m run?


Lin Lin
Aug 17th, 2009, 06:20 AM
There are 15 balck people in top16 in Berlin this time,:worship::worship::eek::eek:and the only non-balack one is from Japan.Does this have something to do with gene?:confused:

kris719
Aug 17th, 2009, 06:45 AM
ok???

mandy7
Aug 17th, 2009, 06:59 AM
I give $ 5.000,- v-cash to whoever says (and means it!!) :
It's cause black people are used to running from the cops

just cause i wanna see what kinda riot that would cause
i love a good trainwreck

Beefy
Aug 17th, 2009, 07:03 AM
I remember doing this back in sport science, like 9 years ago. The reason is because blacks have a higher red blood cell count then whites, and if I remember rightly, it gives a better oxygen rate. Also I think there's something to do with a greater muscle percentage, and that they have longer legs, and shorter upper bodies then whites, which sees blacks excel in sprinting and the likes, but not so much in swimming. I also think that whites have a smaller achilles tendon, which is a major cause for this

Beefy
Aug 17th, 2009, 07:04 AM
I give $ 5.000,- v-cash to whoever says (and means it!!) :
It's cause black people are used to running from the cops

just cause i wanna see what kinda riot that would cause
i love a good trainwreck

:lol: I thought someone would've said it by now :lol:

Lin Lin
Aug 17th, 2009, 07:06 AM
I remember doing this back in sport science, like 9 years ago. The reason is because blacks have a higher red blood cell count then whites, and if I remember rightly, it gives a better oxygen rate. Also I think there's something to do with a greater muscle percentage, and that they have longer legs, and shorter upper bodies then whites, which sees blacks excel in sprinting and the likes, but not so much in swimming. I also think that whites have a smaller achilles tendon, which is a major cause for this

Informative:yeah:But could you post some reputable links of these?:worship:Thanks:)

mandy7
Aug 17th, 2009, 07:20 AM
Informative:yeah:But could you post some reputable links of these?:worship:Thanks:)
Do you not have google?!
Or it this just your STUPID QUESTION OF THE WEEK-thread?
:rolleyes:

Thanos
Aug 17th, 2009, 07:37 AM
It's cause black people are used to running from the cops


:secret: where my vcash mandy7

mandy7
Aug 17th, 2009, 07:41 AM
It's cause black people are used to running from the cops
:secret: where my vcash mandy7
did you mean what you said? :p

Thanos
Aug 17th, 2009, 07:43 AM
this is entrapment.

i want my money now!! or i hunt you down in the red light district.






hehehe

mandy7
Aug 17th, 2009, 08:06 AM
this is entrapment.
i want my money now!! or i hunt you down in the red light district.
hehehe
it's not, you can read, can't you :p
I give $ 5.000,- v-cash to whoever says (and means it!!)

GeeTee
Aug 17th, 2009, 09:02 AM
Google "fast twitch fibres"

That's what you need to run from the cops..

Petkorazzi
Aug 17th, 2009, 09:21 AM
Do you not have google?!
Or it this just your STUPID QUESTION OF THE WEEK-thread?
:rolleyes:
More like stupid question of the minute. :p

Kworb
Aug 17th, 2009, 09:27 AM
Interesting question and answer. :)

Stop being mean to Lin Lin :ras: how can you not love him and his panda avatar? :inlove:

Ellen Dawson
Aug 17th, 2009, 09:55 AM
Do you not have google?!
Or it this just your STUPID QUESTION OF THE WEEK-thread?
:rolleyes:

Sometimes I agree with you; sometimes I dont. :p That said, you do make me laugh. :lol: If you were American you'd most definitely be from either New York or Jersey. ;) Oh this isn't out of the blue: I made my own little Lin Lin joke on another thread. :angel:

Lin Lin, I come in peace. I swear! ::wavey:

~{X}~
Aug 17th, 2009, 10:00 AM
Sometimes I agree with you; sometimes I dont. :p That said, you do make me laugh. :lol: If you were American you'd most definitely be from either New York or Jersey. ;) Oh this isn't out of the blue: I made my own little Lin Lin joke on another thread. :angel:

Lin Lin, I come in peace. I swear! ::wavey:

Do not insult New York by placing her in that category. Please.

Ellen Dawson
Aug 17th, 2009, 10:06 AM
Do not insult New York by placing her in that category. Please.

Hey go back and read my past post: I said I don't always agree with Mandy.

The thing that's very New York (and Jersey) about her posts is that she doesn't mince words. She'll give it to you straight (from her viewpoint) as opposed to telling you what you want to hear. That's going to offend people (I've shaken my head a few times) but I'd rather have her be blatantly honest than use flowery language that has negative subtext.

rockstar
Aug 17th, 2009, 10:08 AM
a 'why can't black ppl swim' thread would be more interesting :o

~{X}~
Aug 17th, 2009, 10:09 AM
Still, don't insult NYC by labeling that she would be a New Yorker.

I am born and raised in NYC and would be offended. I'm telling it straight right now, she tries too hard.

HippityHop
Aug 17th, 2009, 10:21 AM
:lol: I thought someone would've said it by now :lol:

Someone did. They just tried to be slick about it. :rolleyes:

Alizé Molik
Aug 17th, 2009, 10:29 AM
linlin you forgot your blingbling ^^

Destiny
Aug 17th, 2009, 11:56 AM
:lol:

Funny thread but like the information

Lin Lin
Aug 17th, 2009, 12:27 PM
Weird people here:confused:I was asking a very serious question,but it seemed some people were trying to make some funny posts even they didn't know the real answer.:confused:

Destiny
Aug 17th, 2009, 12:33 PM
a 'why can't black ppl swim' thread would be more interesting :o

True FACT - Black Fat is denser than White fat, we sink easier, so don't move through the water as quickly.

Mikey.
Aug 17th, 2009, 02:34 PM
Last semester I studied a Human Genetics subject as part of my degree and we came across something on this topic I found very interesting. It was mentioned that people who originated from more arid and high temperature climates such as those of African origin have been thought to have evolved the ability to very efficiently use the energy in their bodies for muscle movement. So for example, this allowed them to travel long distances searching for scarce resources in a desert environment. On the other hand, people originating from cooler environments, such as those from Northern Europe, have been thought to have evolved the ability to more efficiently use their bodily energy for body warmth, to survive cooler environments.

Just Do It
Aug 17th, 2009, 02:41 PM
I give $ 5.000,- v-cash to whoever says (and means it!!) :
It's cause black people are used to running from the cops

just cause i wanna see what kinda riot that would cause
i love a good trainwreck

I actually thought someone would say because they have/had to run for 20km to get fresh water in Africa.

Kworb
Aug 17th, 2009, 03:13 PM
It's also interesting how it's okay to discuss physical differences between races but mental differences are taboo.

moby
Aug 17th, 2009, 04:11 PM
It's also interesting how it's okay to discuss physical differences between races but mental differences are taboo.Or between the two sexes for that matter. Great point.

It just demonstrates the high priority placed by modern society by intelligence, and how the self-worth (or potential) of an individual is greatly judged by his intellect. And so if you insinuate the relative poverty of intellect for a particular group, then you're also saying they're lesser as humans. Everyone pays lip-service to the notion that intelligence is not everything, but in truth, it still matters a lot to most people.

Vyacheslavovna
Aug 17th, 2009, 04:19 PM
I don't want to do research on google, if any one can put up links for the science, please, I've never seen any (though I haven't been looking)

One theory is that its a result of natural selection due to slavery. The weaker athletic genes didn't survive to breed, but the stronger athletic genes did, resulting in a stronger, more athletic gene pool today. It seems like a reasonable theory to me.

There was sports presenter on US TV a while ago, Jimmy the Greek, (I think) who put it down to how slaveowners bred their slaves like cattle. He said it more like; the slaveowner put his big man black, with his big woman black, to get a big baby black. He lost his job.

No white man (or Asian man) has run under 10 seconds. An Australian who was half Irish, half aboriginal ran 9.93. And of all the people who have run under 10 seconds, some of them are West African, but most of them are descended from slaves, either from the Caribbean and US, or whose parents or grandparents moved from the Caribbean to live in Canada or the UK.

But then East Africans win nearly all the distance events, so slavery may have nothing to do with it.

I think a lot of it is cultural. In East Africa everybody wants to be Kip Keino or Abebe Bikila, they all want to follow the example of their heroes and grow up wanting to be distance runners. In India and Pakistan everyone wants to be a cricketer. If your culture guides all the athletic talent in a certain direction, that's where it will be.

But why are there no top tier white American basketball players? Manu Ginobli, Dirk Nowitski and Pau Gasol are top tier players, and basketball is a secondary sport where they come from. Are white Americans physically different from other whites or do they have some sort of cultural complex about trying to play basketball?


http://harowo.com/wp-content/uploads/image/Cartoons/Abebe%20Bikila.jpg

Be like Abebe

The Witch-king
Aug 17th, 2009, 04:48 PM
It's also interesting how it's okay to discuss physical differences between races but mental differences are taboo.

wtf

The Witch-king
Aug 17th, 2009, 04:51 PM
I don't want to do research on google, if any one can put up links for the science, please, I've never seen any (though I haven't been looking)

One theory is that its a result of natural selection due to slavery. The weaker athletic genes didn't survive to breed, but the stronger athletic genes did, resulting in a stronger, more athletic gene pool today. It seems like a reasonable theory to me.

There was sports presenter on US TV a while ago, Jimmy the Greek, (I think) who put it down to how slaveowners bred their slaves like cattle. He said it more like; the slaveowner put his big man black, with his big woman black, to get a big baby black. He lost his job.

No white man (or Asian man) has run under 10 seconds. An Australian who was half Irish, half aboriginal ran 9.93. And of all the people who have run under 10 seconds, some of them are West African, but most of them are descended from slaves, either from the Caribbean and US, or whose parents or grandparents moved from the Caribbean to live in Canada or the UK.

But then East Africans win nearly all the distance events, so slavery may have nothing to do with it.

I think a lot of it is cultural. In East Africa everybody wants to be Kip Keino or Abebe Bikila, they all want to follow the example of their heroes and grow up wanting to be distance runners. In India and Pakistan everyone wants to be a cricketer. If your culture guides all the athletic talent in a certain direction, that's where it will be.

But why are there no top tier white American basketball players? Manu Ginobli, Dirk Nowitski and Pau Gasol are top tier players, and basketball is a secondary sport where they come from. Are white Americans physically different from other whites or do they have some sort of cultural complex about trying to play basketball?


http://harowo.com/wp-content/uploads/image/Cartoons/Abebe%20Bikila.jpg

Be like Abebe

when i was in school all the fastest runners were from east africa. I went to school in southern africa. I think it's genetic.

Salve
Aug 17th, 2009, 05:08 PM
I give $ 5.000,- v-cash to whoever says (and means it!!) :
It's cause black people are used to running from the cops

just cause i wanna see what kinda riot that would cause
i love a good trainwreck

The fact that you even said this truly gives insight as to who you are as a person. :help:

Apoleb
Aug 17th, 2009, 09:38 PM
I don't want to do research on google, if any one can put up links for the science, please, I've never seen any (though I haven't been looking)

One theory is that its a result of natural selection due to slavery. The weaker athletic genes didn't survive to breed, but the stronger athletic genes did, resulting in a stronger, more athletic gene pool today. It seems like a reasonable theory to me.

There was sports presenter on US TV a while ago, Jimmy the Greek, (I think) who put it down to how slaveowners bred their slaves like cattle. He said it more like; the slaveowner put his big man black, with his big woman black, to get a big baby black. He lost his job.

No white man (or Asian man) has run under 10 seconds. An Australian who was half Irish, half aboriginal ran 9.93. And of all the people who have run under 10 seconds, some of them are West African, but most of them are descended from slaves, either from the Caribbean and US, or whose parents or grandparents moved from the Caribbean to live in Canada or the UK.

But then East Africans win nearly all the distance events, so slavery may have nothing to do with it.

I think a lot of it is cultural. In East Africa everybody wants to be Kip Keino or Abebe Bikila, they all want to follow the example of their heroes and grow up wanting to be distance runners. In India and Pakistan everyone wants to be a cricketer. If your culture guides all the athletic talent in a certain direction, that's where it will be.

But why are there no top tier white American basketball players? Manu Ginobli, Dirk Nowitski and Pau Gasol are top tier players, and basketball is a secondary sport where they come from. Are white Americans physically different from other whites or do they have some sort of cultural complex about trying to play basketball?




Be like Abebe

Very nice post (besides the huge feet picture :help:).

It could all be genetic, but the use of "black people" isn't all warranted. We're really talking here about West Africans, or more specifically, atheletes descended from West Africans in the US and in the Carribeans. The sprinting thing doesn't apply to East Africans and maybe even Southern Africans.

moby
Aug 17th, 2009, 09:56 PM
I got a couple of good articles just by googling:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0657.htm
http://www.slate.com/id/2197721/

To sum up the articles, fast-twitch muscles = speed. and West Africans are endowed with more fast-twitch muscles for explosive power. East Africans (and Asians) on the other hand have ectomorphic body types (smaller build) and more slow-twitch muscles for endurance, which is why they dominate long-distance running. So genetics places a glass ceiling on whether one can be an elite sportsperson. I don't really put much stock in several generations of "slave-breeding" as an explanation, because the evolution and selection we're interested in has to happen over a much longer period of time.

A lot of it has to do with the socio-economic background too. Sports is often seen as an opportunity to break out of poverty, and education and professional careers, if offered as plausible alternatives, are almost always preferred because they are less risky. I think this is why there aren't as many athletes from affluent backgrounds. On the other hand, there must be a happy medium, because if the environment is too poor, then sports takes a backseat to survival.

Denise4925
Aug 17th, 2009, 10:20 PM
The fact that you even said this truly gives insight as to who you are as a person. :help:

:worship::worship::worship:

Rocketta
Aug 17th, 2009, 11:06 PM
Someone did. They just tried to be slick about it. :rolleyes:

not slick, just a straight up coward. :shrug:

Rocketta
Aug 17th, 2009, 11:11 PM
and although there is a social aspect of what type of sports people pursue it in no way compares to the nature vs. nurture aspect of intelligence. Cultural bias, language bias, type of intelligence, what is the definition of intelligence. For example, a man may be able to excel in math and science but not have the sense that god gave him to navigate through everyday life. To some he's intelligent to others he's an idiot. :shrug:

RVD
Aug 17th, 2009, 11:22 PM
:worship::worship::worship::lol: :lol: I agree.

Also, I see that you've taken the same approach that I have and have chosen to mostly view rather than comment in here. :)
This thread is a powder keg just waiting to be lit. :scared:
http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/lurk.gif

moby
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:03 AM
and although there is a social aspect of what type of sports people pursue it in no way compares to the nature vs. nurture aspect of intelligence. Cultural bias, language bias, type of intelligence, what is the definition of intelligence. For example, a man may be able to excel in math and science but not have the sense that god gave him to navigate through everyday life. To some he's intelligent to others he's an idiot. :shrug:Yes, intelligence is far less quantifiable, and the definition isn't clear. But for most purposes, I think intelligence is commonly used to refer to the ability to reason, esp. for academic subjects. Navigating through daily life... is more a result of "wisdom".

Even mathematical skill and originality, for instance, isn't something that can be measured by a test. The most we can rely upon are IQ scores ... and twin studies have shown that there is a strong genetic component to IQ. Obviously IQ is just one aspect of intelligence (IQ scores reflect eductive ability, i.e. the ability to make generalisations from random patterns), but there is a correlation between IQ and professional success, particularly but not only in the scientific fields. Of course, the correlation isn't perfect. Poincare tested below average on intelligence tests, but he was one of the greatest mathematicians of the past century (one of his "minor" accomplishments was that he discovered many aspects of relativity before Einstein.)

The thing is, even suggesting that there are differences between sexes vis-a-vis specific mental abilities is taboo. Larry Summers, ex-president of Harvard, was famously fired/pressured to step down because he suggested that science is male-dominated partly because men may possess more innate ability. (... and yes, he also brought up the social factors such as discrimination and social pressure.) He was instantly labelled a sexist.

There is an automatic rejection of such ideas by many many people, and I disagree with such knee-jerk reactions.

Denise4925
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:08 AM
:lol: :lol: I agree.

Also, I see that you've taken the same approach that I have and have chosen to mostly view rather than comment in here. :)
This thread is a powder keg just waiting to be lit. :scared:
http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/lurk.gif

Sometimes you just have to sit back and look at what falls from the tree. :lol:

darrinbaker00
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:12 AM
Why are black people so talented in the 100m run? The same reason Chinese people are such good dry cleaners, I suppose. :shrug:

moby
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:16 AM
Why are black people so talented in the 100m run? The same reason Chinese people are such good dry cleaners, I suppose. :shrug:^ This is a completely failed attempt at being facetious. :tape:

Monica_Rules
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:18 AM
When Colin Jackson was on 'Who do you think you are?' a programme where celebs trace their ancestory they did a test of his leg muscles and found he had something likt 50-70% more muscle fibers in his leg compared to your average person, so for him his muscles actually worked more efficently.

Apoleb
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:20 AM
The thing is, even suggesting that there are differences between sexes vis-a-vis specific mental abilities is taboo. Larry Summers, ex-president of Harvard, was famously fired/pressured to step down because he suggested that science is male-dominated partly because men may possess more innate ability. (... and yes, he also brought up the social factors such as discrimination and social pressure.) He was instantly labelled a sexist.

There is an automatic rejection of such ideas by many many people, and I disagree with such knee-jerk reactions.

The issue is making public suggestions with insufficient evidence. I do think that if you're going to make a public claim that men are smarter than women for genetic reasons, then you better have very strong evidence on your side. Otherwise, we're just spreading these ideas in society at the risk of being false and the public doesn't tend to scrutinize as academics, and with that propagating a very nasty form of discrimination that will likely even more inhibit women in the sciences. I still do think that such ideas should not be rejected from academic circles and should be subjected to scientific methods, but no public statements should be made when the evidence is not clear and sufficient. And atm, it hardly is. I don't think we have a good idea of what genes are responsible for intelligence in the first place (if there are), nevermind differences between the sexes.

There was another controversy with a UChicago professor. He claimed to have found genes that were crucial for the evolution of intellect and intelligence in humans. Those genes were most present in the Middle East and in Europe. He added some hypothetical suggestion that their evolution coincided with the advance of civilization and thus could be an ultimate cause for it. And of course then a reaction exploded.

Rocketta
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:21 AM
Yes, intelligence is far less quantifiable, and the definition isn't clear. But for most purposes, I think intelligence is commonly used to refer to the ability to reason, esp. for academic subjects. Navigating through daily life... is more a result of "wisdom".


For most purposes of who? If the initial definition can not be agreed upon how can there be a discussion? Also, it doesn't help that the people who tend to want to bring up these discussion usually have an ulterior motive but that's just my opinion.

RVD
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:40 AM
Sometimes you just have to sit back and look at what falls from the tree. :lol::lol: :lol: Y-y-yep.
Asking such a question invariably invites the 'ol ethnic "superiority/inferiority" debate.
Not a Pandora's Box discussion I'd choose to get involved with, that's for sure. :scared:

I'm going back for more popcorn, and this time I've topped it with toffee. http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/dvv/popblood.gif

mykarma
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:41 AM
and although there is a social aspect of what type of sports people pursue it in no way compares to the nature vs. nurture aspect of intelligence. Cultural bias, language bias, type of intelligence, what is the definition of intelligence. For example, a man may be able to excel in math and science but not have the sense that god gave him to navigate through everyday life. To some he's intelligent to others he's an idiot. :shrug:
:worship::worship::worship:

RVD
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:42 AM
Why are black people so talented in the 100m run? The same reason Chinese people are such good dry cleaners, I suppose. :shrug::lol: :lol:
This would be the proper response since the question itself is entirely moot.

mykarma
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:46 AM
:lol: :lol: I agree.

Also, I see that you've taken the same approach that I have and have chosen to mostly view rather than comment in here. :)
This thread is a powder keg just waiting to be lit. :scared:
http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/lurk.gif
exactly

moby
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:46 AM
The issue is making public suggestions with insufficient evidence. I do think that if you're going to make a public claim that men are smarter than women for genetic reasons, then you better have very strong evidence on your side. Otherwise, we're just spreading these ideas in society at the risk of being false and the public doesn't tend to scrutinize as academics, and with that propagating a very nasty form of discrimination that will likely even more inhibit women in the sciences. I still do think that such ideas should not be rejected from academic circles and should be subjected to scientific methods, but no public statements should be made when the evidence is not clear and sufficient. And atm, it hardly is. I don't think we have a good idea of what genes are responsible for intelligence in the first place (if there are), nevermind differences between the sexes.Larry Summers wasn't making the claim that men are smarter than women. In fact, IIRC, he didn't even suggest that men are on average better than math at women, just that there's a wider variance in their math and science test scores, which might suggest that at the peak of their professions, men would be more strongly represented. Granted, he was not basing his evidence on strong waterproof evidence, but he welcomed more studies to be done on this very difficult subject. (Perhaps one can theorise such a strong model for the neural plasticity of the brain that any differences even if they arose, would be the result of upbringing and environment. But that is only another hypothesis.)

We can never remove the environmental factors from studies of test scores etc. The only way out, as you suggested, is to identify the genes for intelligence. But even then, I guess one has to study gene interactions amongst themselves and with the environment (hormonal or external)?

Anyway, I think people should not forget that these are generalised statements about a group, and not about individuals. You can only talk confidently about large samples with statistics.

With the caveat that I've never read any of the original papers of these research, what I find interesting is that people have no qualms accepting studies which suggest that women have a wider range of vocabulary, or that men are better at reading maps. The latter would suggest better visuo-spatial intelligence, which helps in math and science. (And this is coming from a gay man, who recent scientific research has insinuated, has a brain structure close to women's.)

Many people are so afraid of finding out whether there are differences or not that they would not even dare to approach the matter with scientific research to find out, because it may threaten their notion of innate equality. Just look at darrin's wisecrack, and RVD and mykarma's support for the wisecrack. And there are many people like that. We are not born equal. We can and must, however, learn to treat each other equally in spite of this inequality. Eugenics failed as a movement for reasons of humanity, not because it was founded on wrong scientific principles.

mykarma
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:47 AM
Why are black people so talented in the 100m run? The same reason Chinese people are such good dry cleaners, I suppose. :shrug:
:spit: great answer

mykarma
Aug 18th, 2009, 12:55 AM
For most purposes of who? If the initial definition can not be agreed upon how can there be a discussion? Also, it doesn't help that the people who tend to want to bring up these discussion usually have an ulterior motive but that's just my opinion.
:worship::worship::worship:

Apoleb
Aug 18th, 2009, 01:48 AM
Larry Summers wasn't making the claim that men are smarter than women. In fact, IIRC, he didn't even suggest that men are on average better than math at women, just that there's a wider variance in their math and science test scores, which might suggest that at the peak of their professions, men would be more strongly represented. Granted, he was not basing his evidence on strong waterproof evidence, but he welcomed more studies to be done on this very difficult subject. (Perhaps one can theorise such a strong model for the neural plasticity of the brain that any differences even if they arose, would be the result of upbringing and environment. But that is only another hypothesis.)

He said that "there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude". By using "intrinsic", he wasn't merely hypothesizing about the statistics of the variations, but refering to "intrinsic" factors as the cause; most likely he meant genes. He also dismissed socialization as an important factor. I don't think it's even controversial to mention that men seem to do better in science and math,. It's only when people start mentioning causes when things become a lot more heated; and in this case, Summers seems to be pointing out genes as the key factor. So in other words, he seemed to dismiss a nurture hyposthesis in favor of a nature one.


Anyway, I think people should not forget that these are generalised statements about a group, and not about individuals. You can only talk confidently about large samples with statistics.

Yes, that's true, but our knowledge of a difference and particularly if the magnitude of the difference is big, will make us prejudiced against individuals from one of the groups. So I don't think knowledge of group differences is meaningless in our dealings with individuals in our daily lives, and maybe rightly so. We make a lot of decisions in our lives from probability inferences (especially when our decisions have to be quick). So that's why I think people in power should be careful when making public statements such as these.


Many people are so afraid of finding out whether there are differences or not that they would not even dare to approach the matter with scientific research to find out, because it may threaten their notion of innate equality. Just look at darrin's wisecrack, and RVD and mykarma's support for the wisecrack. And there are many people like that. We are not born equal. We can and must, however, learn to treat each other equally in spite of this inequality. Eugenics failed as a movement for reasons of humanity, not because it was founded on wrong scientific principles.

I agree that no idea should be dismissed without having undergone rigorous testing.

Ryan
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:20 AM
:lol: :lol:
This would be the proper response since the question itself is entirely moot.




How so? Lin Lin has pretty accurate info backing it up (about the top 15 of 16), so why isn't this a legitimate question? Maybe if you and other black posters on this board would explain why you think it's moot or why these stats might be, this thread could be more productive. :shrug: Instead you just make comments about how its a "powder keg" and the question is "moot" - doing absolutely nothing to further the discussion.

Rocketta
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:24 AM
How so? Lin Lin has pretty accurate info backing it up (about the top 15 of 16), so why isn't this a legitimate question? Maybe if you and other black posters on this board would explain why you think it's moot or why these stats might be, this thread could be more productive. :shrug: Instead you just make comments about how its a "powder keg" and the question is "moot" - doing absolutely nothing to further the discussion.

really were they the first ones not to respond seriously to the question? :confused: If you are going to call people out call them all out and if I'm not mistaken it wasn't MyKarma, RVD or Darrin who was the first to pop off in this thread.

Ryan
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:27 AM
really were they the first ones not to respond seriously to the question? :confused: If you are going to call people out call them all out and if I'm not mistaken it wasn't MyKarma, RVD or Darrin who was the first to pop off in this thread.



My post wasn't directed at mandy though. Of course her comment was stupid and unneeded (IMO), but I was replying to RVD, not her. I never said he wasn't the first to reply "un-seriously" to the post, just that no one else said the question was dumb/moot. RVD did, and I want to know why it isn't a legitimate question to discuss, because I think the few serious replies have been really interesting.

mykarma
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:27 AM
How so? Lin Lin has pretty accurate info backing it up (about the top 15 of 16), so why isn't this a legitimate question? Maybe if you and other black posters on this board would explain why you think it's moot or why these stats might be, this thread could be more productive. :shrug: Instead you just make comments about how its a "powder keg" and the question is "moot" - doing absolutely nothing to further the discussion.
I've never once heard you ask white posters to explain why they feel a certain way about anything and if you want the thread to be more productive, carry on.

mykarma
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:29 AM
really were they the first ones not to respond seriously to the question? :confused: If you are going to call people out call them all out and if I'm not mistaken it wasn't MyKarma, RVD or Darrin who was the first to pop off in this thread.
Thank you

Rocketta
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:31 AM
My post wasn't directed at mandy though. Of course her comment was stupid and unneeded (IMO), but I was replying to RVD, not her. I never said he wasn't the first to reply "un-seriously" to the post, just that no one else said the question was dumb/moot. RVD did, and I want to know why it isn't a legitimate question to discuss, because I think the few serious replies have been really interesting.

so by making a passive-aggressive negative comment about the thread topic is the same as acting like the topic is legitmate? The point that you were responding to RVD but not Mandy is the entire point of my post. It's selective accusation. Don't accuse someone of not constructively contributing to a thread when there are examples before theirs.... either you care about people contributing seriously or you don't? or is it you just care "who" contributes seriously? :confused:

Stamp Paid
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:39 AM
Usain Bolt is a demigod. I swear he is the peak human specimen of a human male.

Ryan
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:40 AM
so by making a passive-aggressive negative comment about the thread topic is the same as acting like the topic is legitmate? The point that you were responding to RVD but not Mandy is the entire point of my post. It's selective accusation. Don't accuse someone of not constructively contributing to a thread when there are examples before theirs.... either you care about people contributing seriously or you don't? or is it you just care "who" contributes seriously? :confused:



I don't ever really take mandy seriously, but I do take what RVD says with a lot of credibility. So if he's saying this question is moot, I want to know: why, and why he's just making negative comments instead of ignoring the thread in total. You've completely turned this into me targeting black people in a negative way, when really I just wanted to know why several black posters in the thread were treating the question like it had no merit.

So yes, I would think in this case it matters more to me who contributes seriously and who doesn't. Whats wrong with that?

Ryan
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:41 AM
I've never once heard you ask white posters to explain why they feel a certain way about anything and if you want the thread to be more productive, carry on.



What? :weirdo: Has there been a thread about white people being great at hockey or some other crap, with all the white posters talking about how its a stupid thread? If there hasn't been, your comment is stupid and has no relevance.

Wannabeknowitall
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:43 AM
Speed and power comes from the ass and thighs,
And white people just don't have it like us yet.

Rocketta
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:45 AM
I don't ever really take mandy seriously, but I do take what RVD says with a lot of credibility. So if he's saying this question is moot, I want to know: why, and why he's just making negative comments instead of ignoring the thread in total. You've completely turned this into me targeting black people in a negative way, when really I just wanted to know why several black posters in the thread were treating the question like it had no merit.

So yes, I would think in this case it matters more to me who contributes seriously and who doesn't. Whats wrong with that?

what's wrong with it is the fact that you didn't preface your comments with " I take their contributions seriously" just you questioning their actions. I've never said a word about you questioning black posters but if you say you were ok. :shrug: I believed it was personal and you confirmed that.... had you made it clear why it was personal for you then there wouldn't have been a question, imo.

mykarma
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:49 AM
What? :weirdo: Has there been a thread about white people being great at hockey or some other crap, with all the white posters talking about how its a stupid thread? If there hasn't been, your comment is stupid and has no relevance.
IMO, your comment was stupid and has no relevance as you specifically called out the black posters. If you honestly wanted to know why didn't you pm us instead of acting like you were chastising us while ignoring other posters.

Svetlana.
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:53 AM
Speed and power comes from the ass and thighs,
And white people just don't have it like us yet.

totally agree :p

moby
Aug 18th, 2009, 03:05 AM
He said that "there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude". By using "intrinsic", he wasn't merely hypothesizing about the statistics of the variations, but refering to "intrinsic" factors as the cause; most likely he meant genes. He also dismissed socialization as an important factor. So in other words, he seemed to dismiss a nurture hyposthesis in favor of a nature one.Yes. He definitely suggested nature as a factor, although I don't think he dismissed socialisation/nurture. Just hypothesised that it could not explain everything. I guess when you suggest something like genetics as a factor, it disturbs, because it's something that cannot be erased, it's "in your blood" and so a gap will forever exist. People are much more comfortable accepting that social factors can explain away everything (I don't know if this is a better hypothesis, but it's not fact either), because of this belief that we can remove social obstacles and achieve equality.
Yes, that's true, but our knowledge of a difference and particularly if the magnitude of the difference is big, will make us prejudiced against individuals from one of the groups. So I don't think knowledge of group differences is meaningless in our dealings with individuals in our daily lives, and maybe rightly so. We make a lot of decisions in our lives from probability inferences (especially when our decisions have to be quick). So that's why I think people in power should be careful when making public statements such as these. Also, the problem of stereotype threat, I guess. If you prime a group by gender on a math test, for instance, the gap in scores between the men and women increase significantly, because the women are "stressed" and underperform. Ditto for priming by race, etc.

But this problem of stereotypes already exist in the first place, so as far as stereotypes are concerned, I don't know how much of a difference it would make for these stereotypes to be explained by socialisation or by nature. Either way, we have to be aware of them and actively combat them. So I doubt that Summer's comments would have reinforced or perpetuated the stereotypes, even if they were tactless and based upon tenuous reading of data.

miffedmax
Aug 18th, 2009, 03:05 AM
White or black, to dominate in the 400 you just gotta be from TEXAS.

Lena's bangs.

Mrs. Berasetegui
Aug 18th, 2009, 03:12 AM
At least you guys didn't have a (His)panic attack. Adios mio. :hehehe:

canuckfan
Aug 18th, 2009, 03:15 AM
Isn't being a talented runner a positive thing?

I really don't get the outrage here... :scratch:

Svetlana.
Aug 18th, 2009, 03:18 AM
Isn't being a talented runner a positive thing?

Yes it is, it's why we are witnessing Usain Bolt greatness.

Ryan
Aug 18th, 2009, 03:18 AM
IMO, your comment was stupid and has no relevance as you specifically called out the black posters. If you honestly wanted to know why didn't you pm us instead of acting like you were chastising us while ignoring other posters.




:lol: If I want someone's honest opinion I have to PM them now? Are you fur real? I didn't chastise anyone, maybe you're acting a little too defensive here...I asked a question, and never got any answers. Instead, I get attacked for singling out black posters in a negative way when all I wanted was some opinions, instead of just negative comments about how useless this thread was.

Alizé Molik
Aug 18th, 2009, 03:36 AM
It's also interesting how it's okay to discuss physical differences between races but mental differences are taboo.

:confused: that's because implying that one group of people is less intelligent than another based on race is something most of us educated people have frowned upon for about 200 years.

Lin Lin
Aug 18th, 2009, 03:39 AM
Isn't being a talented runner a positive thing?

I really don't get the outrage here... :scratch:

Me too:scratch:

When most people worship at these amazing runners,some people here are furious about this question,it's really weird for me,I just don't understand what they are thinking about?:confused::confused:

RVD
Aug 18th, 2009, 03:55 AM
How so? Lin Lin has pretty accurate info backing it up (about the top 15 of 16), so why isn't this a legitimate question? Maybe if you and other black posters on this board would explain why you think it's moot or why these stats might be, this thread could be more productive. :shrug: Instead you just make comments about how its a "powder keg" and the question is "moot" - doing absolutely nothing to further the discussion.
Ryan, do you understand what “moot” means?
Let’s be accurate here. Moot doesn’t mean dumb. In fact, the definition is not close enough to be misconstrued. Please do not add terms that I never used.

I was injecting levity into a topic question that was questionable on its own merit and that in and of itself had no where else to go. But more importantly, why not simply ask me through PM or at least tactfully, if you were going to do it publicly?

Why choose to discriminate because it was “me” who posted?

Ryan, you owe me a public apology, since you chose to address me publicly.
And until that is done, please do not discuss this any further with me.
I will not take this further either simply because I think you are confused, and I’m allowing you to resolve this on your on to learn from it.

miffedmax
Aug 18th, 2009, 03:58 AM
:confused: that's because implying that one group of people is less intelligent than another based on race is something most of us educated people have frowned upon for about 200 years.

There's also a pretty huge mountain of genetic evidence that there aren't any significant brain differences, from what I've read.

Which makes sense. As has been pointed out, fair skin, lovely blond bangs like Lena's and slow twitch fiber make sense for survival in one climate, dark skin and fast twitch fiber make sense in another. But being less intelligent is not an advantage anywhere you live (with the possible exception of large bureaucratic organizations).

BTW, I also understand that some of that fast twitch/slow twitch stuff is being reconsidered...

RVD
Aug 18th, 2009, 04:00 AM
I don't ever really take mandy seriously, but I do take what RVD says with a lot of credibility. So if he's saying this question is moot, I want to know: why, and why he's just making negative comments instead of ignoring the thread in total. You've completely turned this into me targeting black people in a negative way, when really I just wanted to know why several black posters in the thread were treating the question like it had no merit.

So yes, I would think in this case it matters more to me who contributes seriously and who doesn't. Whats wrong with that?The bottom line is that you didn't handle this situation diplomatically.
And you singled me out for personal reasons, not for reasons pertaining to site policies.
I don't know what your deal is, but that's of no concern of mine.

That said, I'll leave this thread as you requested. :shrug:

Wannabeknowitall
Aug 18th, 2009, 04:08 AM
Ryan, do you understand what “moot” means?
Let’s be accurate here. Moot doesn’t mean dumb. In fact, the definition is not close enough to be misconstrued. Please do not add terms that I never used.

I was injecting levity into a topic question that was questionable on its own merit and that in and of itself had no where else to go. But more importantly, why not simply ask me through PM or at least tactfully, if you were going to do it publicly?

Why choose to discriminate because it was “me” who posted?

Ryan, you owe me a public apology, since you chose to address me publicly.
And until that is done, please do not discuss this any further with me.
I will not take this further either simply because I think you are confused, and I’m allowing you to resolve this on your on to learn from it.

And I thought I was the melodramatic queen. :lol:
Besides there's a line you have to wait on for what you're looking for.
You might want to take a number. :wavey:

kiwifan
Aug 18th, 2009, 04:47 AM
Me too:scratch:

When most people worship at these amazing runners,some people here are furious about this question,it's really weird for me,I just don't understand what they are thinking about?:confused::confused:I originally stayed out of this thread because it started stupid and was surely headed right where it ended up, annoyed black posters and other posters feigning ignorance at why the annoyance is present.

Do you really worship these amazing runners when you fail to address their individuality and humanity and instead lump them together as "15 blacks and 1 japanese guy". They might as well be fast horses or greyhounds or cars.

What some are thinking about is the "results" we've been hearing our whole lives; blacks are good at sports just because "they were born that way", "have an extra bone in their leg" and/or "are somehow subhuman/not like you" - while other races are good at sports because of "hard work"...

...I'm great as several sports but only one of them came easy and that was tennis and that was because I grew up watching my Dad play so I couldn't wait to hit a ball against a wall and eventually grow tall enough to serve with power; the other two sports I played at a collegiate level required lots of hard work just to be competent learn the rules etc...

...and the other thing that usually floats into these discussions, genetic intelligence and blacks inferiority in that department. Somehow "admiration" usually seems to slide toward discussions of laziness and lack of intellect.

It would be helpful if you actually had names for these 15 blacks - I mean if you're really worshiping them you'd think you might want to know their names, maybe something about their families, the towns they grew up in, their interest outside of track...

...that is if you are "worshiping them".

mykarma
Aug 18th, 2009, 05:18 AM
I originally stayed out of this thread because it started stupid and was surely headed right where it ended up, annoyed black posters and other posters feigning ignorance at why the annoyance is present.

Do you really worship these amazing runners when you fail to address their individuality and humanity and instead lump them together as "15 blacks and 1 japanese guy". They might as well be fast horses or greyhounds or cars.

What some are thinking about is the "results" we've been hearing our whole lives; blacks are good at sports just because "they were born that way", "have an extra bone in their leg" and/or "are somehow subhuman/not like you" - while other races are good at sports because of "hard work"...

...I'm great as several sports but only one of them came easy and that was tennis and that was because I grew up watching my Dad play so I couldn't wait to hit a ball against a wall and eventually grow tall enough to serve with power; the other two sports I played at a collegiate level required lots of hard work just to be competent learn the rules etc...

...and the other thing that usually floats into these discussions, genetic intelligence and blacks inferiority in that department. Somehow "admiration" usually seems to slide toward discussions of laziness and lack of intellect.

It would be helpful if you actually had names for these 15 blacks - I mean if you're really worshiping them you'd think you might want to know their names, maybe something about their families, the towns they grew up in, their interest outside of track...

...that is if you are "worshiping them".
Exactly. Even though some of us tried to keep it light it ended up being the mod that put the nail in the coffin by calling us out.

kris719
Aug 18th, 2009, 05:48 AM
lol people are so defensive.

drake3781
Aug 18th, 2009, 06:20 AM
lol people are so defensive.

ridiculous, more like. :rolleyes:

Vyacheslavovna
Aug 18th, 2009, 06:24 AM
It's also interesting how it's okay to discuss physical differences between races but mental differences are taboo.

:confused: that's because implying that one group of people is less intelligent than another based on race is something most of us educated people have frowned upon for about 200 years.

I don't think Kworb was implying that one race was more intelligent than any others, just that its taboo to discuss the possibility. And your response supports him in a way.

If everyone is built the same sort of way, its significant and unusual that everyone in the 100m finals is black. I'm interested to know why that is, even if its simply that they worked hard at it like kiwifan.

In the UK, GCSE exam results are different for Whites, Blacks and children with Indian Parents, (and by gender for that matter, girls do better). The explanation for this could be cultural values, relative poverty, reduced expectations, genetics or that boys just suck.

If the difference is there, I don't think it should be taboo to discuss it. I don't see any point in sticking your head in the sand to hide from difficult questions.




If interested page 20: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000448/NPD_sfr_text_Finished3.pdf

Lin Lin
Aug 18th, 2009, 06:31 AM
I originally stayed out of this thread because it started stupid and was surely headed right where it ended up, annoyed black posters and other posters feigning ignorance at why the annoyance is present.

Do you really worship these amazing runners when you fail to address their individuality and humanity and instead lump them together as "15 blacks and 1 japanese guy". They might as well be fast horses or greyhounds or cars.

What some are thinking about is the "results" we've been hearing our whole lives; blacks are good at sports just because "they were born that way", "have an extra bone in their leg" and/or "are somehow subhuman/not like you" - while other races are good at sports because of "hard work"...

...I'm great as several sports but only one of them came easy and that was tennis and that was because I grew up watching my Dad play so I couldn't wait to hit a ball against a wall and eventually grow tall enough to serve with power; the other two sports I played at a collegiate level required lots of hard work just to be competent learn the rules etc...

...and the other thing that usually floats into these discussions, genetic intelligence and blacks inferiority in that department. Somehow "admiration" usually seems to slide toward discussions of laziness and lack of intellect.

It would be helpful if you actually had names for these 15 blacks - I mean if you're really worshiping them you'd think you might want to know their names, maybe something about their families, the towns they grew up in, their interest outside of track...

...that is if you are "worshiping them".

This is absolutely shocking to me,I have never ever thought that much of it.Are you sure most people around you are thinking as you said?:confused:From my observation,you are just unnecessarily self-contemptuous:hug:

Brett.
Aug 18th, 2009, 06:36 AM
This is absolutely shocking to me,I have never ever thought that much of it.Are you sure most people around you are thinking as you said?:confused:From my observation,you are just unnecessarily self-contemptuous:hug:

Lin-Lin - don't worry about these people, they are just selfish little brats! If you can't handle their issues about why you asked a question about why black men are faster than white men, FUCK THEM! :)

Move on, mate.

mandy7
Aug 18th, 2009, 06:47 AM
The fact that you even said this truly gives insight as to who you are as a person. :help:
not really, i just love how some ppl say stupid stuff and then get torn apart by other posters.

Justdoit said this a few posts back:
I actually thought someone would say because they have/had to run for 20km to get fresh water in Africa.


that's just as bad. he expected that someone would say it
i suggested someone would, cause i love to see ppl make an ass of themselves.

personaly, i think it's just genetics, and i think it's all good.
i enjoy watching usain bolt run
and would have also enjoyed it if he were white
he's just a great runner

mandy7
Aug 18th, 2009, 06:49 AM
Why are black people so talented in the 100m run? The same reason Chinese people are such good dry cleaners, I suppose. :shrug:
even though i assume you're not being serious
that's still bad
but it seems you can say that and get away with it

kiwifan
Aug 18th, 2009, 06:53 AM
Yes, fuck us...we suck...glad we got that sorted...self contemptuous...yeah right, anyone who knows anything about me, heck just based on my posting history knows, I have no issues in that department, in fact...

...no don't let me get all West Coast Connection up in here...y'all are so not worth it. :wavey:

Lin Lin, I've been a black athlete my whole life, I'm not posting what I think people think, I'm posting shit that has been said to me my whole life in serious conversations that all begin with, 'why are blacks so fast'...

...but I'm done with this, no sense wasting anymore of my time on some of the dumb fucks in this thread (see especially a few of the last comments).

comfortably.numb
Aug 18th, 2009, 07:10 AM
LOL. What a ridiculous thread full of even more moronic answers. "Valid" topic my ass...

Alizé Molik
Aug 18th, 2009, 07:31 AM
I don't think Kworb was implying that one race was more intelligent than any others, just that its taboo to discuss the possibility. And your response supports him in a way.


It's not taboo, it's racist...I thought that was self evident? Discussing the possibility suggests that there is a seed of truth in that. You can't define a person's level of intelligence (be it high or low) on what colour their skin is. Especially because the traditional discussion runs along the lines of white people being smarter than black people.

Ellen Dawson
Aug 18th, 2009, 09:12 AM
What some are thinking about is the "results" we've been hearing our whole lives; blacks are good at sports just because "they were born that way", "have an extra bone in their leg" and/or "are somehow subhuman/not like you" - while other races are good at sports because of "hard work"...[/COLOR][/B]

This is very much how the media viewed Serena and Venus when they first came on tour. They were winning because of "raw power" (there were animal references at times) while Martina Hingis was successful because she was using her brains. Even the black NBA players, especially the great ones, aren't given enough credit for their ability to see their sport as a chess match.

Ellen Dawson
Aug 18th, 2009, 09:14 AM
Oh and congratulations Lin Lin on the "success" of your thread. You should create more. No, really. :D

Beefy
Aug 18th, 2009, 11:10 AM
a 'why can't black ppl swim' thread would be more interesting :o

Nah, all us honkies might get upset then :p And for those wondering an answer to the question, I mentiond yesterday that they have longer legs, and shorter upper bodies then whites, which sees blacks excel in sprinting and the likes, but not so much in swimming. Also it's said that blacks have heavier bones then whites, and that weighs down in the pool. Sure there are some fast black swimmers (there's a guy for the USA who's in the relay, I think it's Pope), but you can be sure that it's gonna be all white on the podium

miffedmax
Aug 18th, 2009, 01:21 PM
Well, kiwi, (not that I think you were addressing me, or that I take umbrage at your remarks) I think athletic talent is something you're born with (whether you're a black guy like Usain Bolt, a white blond who used to have bangs like Elena Dementieva, or an Asian like Ichiro Suzuki. You won the genetic lottery, because you could take most of us and no matter how hard we worked, we'd never be that good.

Which is not to say they didn't work their asses off to maximize the talent they were born with. Of course they did. And plenty of people with raw talent never work hard enough.

As far as this whole thread goes, you just don't know. If you'd have told me 25 years ago we'd have a white heavyweight champ, I'd have laughed at you. Everybody "knew" whites just weren't cut out to be good boxers.

Cam'ron Giles
Aug 18th, 2009, 02:33 PM
Well, kiwi, (not that I think you were addressing me, or that I take umbrage at your remarks) I think athletic talent is something you're born with (whether you're a black guy like Usain Bolt, a white blond who used to have bangs like Elena Dementieva, or an Asian like Ichiro Suzuki. You won the genetic lottery, because you could take most of us and no matter how hard we worked, we'd never be that good.

Which is not to say they didn't work their asses off to maximize the talent they were born with. Of course they did. And plenty of people with raw talent never work hard enough.

As far as this whole thread goes, you just don't know. If you'd have told me 25 years ago we'd have a white heavyweight champ, I'd have laughed at you. Everybody "knew" whites just weren't cut out to be good boxers.

Boxing is the gayest sport on earth...grown men fighting over a belt and a purse...:rolleyes:

spartanfan
Aug 18th, 2009, 03:11 PM
Boxing is the gayest sport on earth...grown men fighting over a belt and a purse...:rolleyes:
Bet you won't say that to Roy Jones, Jr. face! :lol:

Vyacheslavovna
Aug 18th, 2009, 05:01 PM
True FACT - Black Fat is denser than White fat, we sink easier, so don't move through the water as quickly.

it's said that blacks have heavier bones then whites, and that weighs down in the pool


I had never heard before that black people can't swim at the Olympic level because they have heavier bones and heavier fat. This sounded like fat people and their big bones to me.

I spent an hour on google, and african-americans do have denser bones, I couldn't find anything about heavier fat though.


A graph - http://depts.washington.edu/bonebio/bonAbout/race.html
A study - http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/2/429


Quoted from this study, "This study tested whether racial differences in bone density can be explained by differences in bone metabolism and lifestyle ... Adjusted bone density at various skeletal sites was 4.5–16.1% higher for black than for white men and was 1.2–7.3% higher for black than for white women. We concluded that racial differences in bone mineral density are not accounted for by clinical or biochemical variables measured in early adulthood."

I think higher bone density would be a disadvantage for swimmers at the Olympic level. There is a big controversy in swimming at the mo about superfast swimsuits that act as bouyancy aids; ie giving an advantage to the swimmer by helping them float.


Most of the info I had come across before, suggested that the evidence for blacks having a genetic advantage was inconclusive, as on this link:

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:17465625

Quoted from the top paragraph (dated 2007):

"This phenomenon has led to the suggestion that east Africans possess some inherent genetic advantage predisposing them to superior athletic performances. The concurrent success of athletes of west African ancestry in sprint events also appears to have augmented this belief given their similar skin colour. A growing body of evidence suggests that genetic variation does influence athletic performance, yet despite the speculation that African athletes have a genetic advantage for physical performance, there is no genetic evidence to suggest that this is the case."


When people were hitting home runs left, right and centre in baseball, I took a contrarian position and said it might not be steriods. It could be smaller ball parks, diluted pitching (because there were more teams), advances in nutrition and exercise, and simply that home run hitters get the big bucks. The joke was on me though - they were all juicing. Sometimes the truth is staring you in the face.


If people of West African origin make up every 100m final, and people of East African origin win most of the distance events, its unusual if everybody is made basically the same way. I don't know what the reason is, I'm open for suggestions.


Some people feel threatened by racial differences, but what is, is what is. Don't be in denial about it.

What makes us the same is greater than what makes us different.

moby
Aug 18th, 2009, 05:27 PM
What some are thinking about is the "results" we've been hearing our whole lives; blacks are good at sports just because "they were born that way", "have an extra bone in their leg" and/or "are somehow subhuman/not like you" - while other races are good at sports because of "hard work"...On this board, however, it seems like being "born that way" is a good thing, and putting in "hard work" is not. In the usual Serena-Justine discussion, the pro-Serena camp never fails to point out that Justine was a no-life-outside-tennis overachiever who worked her ass off, maximised her potential to compete with the natural athletic and tennis ability of one Serena Williams who could smoke Justine if only she chose to do so.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think they were complimenting Justine when they say that. There's a culture that praises hard work and discipline, but there's definitely also a counterculture of putting underachievers who cruise on their natural talent on a pedestal.

Crazy Canuck
Aug 18th, 2009, 05:46 PM
What? :weirdo: Has there been a thread about white people being great at hockey or some other crap, with all the white posters talking about how its a stupid thread? If there hasn't been, your comment is stupid and has no relevance.

True. Also, shocking, and certainly a first from mykarma.

Also: dumb thread.

/another productive CC post

Dodoboy.
Aug 18th, 2009, 06:18 PM
This thread

http://i27.tinypic.com/df7xbl.jpg

Kart
Aug 18th, 2009, 07:11 PM
I tend to think that, if you're on an internet discussion board, you have to let these kind of threads play out a bit before closing them.

Non-tennis is less predictable than General Messages - sometimes the potentially volatile threads thrive, provide informative, respectful discussion and surprise me.

Not, however, on this occasion.