Grey, racism, and my sister

[bisonbison]

Nice post. You are exactly right to point out that the studies people are mostly referencing are about actual percentages of whites/blacks who can swim, which really doesn't prove anything.

Most of this thread is the equivalent of "Where are the black Tour De France winners? Blacks weren't built to ride bikes."

Yet all the OMG SCIENCE NOT PCness people won't address the most logical hypothesis for all this: whites are more likely to be taught how to swim, and are more likely than blacks to have the local resources to swim a lot.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet all the OMG SCIENCE NOT PCness people won't address the most logical hypothesis for all this:

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly. Social sciences and statistics are still science. It seems to me that you are missing the point of this thread. I suggest you read the post titled "A PM".

[ QUOTE ]
whites are more likely to be taught how to swim, and are more likely than blacks to have the local resources to swim a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you realize that this doesn't conflict with anything I've said. You may have noticed I've already addressed this issue.

Again I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] all forms of life except the individuals that are aggressively ignorant.

[gostros]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I swam in pools filled with caviar -- it made it easier to float but harder to swim particularly fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI: Somebody already tried this:

Swimming in slime: a group of researchers discover swimming in syrup is as easy as in water
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...44/ai_n8968523

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/0409.../040920-2.html

Apparently it doesn't hurt your speed at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

*****

[bisonbison]

This is silly. Social sciences and statistics is still science. It seems to me that you are missing the point of this thread.

I'm not missing the point. The thread has split in two.

You're arguing about the fairness of saying "a lot of blacks don't know how to swim." The part of the thread I'm addressing is "it's cause they're genetically different".

Regarding that second part, I think MrMon (who I was arguing with in another race thread) said it best: we're talking about basic competency here. No one has provided anything beyond anectdotal evidence that group differences in bouyancy would really affect basic swimming competency.

So when half the thread decides to move on to potential environmental selective effects on source populations, a reasonable person might say "hold on a second, what do we actually know?"

Again I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] all forms of life except the individuals that are aggressively ignorant.

Way to go, but I wasn't really addressing you to begin with, so, um, way to go.

[NutsInAVise]

Nice to see it didn't take long for you to assume facts not in evidence again. Since you can't debate what I say but insist on attacking what you wish I'd say I must end it. Also, there exists the strong chance that the next time I quote you saying something stoooopid you'll run off to the Mod to get me booted. Pretty childish, when you think about it.

So buh bye. You and Kurto. Quite a pair.

[bisonbison]

Nice to see it didn't take long for you to assume facts not in evidence again. Since you can't debate what I say but insist on attacking what you wish I'd say I must end it.

Where did I do that? Please quote me so that I have any idea what you're referring to.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Way to go, but I wasn't really addressing you to begin with, so, um, way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a disclaimer. It wasn't addressed to you. The fact that I've put this in every post should make this obvious.

As for the rest I think I'll just have to disagree. People are simply discussing and trying to think. I'm not going to hate on anyone that gives an honest attempt to look at things logically. In fact I'm very happy this thread hasn't exploded in name-calling. The fact is that neither you nor them have enough data to come up with a definitive conclusion as to the cause. That shouldn't prevent people from discussing possible reasons or repeating known results.

[MrMon]

How is it I always wind up on the side of the argument that has to "prove" their argument to some nutball theory? I could be arguing the Earth is round, the sky is blue, and water is wet, and somehow I always have to prove my arguments and they don't.

Of course, my opponents always hit the three-outer, the inside straight, and the backdoor flush, often in three consecutive hands, so I think it might just be me.

[wacki]

Well you responded to me so.........

[ QUOTE ]
How is it I always wind up on the side of the argument that has to "prove" their argument to some nutball theory?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok mr. no data. When you say stuff like this:

[ QUOTE ]
Blacks probably swim in unsupervised pools more often than whites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this in direct contradiction with a typical public pool as they almost always have lifeguards for liability reasons. It's the rich (probably white) boys that don't have lifeguards sitting on the edge of their pools.


Also, my "nutball" theory isn't my theory at all. It's the theory of a GROUP of black doctors my sister works with. It is a theory I have backed up with peer-review scientific journals. Both you and bisonbison have made strong claims without backing them up with any hard data. I have a feeling it's probably a blend of reasons but I refuse to make strong claims without any hard evidence. That is (in part) the point of this thread.

As for buoyancy, yes it's certainly possible it makes swimming less enjoyable because it takes more effort. Therefore they *might* not get as much practice. If that is a major or minor factor I simply don't know but it is certainly testable. Again, the only thing I can say for certain is they are far more prone to drowning and the man in the OP wasn't spewing racial hate.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Any genetic variation between groups that is "background noise" cannot be the result of natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]You misunderstood. By "noise", I was referring actually to our interpretation of biology.

But since you brought it up, there is "noise" in biology! Natural selection advances, more or less "intelligently" (and a lot by chance!), but does not move everything forward. The living beings carry with them (on them) ancient traits that used to be useful and no longer are.

If I was to imagine biology and evolution as something intelligent and noise-free, I'd be better off in church.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Going beyond the various popular "axioms" (e.g. "white men can't jump"), there is absolutely no biological reason to presume that there is an inherent superiority of one race over the other.

[/ QUOTE ]This is patently wrong. ... There is a reason that the natives of the Andes mountains are short and stocky. There is a reason that the natives of subsaharan Africa are long and lean. Those traits were selected for in those respective locations. That means that, prior to the advent of modern technology, Andian people were inherently superior to subsaharan Africans . . . at living in the Andes Mountains. And vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]You did not understand! By "inherent bioligical reason", I do not mean to say that there are no differences in physique between "races" or other categories. I'm saying (repeating) that none of those differences is due to some difference in the biological construction of one "race" or the other.

Racists, until very recently, were fond of pointing out differences in physiognomy and "detecting" from those the "inherent biological superiority" of one race over another. (No guesses which is which.)

Natural selection, in tandem with habitat, have of course shaped how dark or tough or hairy our skin is, among other things, a lot of them internal as well. But we are all the same animal - period.

[ QUOTE ]
This went a place the OP did not. ... To try to imply that recognizing obvious physiological differences amongst groups equates with believing one group is more likely to produce criminality is a stretch and a distortion.

[/ QUOTE ]As always, we get all sensitive when talking about race! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I was not trying to assign anything sinister to the intentions of the OP. But there are things that need be said when talking about "races", and the racists' canard about some races' "inherent brutality" (criminality) is one of them. I was making a point about how easy it is to slip when walking the road of "race" mapping.

All in all, I find little to disagree with in your post, but I might have missed something. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Mickey Brausch