Nobel Prize scientist - Black people are dumb

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't know South Africa was so dominant, but I've heard of Kenyan runners. Maybe it has something to do with the altitudes they train at?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the country of South Africa. The region where the slaves came from.

[tarheeljks]

it would be extremely irresponsible for him to make a joke of this sort.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
Environment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post. That is an interesting study that of which I wasn't aware. None of the studies I have seen looked at children younger than 4, by which age the racial achievement gap is already quite stark.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe true, but I think you forgot that the number of prospective non-black professional athletes outnumbers the number of prospective black athletes by 9:1.
And yet, we are seeing 8:1 in the other direction. Sure the number of pro athletes and olympians is small, but blacks would need to have a higher variance not only than whites but higher than every other racial group as well. This seems less plausible than that they are, on average, more athletic than the other races. In any event, this would be pretty easy to test, so if this were the actual reason, I would think someone would have proven it by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please propose a study that would be able to adequately test the extremes of these populations.

Don't you think if it were an easy study to undertake that people who believe that it isn't a variance thing would do the study to prove that whites and blacks have the same variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

The study wouldn't test the extremes or the variance; it would simply test the proposition that we actually care about (i.e. averages across racial groups). Obtaining direct evidence of averages across a large sample for things like foot speed and jump height is not difficult. He is proposing an alternative explanation that seems implausible, as proof of a negative. Proving the positive, i.e. that blacks are, on average, faster, stronger, etc. is quite easy to prove (or disprove) directly.

edited to add -- whatever data set is used to determine cutoffs for the presidential physical fitness test (http://www.presidentschallenge.org/e...standards.aspx) would probably suffice.

[Lestat]

Right. And I understand there are exceptions. But all I'm saying is that if you look at people who have black skin tone, they are more likely to be bigger, stronger, and more athletic than people with white or yellow skin tones. I find this to be almost indisputable, yet I seem to be having probems with this?

[tarheeljks]

black as in african american or african american + african

[hitch1978]

Both/either, lets test everything and everything by all definitions available, then look at the correlations. That way no-one can say that there are stereotype prejudices.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to point out at this point that anyone arguing that negroes do not enjoy both an advantage at athletics and a disadvantage at swimming compared to caucasians is flat out retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is also retarded to assume that "negroes" is a group that explains much in terms of overall genetic composition. I don't think anybody would argue that certain populations have different physical characteristics based on genetics. However, it is important to note that "black people" does not really narrow down the population that you are commenting on. It conflates many different groups that have wildly varying attributes.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe true, but I think you forgot that the number of prospective non-black professional athletes outnumbers the number of prospective black athletes by 9:1.
And yet, we are seeing 8:1 in the other direction. Sure the number of pro athletes and olympians is small, but blacks would need to have a higher variance not only than whites but higher than every other racial group as well. This seems less plausible than that they are, on average, more athletic than the other races. In any event, this would be pretty easy to test, so if this were the actual reason, I would think someone would have proven it by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please propose a study that would be able to adequately test the extremes of these populations.

Don't you think if it were an easy study to undertake that people who believe that it isn't a variance thing would do the study to prove that whites and blacks have the same variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

The study wouldn't test the extremes or the variance; it would simply test the proposition that we actually care about (i.e. averages across racial groups). Obtaining direct evidence of averages across a large sample for things like foot speed and jump height is not difficult. He is proposing an alternative explanation that seems implausible, as proof of a negative. Proving the positive, i.e. that blacks are, on average, faster, stronger, etc. is quite easy to prove (or disprove) directly.

edited to add -- whatever data set is used to determine cutoffs for the presidential physical fitness test (http://www.presidentschallenge.org/e...standards.aspx) would probably suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the distribution is way more important than the average in this case. If it were the case that blacks and whites have the exact same distribution except that black people have a much longer tail at the positive end, this would not necessarily mean that black people are more athletic than white people. It simply means that there are more of them at the extreme end. This would affect the "average" athleticism score, but it wouldn't prove what some people are claiming.

[hitch1978]

Whatever.

Isn't the point that ethnic variances deliver a difference in product? Be it physical or mental?

If whites and blacks (or whichever terms you want to use, it's pretty irrelevant really, as we are discussing the contended claim that differnt 'races' (Again, whatever interpretation you want) have differences that are derived from their genepool) sre exactly equal in physical ability, BUT HAVE A DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT STANDARD DEVIATION, then we have still proved our point. Namely that nature, and nod just nurture, has SOME impact on what these people achieve.

Now if we can accept that a siginficant difference accross the board in physical achievement represents, AT LEAST, a significant difference in a races standard deviation, it's surely not a huge logical step to arrive at the following. The likelyhood that, due to genes showing this difference, it is more likely that some difference in inteligence would be evident, than that there would be no difference.