When we find something "negative" out about ethnic minorities, why..

[Solly]

TMV - what?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
But based on your generalization, you would have to agree that pygmies are more likely to run faster and jump higher than germans.

And THAT is why it is racism.

It is a lie.

How do you know it is a lie? If pygmies are more likely to do so, there can't possibly be anything wrong in STATING it.

You look at a non-random subset of people, and choose to associate a trait you SELECTED those people for with another obvious trait they happen to have.

Then you ASSUME that all people who have the obvious trait (black skin) also have the selected trait (good sprinting).

Nope, you assume that a greater proportion of those with trait X will have trait Y, because when you select those with trait Y (good sprinters), you find that a disproportionate number of them have trait X (black).

It is a lie.

It can only lead to differing expecatations, which can only lead to different treatment.

This argument applies whether or not it is true. Are you suggesting censoring the truth because you find it unpleasant?

Stop before you start.

Once you assume that "black people" are a homogenous group with innate physiological differences, it is too easy to decide they have innate behaviours as well.

What if they ARE a homogenous group with innate physiological differences? (that's not what we're claiming, but OK)

Your argument is that same as that evolution is false or bad, because people can use it to justify Social Darwinism.

[The Mad Viking]

The point is, pygmies are black. They are not more likely to run faster. Neither are bushmen.

We don't know that being black makes you more likely to be a better runner.

All we know is that if you are among the fastest runners in the world, you are more likely to be black.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING. GO TAKE A PROBABILITY & STATISTICS COURSE!!!

Among all the black people, how many are actually fast runners, and how many might be genetically SLOWER. Like pygmies, bushmen, watusis, ethiopians, mandingos, australians, etc. who have never sent a sprinter to the podium?

The average black person could easily be slower than the average asian or white. The elite black athletes quite likely are a subset of all blacks that is NOT representative.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
But based on your generalization, you would have to agree that pygmies are more likely to run faster and jump higher than germans.

No, you would have to say that in a race between the fastest german and the fasted pygmy, the pygmy would win. It may not even be that the average pygmy would be faster than the average german, because it may be that germans have less variation in terms of fast twitch muscles.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
And THAT is why it is racism.

Whether or not you consider it racism to say that the fastest sprinters in the world will be black, because they have the right genes for fast twitch muscles, or not, doesn't stop the fact that it is true. The fastest sprinters in the world have black skin, almost without exception. That is because they have a genetic history that includes the genes for large amounts of fast twitch muscles.

Do you think it's racism to say that much of the worlds best Steeplechasers come from a single villiage in Kenya? They happen to have the right genes for muscles that are more efficient. It would be discrimination to say that they are the only people who are eligable to run in the Kenyan team, but it would not be discrimination to say that the fastest runners should be in the Kenyan team, whether they happen to all be from a certain villiage or not.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Then you ASSUME that all people who have the obvious trait (black skin) also have the selected trait (good sprinting).

No I don't. I assume that the people who excel at a selected trait (sprinting) will have another obvious trait (black skin). I do not assume the reverse is true. Not every black person will be a great sprinter. However all of the worlds best sprinters will be black.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Once you assume that "black people" are a homogenous group with innate physiological differences, it is too easy to decide they have innate behaviours as well.

I don't assume that. Also, that leap is a bit strong for me. However, genetics do have a say in physical and mental attributes. You would be correct, if I assumed that "black people" are a homogenous group. I don't. I realise that all people differ hugely. However I can also say that if you go to the very pinacle of an attribute, like sprinting or long distance running, you will find them usually to be of a certain genetic type, in that the genes that give fast twitch muscles, or efficient muscles that can go for longer, are more prevelant there, and no matter how much training someone without that genetic background has, they will not match the accomplishments of the fastest people that have that genetic background.

All top athelets train incredibly hard. However in order to be right at the top, one of the best in the world, at that particular attribute, you would have to train hard and have the right genetic makeup. When I used to be very competetive at athletics, I had to come to realise that because of my genetic makeup, no matter how hard I trained, I would never win an Olympic gold medal. That is not because of my skin colour, that is because of my genes. I can't say that a black person has the right genes to win an Olympic gold medal at sprinting. There are incredibly few people that have the right genes, since we're talking about the absolute pinacle. However I can say that every single person who has the right genes will also happen to be black. I am not generalising about black people, since some can sprint, and some can't, as with any ethnic background. I am generalising about sprinters, because in order to have the genes that give large amounts of fast twitch muscles, you must have the genetic background that has those genes.

As I have said, I don't advocate treating people with different skin colours differently. I do advocate realising that no caucasian happens to have then genes to be the best sprinter in the world.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kucinich

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by The Mad Viking
You look at a non-random subset of people, and choose to associate a trait you SELECTED those people for with another obvious trait they happen to have.

Then you ASSUME that all people who have the obvious trait (black skin) also have the selected trait (good sprinting).

Nope, you assume that a greater proportion of those with trait X will have trait Y, because when you select those with trait Y (good sprinters), you find that a disproportionate number of them have trait X (black).

If doing statistics like this you need to know the causally linked traits, not the spuriously correlated traits.

Amongst schoolchildren if you have trait X (larger feet) you have a greater chance of having trait Y (larger word vocabularies). The reason for this is that older children have a larger vocabulary, and larger feet. I would not use that statistic to say that children with large feet have a larger vocabulary as it is misleading.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Drogue

No, you would have to say that in a race between the fastest german and the fasted pygmy, the pygmy would win.

Yes, but you would be spectacularly incorrect.

I assume that the people who excel at a selected trait (sprinting) will have another obvious trait (black skin). I do not assume the reverse is true. Not every black person will be a great sprinter. However all of the worlds best sprinters will be black.

Bless you. We agree.

...well, nitpick:
I would say "are very likely to have another obvious trait = black skin". It was only 25 years ago that a russian was the worlds fastest man. Could happen again. Not much evolution since then, methinks.

Whether or not you consider it racism to say that the fastest sprinters in the world will be black...

I don't see this as racism.
Use the words "very likely" or "extremely likely", and this is a provable fact.

As I have said, I don't advocate treating people with different skin colours differently. I do advocate realising that no caucasian happens to have then genes to be the best sprinter in the world.

Valerij Borzov won olypmic gold in 100m and 200m in 1972. I'm guessing genes haven't changed much since then. A caucasion greco-Canadian ran a 9.91 100m in 2003 at age 22.

Obviously very special exceptions. But if you let people deal with generalizations, then coaches and olympic committees will simply refuse to fund caucasian sprinters and black swimmers. And Jamaican bobsleders. And that would be racism.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
If doing statistics like this you need to know the causally linked traits, not the spuriously correlated traits.

Amongst schoolchildren if you have trait X (larger feet) you have a greater chance of having trait Y (larger word vocabularies). The reason for this is that older children have a larger vocabulary, and larger feet. I would not use that statistic to say that children with large feet have a larger vocabulary as it is misleading.

Riiiiiiiight.

And how can one "know" if black skin makes you run faster.

(Obviously false)

Or if the thing that makes you run faster happens to occur in extremes within a group that also happens to have black skin.

(Obviously true)

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


Riiiiiiiight.

And how can one "know" if black skin makes you run faster.

(Obviously false)

Or if the thing that makes you run faster happens to occur in extremes within a group that also happens to have black skin.

(Obviously true)

You have to have non-statistical evidence that corroborate the statistics.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
The point is, pygmies are black. They are not more likely to run faster. Neither are bushmen.

We don't know that being black makes you more likely to be a better runner.

All we know is that if you are among the fastest runners in the world, you are more likely to be black.

Thus, blacks are more likely to be fast runners, or at least to be among the fastest runners in the world.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING. GO TAKE A PROBABILITY & STATISTICS COURSE!!! [/q]

The proportion of "fastest runners in world" that is black is larger than the proportion of "people in world" that is black, thus the proportion of "blacks" that are "fastest runners in world" is larger than the proportion of "not blacks" that are "fastest runners in world". Basic statistics - I don't need to have taken AP Stat to know it (though having a dad who's an actuary helps ).

Among all the black people, how many are actually fast runners, and how many might be genetically SLOWER. Like pygmies, bushmen, watusis, ethiopians, mandingos, australians, etc. who have never sent a sprinter to the podium?

The average black person could easily be slower than the average asian or white. The elite black athletes quite likely are a subset of all blacks that is NOT representative.

So you're just saying that it's curved, that blacks are more likely to be OK runners or elite runners, but less likely to be something in between.

[Kuciwalker]

If doing statistics like this you need to know the causally linked traits, not the spuriously correlated traits.

Amongst schoolchildren if you have trait X (larger feet) you have a greater chance of having trait Y (larger word vocabularies). The reason for this is that older children have a larger vocabulary, and larger feet. I would not use that statistic to say that children with large feet have a larger vocabulary as it is misleading.

No one has claimed causality. We're claiming correlation.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kucinich

No one has claimed causality. We're claiming correlation.

But for what end purpose? Simply claiming correlation doesn't lead you very far. 'Simply stating' correlation often implies direct connection.

[Kuciwalker]

There's supposed to be a purpose to this?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kucinich
There's supposed to be a purpose to this?

You tell me. Why point out the correlation?

[Kuciwalker]

Why not?

The argument was over whether there was a correlation, not whether to point it out.

[Last Conformist]

Given the numbers of humans around, a measurable correlation would be practically certain not to be totally random. Probably it would turn out that the genes for dark skin and good running skills are prevalent in the same populations, and once we've identified the running genes we can GM all humans to give everyone the same chances to win an olympic gold in sprinting. We'd have to do away with sexual dimorphism too, of course.