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

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Why not?

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

So you've spent this time discussing a spurious correlation for no particular reason? Perhaps you'd also like to discuss the correlation between British arts funding levels and Antarctic penguin populations (which are incidentally strongly correlated).

Personally I was under the impression we were going somewhere with application of relevant correlation and others such knowledge in wider society.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
So you've spent this time discussing a spurious correlation for no particular reason?

This is 'Poly. What did you expect?

Personally I was under the impression we were going somewhere with application of relevant correlation and others such knowledge in wider society.

I don't know what everyone else cared about - I was just pointing out that it was a valid statement, unlike other posters claimed.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kucinich
This is 'Poly. What did you expect?

So, what do you think about the penguins?

[Kuciwalker]

I've never seen anything that showed they were correlated

(btw, correlation can indicate common causation, which is also useful)

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by 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.

And smelly feet!

[The Mad Viking]

From basic theory:

There are several common pitfalls in using correlation. Correlation is symmetrical, not providing evidence of which way causation flows. If other variables also cause the dependent variable, then any covariance they share with the given independent variable in a correlation will be falsely attributed to that independent.

Kuci, you are full of crap.

Therefore, all people who are full of crap must be Kuci.

You are just wrong, and refuse to admit it. Like a young school child, caught in a lie.

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.

THIS ISN'T PROBABLE AT ALL!

Its no different than deciding most black people like watermelons.

"a measurable correlation would be practically certain not to be totally random"

Lookit, there are a 1-2 billion black people in the world. They are found native to different continents. Their genes vary tremendously amongst each other.

Using this illogic, you can look at the shortest people in the world, (pygmies) and be certain that blacks are the shortest people in the world.

Then, you can look at the tallest people in the world (the Watusi and the Dinka) and be just as certain that blacks are the tallest people in the world.



If you don't believe me, try Big Crunch. Nicer avatar, more calm than I am.

The fact that the vast majority of elite sprinters are black DOES NOT MEAN, AT ALL, IN ANY WAY, that the average black is faster.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
From basic theory:

There are several common pitfalls in using correlation. Correlation is symmetrical, not providing evidence of which way causation flows. If other variables also cause the dependent variable, then any covariance they share with the given independent variable in a correlation will be falsely attributed to that independent.

Kuci, you are full of crap.

Therefore, all people who are full of crap must be Kuci.

You are just wrong, and refuse to admit it. Like a young school child, caught in a lie.

You are an IDIOT!

TMV is an idiot. Kucinich is not an idiot. Therefore, a person who is an idiot is more likely to be TMV than Kucinich.

For a better example: there are twenty schmoos, ten red and ten blue. There are seven big red schmoos and three big blue schmoos - the rest are small. Therefore, red schmoos are more likely to be big, and big schmoos are more likely to be red.

I've NEVER claimed causation. The most I've ever pointed out is possible common causation, in a parenthetical in a post regarding the point of the entire thread.

The fact that the vast majority of elite sprinters are black DOES NOT MEAN, AT ALL, IN ANY WAY, that the average black is faster.

So? It is likely, because running speed, like almost every other (linear) biological charactaristic, is distributed over a bell curve. Thus a faster extreme means that it is likely that their is a faster median.

However, I concede that it is POSSIBLE that the distribution is different. However, this doesn't change that an elite runner is more likely to be black, or that a black is more likely to be an elite runner (than a member of another race is).

[Caligastia]

Why do you all hate black people so much?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kucinich
However, this doesn't change that an elite runner is more likely to be black, or that a black is more likely to be an elite runner (than a member of another race is).

I think the point that TMV is objecting to is that you are not including the necessary caveat.

The set 'black' contains a number of subsets. It is one of the subsets from which the correlation arises, and so if you know a black person is not from that subset then the increased probablity of them being an elite runner is removed.

I feel like I'm repeating myself, I probably am.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
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.

THIS ISN'T PROBABLE AT ALL!

Its no different than deciding most black people like watermelons.

"a measurable correlation would be practically certain not to be totally random"

Lookit, there are a 1-2 billion black people in the world. They are found native to different continents. Their genes vary tremendously amongst each other.

Using this illogic, you can look at the shortest people in the world, (pygmies) and be certain that blacks are the shortest people in the world.

Then, you can look at the tallest people in the world (the Watusi and the Dinka) and be just as certain that blacks are the tallest people in the world.

First, the fact that you answered my obviously less-than-serious post at all strongly suggests you're an idiot.

Let's explain real slowly this time.

a) Most top sprinters are black. Indeed, an overwhelming majority of top sprinters are.

b) Most people are not black.

c) Combining (a) and (b), it follows that a black person chosen at random is much more likely (several times, infact) to be a top sprinter than a randomly chosen non-black person.

d) Spring ability is, to a considerable extent, dependent on genes determining body build, muscle tissue types and the like.

e) Since people who do not have genes conducive to top sprinting ability do not become top sprinters, it follows that such genes are more common among top sprinters than among other people.

f) Taken together, (e) and (f) suggest that genes conducive to top sprinting ability are more common among black people than among other people.

Despite being a probable idiot, you will notice that I nowhere suggest that black skin causes superior running ability, nor that the average black person is a better sprinter than the average non-black.


What you say about pygmies and Dinkas is, of course, perfectly in accordance with what I say. That you apparently intend it as an attack on my position is further evidence you're an idiot.

[Drogue]

Last Conformist pretty much summed up my opinions on the issue (without the insults, I think TMV is wrong, not an idiot)

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

There isn't really a purpose, but the PC stuff that says that people of all ethnic backgrounds can do every single thing equally well, that there is no correlation between ethnic background and ability in any field, annoys me somewhat, because it isn't true.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Is there some kind of mass inter-racial breeding program I'm unaware of?

Yes, Check it out at your local mall

[The Mad Viking]

Idiot? Strike a nerve, did I?

What you said in your first post is:

Probably it would turn out that the genes for dark skin and good running skills are prevalent in the same populations

This is simply not probable. This is not the same argument you are making now. The word "prevalent" I guess troubles me.

Simply put, I suppose I don't agree with calling "dark skinned" a population. I see no evidence for defining this as a population. (Probably because I am an idiot.) Why you would choose to put pygmies, ethiopes, dinkas, bushmen, australian aboriginies in the same population is beyond me. Is a Carib "dark-skinned"? A Papuan is, yes?

I agree with the arguments you are making now:

genes conducive to top sprinting ability are more common among black people than among other people.

But while this:

a black person chosen at random is much more likely (several times, infact) to be a top sprinter than a randomly chosen non-black person.

is true, it is not particularly informative. Because the probability in either case approaches zero. You are talking about the extreme fringe of Poisson distribution here. 1 in 1,000,000. You cannot deduce anything reliable about a population by looking only a sample of the extreme fringe.


By the way, where did I personally insult you?

[The Mad Viking]

Kuci

I've NEVER claimed causation. The most I've ever pointed out is possible common causation,

You don't need to claim causation. You associated the traits. Repeatedly. Without saying "isn't this a peculiar coincidence?" Causation was implied. I know you will deny this, and who knows, maybe you didn't mean to imply it.

It is likely, because running speed, like almost every other (linear) biological charactaristic, is distributed over a bell curve. Thus a faster extreme means that it is likely that their is a faster median.

So it is likely that blacks are both taller and shorter.

[Pax]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Idiot? Strike a nerve, did I?

What you said in your first post is:

Probably it would turn out that the genes for dark skin and good running skills are prevalent in the same populations

This is simply not probable. This is not the same argument you are making now. The word "prevalent" I guess troubles me.

Simply put, I suppose I don't agree with calling "dark skinned" a population. I see no evidence for defining this as a population. (Probably because I am an idiot.) Why you would choose to put pygmies, ethiopes, dinkas, bushmen, australian aboriginies in the same population is beyond me. Is a Carib "dark-skinned"? A Papuan is, yes?

I agree with the arguments you are making now:

genes conducive to top sprinting ability are more common among black people than among other people.

But while this:

a black person chosen at random is much more likely (several times, infact) to be a top sprinter than a randomly chosen non-black person.

is true, it is not particularly informative. Because the probability in either case approaches zero. You are talking about the extreme fringe of Poisson distribution here. 1 in 1,000,000. You cannot deduce anything reliable about a population by looking only a sample of the extreme fringe.


By the way, where did I personally insult you?

I would be willing to bet that the average 25 year old black american female would run slower than the average 25 year old white american female.

I chose this age because it's negates the fact that they may be participating in a high school or collegiate sports program.

I base this on personal observation and a report that talks about the fact that black women exercise less than white women in America. The fact that they exercise less leads to inferior physical conditions. The reasons for the difference is in the way black women have their hair done. It's purely for social reasons and has nothing to do with genetics.

Similarly, Some groups will not participate in certain activities thus their prowess cannot be accurately measured. Prime examples tennis and golf. There are very few non-whites in both sports but evidence suggests that other groups could do well in both these sports.

Also, Baseball and Boxing. These sports are seeing more and more Latino's enter when initially, it was a white the black dominated sport. Is it the case that blacks and whites where no longer able to throw a punch or did these groups lose interest starting at the playground level. Two black High school students in the U.S. had this to say about the waning popularity of America's favorite pastime. "Some people think baseball is boring. We think it's really really boring."

My point is that when it comes to sports, arts, or jobs the potential or success cannot be determined by skin color.