Race

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Oh boy, you really don't get it do you? The marker that is found among Sub Saharian Africans is not necessarly found among other blacks elsewhere. This is only purly statistical analysis, but since you consider blacks as inferiors, anything that disprove your belief is just wrong. You are acting like a Turk here that no matter what one may provide, won't move an inch from his preestablished belief. The only thing that this genetic test demonstrate is that 40% of the genetic makeup were from Sub-Saharian encestory, the other 60% most probably other blacks who did not possess that marker or others from the region. In order to be more specific, we have to use other genetic markers which would permit to study those 60% left.

As for what I post, because they are not on the web, it must be because they are not relevant? You act exactly like a Turk here that uses this argument everytime I provide them references or studies or researchs they can not find on the web. Unlike what you believe, the web is not everything. And guess what, I have read every single word of everything I have posted, the article that louseyourname is reffering to, I had it in PDF format and had to use a OCD recognising program to convert it to vectorial format, and separate the two collumns into one and change the spacing and everything, and correct the recognition mistakes. So obviously I had to read it to do that. So your claim of me not reading therefore contradicting myself is just plain wrong. That article author says that differenciating races in humans can not be done for this or that reason... yes! Louseyourname might interprate it as support for the existance of race, but since you have even not read the article and have read louseyourname comment, you insinuated that I have no read that article, because the article was saying the contrary of what I affirmed.

And here again, you claim that I just read the titles, Dan, give me an example of one of the abstracts(not the newspapers etc...) from scientific papers I posted that could not be found on the web, that from the title it suggest that there is no races. Go ahead, give me an example. If you can not support your stupid charges against me, just don't accuses me of things which you can not support.

Now regarding Lynn, yes! he has modified his tables countless numbers of times... the one that I am reffering to was taken from here.

http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Lynn/lynn-race-iq-table1.html

Which was taken off, on the same table he gave 87 for the Spanish.

And another thing, it takes brain dommage to compare Armenia a country that the literacy rate is of 99% with a country where there would be hardly anyone understanding what an IQ test is, because the majority of the population is illetrate. But what can we expact from a Dan, that do believe things not based on supportable evidences, but because of his preconcieved beliefs.

For instance, here we have a direct correlation between your dislike of Jews and your denial of the Shoah, there is as well a direct correlation between your belief of White superiority and the quality of materials you post. (95% of the materials that support your views on my access list of abstracts has Rushton as one of its authors)

The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America by Jared Taylor, Michael, M.D. Levin, Samuel Francis, Philippe Rushton, Glayde Whitney

Read this work, and to that matter anyone should read that work, and see they will even have the goats to affirm that those that wrote it are unbiased "scientifics" that should be taken seriously. What a joke!!!

What is your point? We have a direct correlation with your belief in the Holocaust, with your belief in equality and no races, and the material you post. Is there a point to all this?

[Anonymouse]

It is racist to state that there are racial differences. Most researchers think blacks have more inherent athletic ability than whites. This is a scientific question of interpreting the evidence, and is just like evaluating the evidence for IQ differences. Notice how one is "racist", but the other is clearly never questioned.

[Fadix]

Stereotype Threat Effects on Black and White Athletic Performance*1

Jeff Stone, , a, Christian I. Lynchb, Mike Sjomelinga and John M. Darleyb

a Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, USA
b Department of Psychology, Princeton University, USA

Received 21 June 1999; accepted 21 June 1999. Available online 15 August 2002.


Abstract

Two experiments showed that framing an athletic task as diagnostic of negative racial stereotypes about Black or White athletes can impede their performance in sports. In Experiment 1, Black participants performed significantly worse than did control participants when performance on a golf task was framed as diagnostic of "sports intelligence." In comparison, White participants performed worse than did control participants when the golf task was framed as diagnostic of "natural athletic ability." Experiment 2 observed the effect of stereotype threat on the athletic performance of White participants for whom performance in sports represented a significant measure of their self-worth. The implications of the findings for the theory of stereotype threat (C. M. Steele, 1997) and for participation in sports are discussed.


*1 Experiment 1 was completed by Christian I. Lynch as partial fulfillment of the requirements for a bachelor's degree. We thank Benjamin Boldt and Donald Hakes for their help in collecting the data in Experiment 2. We also thank Claude Steele and his lab group, Jeff Greenberg, Gordon Moskowitz, and Adam Galinsky, for their comments on this research.

Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721; email: [email protected]

[Fadix]

The Bell Curve: implications for the performance of Black/White athletes

Ronald E. Hall,

Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine, B421 West Fee Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA

Available online 19 March 2002.



Abstract

Research such as the Bell Curve coincide with stereotypes of the "dumb Black" athlete. As a function of same, Black athletes overachieve in basketball and other physically rigorous sports. Although it is assumed, conclusive data establishing anatomical and/or genetic superiority of the Black athlete does not exist. White athletes blessed with similar physical gifts underachieve as a function of the same stereotype. The Bell Curve and similar works are little more than a racist effort to maintain the social and economic status quo by impacting the performance levels of athletes.

---

1. The Bell Curve

In 1995 Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray joined efforts and published the controversial "Bell Curve" (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). The Bell Curve is a voluminous study about the assumed inherited intelligence differential between Blacks and Whites. According to the authors, genetic endowment impacts intelligence, socioeconomic achievement, social pathology, and is increasingly unequally distributed across the population. As Western societies become more technological, stratification by cognitive ability will prevail. Given the genetic nature of this phenomenon social programs and other governmental compensatory interventions are then ineffective and a waste of tax dollars. This notion is the grist of stereotype that has permeated the social science literature since its origin. The Bell Curve is heretofore unsubstantiated as a valid premise that manages some legitimacy extended from that academy.

The fact that racist stereotypes have gained legitimacy is very significant. While the primary focus has been on intelligence, it is important to recognize that this focus is not irrelevant to athletic performance. Athletic performance on the basketball court is a manifestation of the same intelligence apparatus that enables intellectual performance on I.Q. tests. Given that the racist taint of I.Q. research is obvious, the theory and its applications influence the I.Q. and educational performance of Blacks negatively and their athletic performance positively while impacting the performance of White athletes as well. Stereotype of the "dumb Black" athlete is a function of both scenarios (Hall, 1993).

It is the contention of Steele (1990) that intelligence is one particularly sensitive component of the "dumb Black" stereotype for Whites in all of sports. While not all believe it has merit, all at least are aware of its existence. The assumed athletic superiority of Black basketball players is a convenient rationale for the lesser athletic performance of Whites. The Black athlete is perceived as stronger than his White counterpart in the same way as the White student is perceived as smarter ( Davis, 1991). Stereotypes about the "dumb Black" athlete aimed at African Americans are therefore racist. This racist stereotype contributes to the overachievement of Blacks and the underachievement of Whites in sport as a potent and groundless assumption.

2. Athletic performance

In a study conducted by Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, and Darley (1999) at the University of Arizona the task was to determine the stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Based upon experimentation conducted by same it was revealed that defining athletic performance as indicative of negative racial stereotypes about Black or White athletes can inhibit their performance levels. Under research conditions, Black athletes performed significantly lower than did control participants when performance on a golf task was defined as "sports intelligence." By comparison, White athletes performed lower than did control participants when the golf task was defined as diagnostic of some "natural ability."

Without a doubt basketball is truly a worldwide phenomenon. Players in Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the former East Germany have become legitimate contenders to win Olympic gold. Players in South America have improved to the extent of defeating U.S. teams. After touring much of the continent it is apparent to U.S. coaches that the level of play of basketball teams in Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile equals that of teams anywhere in the world. Among Asians, the Burmese, Indians, and Pakistanis have organized federations that perform locally. Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam have held tournaments with other countries. What's more, recent progress in Japanese sports assures that Japan will be formidable in a few short years. But it is an accepted belief worldwide that basketball is played by athletes no where better than in the U.S. The stereotype of the strong but dim-witted Black buck rationalizes the ability of Black athletes to run faster, run longer and jump higher than Whites as a consequence of genes. Hence their basketball superiority (in Sailes, 1996).

The athletic performance of White athletes is best illustrated in the overachievement of Blacks. As per the U.S. Census Bureau persons classified as "Black" comprise about 12.1% of the total population while Whites represent about 80%. Yet according to the Center for Study of Sport in Society 68% of players in the NFL and more than 75% in the NBA are Black (Coakley, 1994). The number of those who earn starter positions is even more astounding. Among major league baseball players in the U.S., 16% are Black. Forty percent of the NCAA-I football players are Black as are 60% of the basketball players. In the recent Los Angeles Summer Olympic games, Blacks won 40 of the 49 medals awarded in track and field and 10 of the 11 awarded in boxing. What's more athletes of African descent hold world records in men's and women's 100-, 200- and 400-m dash, long jump, the men's 110-m hurdles, high jump, and triple jump, and the women's 100-m hurdles. Moreover, most of the preceding records in track and field have been held by athletes of African descent for 40 or more years ( Ashe, 1993)! In an industry administered and controlled by Whites the overachievement of Black athletes makes of the lesser performance of Whites a glaring spectacle.

The dominance of Blacks in basketball makes it apparent to coaches that it is difficult to get White kids to go out for school teams particularly in urban areas (Price, 1997, p. 34). This is true unfortunately whether they could make the team or not. It has spurred on a new trend wherein White parents are starting to encourage their children into sports like hockey and soccer that involve less rigor and/or Black competition. The situation was captured in film by "White Men Can't Jump." As a stereotype that has little bases in fact White athletic underachievement is nonetheless assumed in the backdrop of a White male winning the NBA slam-dunk contest.

Brent Barry, the son of NBA great Rick Barry, had beaten five Black players in 1996 to win the slam-dunk contest conducted each year at the All-Star games (Price, 1997). In the spotlight of national media, a long held stereotype had been compromised. Even commentators such as TNT's Reggie Theus expressed surprise. But Barry himself was more grounded in reality. Just as Spud Web, a few years earlier, had ignored the stereotype of shorter players inability to dunk, Barry had done likewise concerning White players. While he does not subscribe to the "can't jump" White stereotype, he does admit that in gyms around the country, he has seen White males subscribing to it. They just don't want to play that high-leaping style of game. They prefer to play the "on the ground" or "court game" or the "savvy game" of Larry Bird. Though many are, most White males just don't consider themselves strong or athletic enough to compete with Blacks so they don't even try.

There are those in other sports who might immediately disagree, but the fact of the matter is that at the upper echelons of NBA basketball, players are the fastest runners and the most prodigious athletes in the world. It is obvious that the dominant NBA population consists of Black males––a fact untrue at the NBA's beginning (Hall, in press). While legitimate science has yet to conclude whether Black athletes possess innate physical qualities, the White basketball player performs in a world that is apparently already convinced of the stereotype. Some of the tales border on the absurd such as: Blacks have an extra muscle in their legs; via slavery, they have been enabled by selective breeding, etc. (in Hunter, 1998, p. 86). Such notions cut across racial and class lines making it all but impossible for White athletes to fully develop their athletic potential.

Fortunately, integration is perhaps reversing the trends. But White players must continually deal with limiting stereotypes from coaches and other professionals who should know better. For his entire basketball life Keith Van Horn, the All-America forward from the University of Utah had to deal with the stereotype. He is an excellent player chosen second in the 1997 NBA draft. Repeatedly he was referred to as "the next Larry Bird." It seemed irrelevant that Van Horn, now a member of the New Jersey Nets, displayed none of the passing and below the rim game that made Bird unique. The fact that he is tall and White seems to be all that mattered. Coaches and scouts likened his game to that of NBA players such as Gogliotta, Schrempf and Kokoc when Van Horn likened himself to African American Derrick McKey (Price, 1997). Tied to the stereotype of Blacks as "dumb athletes" is the stereotype of White players in the reverse. Blacks who are as good or better than Larry Bird became so, it is assumed, by virtue of "natural ability" much like the natural flight of geese or swimming of fish. The fact that Bird was naturally gifted with exceptional hand-eye coordination is all but ignored. These facts of White players seem less obvious and often neglected when known as in the case of Danny Ainge.

Ainge, another White player, was among the naturally athletic elite in the mid 1980s. No one had a wider range of athletic skills than he. He was actually considered a better all-around athlete than Michael Jordan! Yet as a compliment the retiring coach of the Phoenix Suns––Cotton Fitzsimmons––minimized Ainge's athletic talents by insisting that while he was not the most gifted he got the most from the little he had. In fact during his youth, Ainge contends he could touch the top of the square on the backboard and dunk with ease. But this physical ability conflicted with the White stereotype and thus could not be publicly acknowledged.

Science cannot conclusively concur with the physical superiority of Black athletes. No doubt Black athletes attain a higher performance level than Whites but that differential has not been determined as innate. Thus, while some differences are apparent between Blacks and Whites, such differences are not anatomical or genetic and are irrelevant to the dominance of Black athletes in sports competition (Coakley, 1994; Eitzen & Sage, 1993; Leonard, 1993).

[Fadix]

(conclusion and references)


3. Conclusion

Racial stereotypes for both Blacks and Whites are born of racism. Lack of interaction between different social and/or racial groups enable dogma generated from social dissonance founded on the basis of political objective and personal observations. The perceptions of one racial group by another are filtered through local experiences (Kitano, 1997). To define others and to derive meaning about others based upon native norms and values, without the benefit of legitimate science or personal contact forces conjecture manifested as stereotypes which enable inaccurate depictions and conclusions about reality.

Davis (1991) has unveiled the motive for the "dumb Black" athlete as a racist preoccupation emanating from fear generated within the White status quo. He presumes that Whites anticipate losing economic, political, and educational superiority hence the motive for investigating the so-called athletic superiority of the Black athlete and I.Q. deficiency of same. In the past Blacks were denied access to competition with Whites for two reasons: (1) the country practiced segregation; and (2) it was believed that African Americans were inferior to Whites. Once sports became integrated and Blacks began to dominate in basketball, Whites rationalized that it was due to their natural physical superiority (in Hunter, 1998, p. 86). This notion assured the presumption of their intellectual inferiority for competition in America's corporate boardrooms and political arenas. In the aftermath the White status quo was assumed secure.

It was the intent of this paper to examine the psychology of stereotypes and draw parallels in the ability of same to effect the performance level of Blacks and Whites. Most of the basketball sports literature addresses the distinct successes of African Americans. The impact of stereotypes upon the performance of White athletes has been all but ignored––particularly in basketball (Price, 1997). By exposing the impact of stereotype upon the performance of White athletes it is hoped that the futility of all manner of stereotype will be exposed. It was not the intent of this paper to determine one race's intellectual or physical superiority over the other. In fact, this paper supports the notion that social and cultural variables facilitated by stereotype significantly impact the athletic performance of Whites in the same way that it impacts the intellectual performance of Blacks.

The trepidation and apprehension of Whites in America cause them to subjugate Blacks by whatever means necessary––including science––to maintain a caste system of privilege and opportunity that has operated for decades at the expense of Black quality of life (Kitano, 1997, p. 40). When Black students perform at their optimal capacity and White athletes at theirs in an environment unpolluted by racism and stereotype, the outcome is universally beneficial. At the turn of a century it is indeed appropriate to put to rest pseudo-scientific myths such as the Bell Curve that have prevailed upon the efforts of youth irrespective of race, creed, color and/or gender.

While this paper emphasized the sport of basketball, its implications are far-reaching and have tangible meaning beyond the sports arena. There is clearly a need for more research to understand and objectively interpret the impact of racial stereotypes upon individual performance levels. That is because many of the athletic and intellectual stereotypes assumed by the general public suffer from scientifically unacceptable postulation and are not substantiated by legitimate authority. Moreover, the variables impacting Black academic performance and White athletic performance emanate from the social constraints placed upon both by the dominant culture (Price, 1997).

In the case of intellectual performance, inaccurate depictions can impose upon the confidence of Black students and create a self-fulfilling prophesy that all but dictates failure in the classroom. Myths and stereotypes are potent in that respect. Until Americans are ready to actively deconstruct some of the mistruths about one another, stereotypes will continue to fuel the fires of racial hatred and bigotry that currently polarize American society.

According to sociologist W.E.B. DuBois ([1899] 1995), the dilemma of the 20th century will remain the dilemma of the color line. Without deliberate and conscientious effort on the part of all Americans, race will be no less dominant in the 21st century. It is fitting and timely that Americans learn to respect one another, to dispel the stereotypes that maintain a social order that no self respecting citizen would endorse. Deliberate corrective action would completely dissolve the blatantly racist stereotypes that inhibit the performances of White athletes in sports the same way as it would encourage Black students in the classroom.


References

Ashe, 1993. Ashe, A. (1993). A hard road to glory: A history of the African American athlete. New York: Amistad Press.

Coakley, 1994. Coakley, J. (1994). Sport in society: Issues and controversies. St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby.

Davis, 1991. L. Davis , The articulation of difference: White preoccupation with the question of racially linked genetic differences among athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal 7 2 (1991), pp. 179–187.

DuBois, 1995. DuBois, W. ([1899] 1995). The Philadelphia Negro. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Eitzen and Sage, 1993. Eitzen, S., & Sage, G. (1993). Sociology of North American sport. Indianapolis: Brown & Benchmark.

Hall, in press. Hall, R. Brothers and basketball: Yo, in press.

Hall, 1993. R. Hall , Clowns, buffoons and gladiators: Media portrayals of the Black male. Journal of Men's Studies 1 3 (1993), pp. 239–251. Abstract-PsycINFO

Herrnstein and Murray, 1994. Herrnstein, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve. New York: Free Press.

Hunter, 1998. Hunter, D. (1998). In G. Sailes (Ed.), Race and athletic performance: A physiological review in African Americans in sport (pp. 85–101). New Brunswich: Transaction.

Kitano, 1997. Kitano, H. (1997). Race relations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Leonard, 1993. Leonard, W. (1993). A sociological perspective of sport. New York: Macmillan Publishers.

Price, 1997. S. Price , Whatever happened to the White athlete?. Sports Illustrated 87 23 (1997), pp. 30–55.

Steele, 1990. Steele, S. (1990). The content of our character. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Sailes, 1996. G. Sailes , An examination of basketball performance orientations among African American males. Journal of African American Men 1 4 (1996), pp. 37–46.

Stone et al., 1999. J. Stone, C. Lynch, M. Sjomeling and J. Darley , Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 6 (1999), pp. 1213–1227. Abstract

[Anonymouse]

Taboo: Why black athletes dominate sports and why we're afraid to talk about it . By Jon Entine. (January, 2000.)

The raging debate about the average intelligence between races or ethnic groups has always been equated with male athletic ability as well, but it has been kept off the table for discussion as to the genetic component of black dominance in sports. This book finally brings that chapter to a close, and we can begin to look at athleticism with the same tools and analytical perception that we have devoted to intelligence. Of course, sports are just that, and nations and economies do not fall and rise based on the athletic ability of their athletes, but on the creativity and intelligence of their people. So it is only fitting that intelligence would be studied far longer and with greater interest than sports. But with the dominance of blacks in sports, those who demand fairness have the right to ask, "why not affirmative action in sports for whites and Asians?"

This book, using many of the same multiple techniques that have been used to debunk the radical environmentalists' assertion that anyone can become a brain surgeon with the right nurturing, has now debunked the myths that environmental conditions have produced a disproportionate number of blacks in key areas of sports. Unlike intelligence, it is absurd to assert that the tests are biased because the tests are simply running races, jumping higher, quick burst of speed for sprints, and endurance for marathons. Instead of arguing that the tests are biased, sports have numerous tests and reformulations of ability that come into play in winning the prestigious top positions on teams and in contests.

This easy to read book does not attempt to look at every form of athletic ability. It concentrates on two primary adaptations that are important in many sports: quick bursts of speed and long distance endurance. In fact, a good portion of the book looks at the asymmetry of black abilities: sprinting and long distance running. What is amazing is that sprinters come from West Africa; but the long distance marathon runners are virtually all from the same ethnic group in Kenya--the Kalenjin. That is, the world male marathon runners come from virtually the same ethnic group.

Taboo digs into evolution itself, and explains how individual differences are not only possible but are to be expected from the history of humans evolving in radically different climates and ecologies. Different racial groups evolved adaptations that helped them to survive, and it is only natural that intelligence and physical attributes as well would not be equally distributed under drastically varying environments. In fact, J. Philippe Rushton, in his 1995 book Race, Evolution and Behavior describes the numerous ways that whites, blacks and Asians are different, and how it came about because of different selection patterns for survival. Asians and whites for example experienced severe selection for intelligence when faced with glacial conditions in their northerly habitats, Asians more so than whites, resulting in a somewhat higher IQ. (Rushton's new abridged book on this matter has just been released, and makes good reading to fill in the blanks on racial differences not covered in Taboo.)

But in order for genetic differences to be apparent, environmental variables must be somewhat the same. Over the last forty years, with equal opportunity for blacks and whites in both sports and academics, we are seeing these racial differences emerge when they were once thought to be merely reflections of disparate opportunities. There is a principle in behavior genetics that states, "as environmental differences go to zero the remainder becomes genetic." But of course this is a big dilemma for the naïve environmentalists: how would lack of opportunity keep whites out of sports? It is every boy's dream to be an athletic star.

The book points out that of the 32 finalists in the last four Olympic Men's 100 meter races, all of them were of west African descent. The probability of that occurring is less than: 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 percent! Unless of course there is a very good reason for this to occur that is not tied to innate ability--but none can be found.

No less impressive is the fact that almost all medium and long distance races are dominated by east Africans, and 75% of them are members of the Kalenjin ethnic group, who were primarily cattle rustlers and warriors. Apparently, rustling cattle on foot and at night meant that swift runners would live long and happy lives, compared to the slower runners. At least this is one scenario given for this tribes very unique long distance ability. Some have claimed that they are good long-distance runners because of the high altitude, but there are numerous other groups around the world who have evolved at high altitudes and do not have this unique ability.

After explaining how this very unique ethnic group--the Kalenjin--finds running long distances so innately easy, without even training hard, Entine goes into explaining the political motivations of those scholars who try to deny any genetic differences between races. Anyone familiar with this lengthy debate will recognize the same stale Marxist advocates' Stephan J. Gould and Richard Lewontin, et al. (see my web site for excerpts from scholars on Gould's pseudoscientific distortions.) The claim is made that humans cannot and do not genetically differ significantly enough to cause average differences between races of people on other than superficial traits--like skin color and hair.

But is that true? The book goes into a well-balanced review of what is known about our evolutionary past, including explaining how there has been ample time and circumstances for population groups or races to diverge in genetic frequencies, making genetic differences real and substantial. Even President Clinton has gotten on the Marxist bandwagon as of late, declaring that everyone is 99% genetically the same. Unfortunately, that also makes us genetically closer to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to orangutans. Should we then extend voting rights to chimpanzees? No doubt they would all be Democrats as they would all get transfer payments from humans.

Another excellent expose of the fiction behind the "we are all alike and there is no such thing as race," is from Dr. Arthur Jensen's recent book The g Factor: the science of mental ability (available at my web site). Jensen also discusses "splitters and lumpers" when it comes to races, and he also lays down the mathematical foundations for showing that intelligence, like athletic ability, must be genetic when the differences are as great as they are, an area that Taboo seems to have not covered very well objectively.

Taboo does provide a breakdown by Stanford University geneticists on racial differences. The largest genetic differences between the three major races are (1) Africans; (2) New Guineans and Australians, Pacific Islanders, and Southeast Asians; and (3) Northeast Asians, Artic Asians, American Indians, Europeans, and non-European Caucasoids. But one thing is certain, genetic studies of indigenous populations that have been intact since 1492, before the great migrations, show diverse and significant genetic differences between population groups. Coupling this with behavior genetic studies of these population groups or races adds the differentiation of numerous behavioral and physiological traits that characterizes the evolutionary past of different people. They are real, they are significant, and they matter.

But Darwinism or evolution, however well grounded, had some problems with regards to some unanswered questions that were perplexing and wouldn't go away. Then, a series of breakthroughs in understanding gene selection and group selection (inclusive fitness), in addition to individual natural selection, led to numerous new discoveries and insights. This nascent neo-Darwinism culminated in the revolutionary publication in 1975 entitled Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson. It was immediately attacked because it concluded that humans were selected by the same algorithms as all other creatures--no more or less. We could not escape evolutionary rules just because we were human.

At this point, the tide began to shift back to concepts of genetic differences between races and away from the Marxist/egalitarian dogma that had prevailed since WW II. Jon Entine in Taboo explains this pendulum shift back to scientific reality:

Diamond offered a more colorful version of an argument advanced in 1972 by Richard Lewontin, a Harvard University geneticist. Lewontin had become convinced that virtually all meaningful differences between races are either random or culturally determined. Based on his review of the available data, he concluded that only a tiny fraction of the differences between individuals could be considered "racial." In other words, Lewontin maintained that the differences that separate "races" are little more than what distinguishes two random fans at a World Cup match--statistically nothing, genetically speaking. The article, published in the prestigious journal Evolutionary Biology, amounted to a frontal attack on the concept of race.

For sure genetic differences between any two individuals are extremely small in percentage terms. Coming from a geneticist, rather than a sociologist or anthropologist, Lewontin's article had enormous influence, although not everyone was convinced. Lewontin's finding that on average humans share 99.8 percent of genetic material and that any two individuals are apt to share considerably more than 90 percent of this shared genetic library is on target. Interpreting that data is another issue, however. Lewontin's analysis suffers both scientifically and politically.

Although the politics of a scientist is not necessarily an issue in evaluating their work, in Lewontin's case it is crucial. According to his own account, his sensibilities were catalyzed by the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He made it very clear that his science was in part a mission to reaffirm our common humanity. To geneticists and biologists with less of an avowed agenda, Lewontin appeared to leaven his conclusion with his personal ideology.

From a scientific perspective, Lewontin and those that have relied on his work have reached beyond the data to some tenuous conclusions. In fact the percentage of differences is a far less important issue than which genes are different. Even minute differences in DNA can have profound effects on how an animal or human looks and acts while huge apparent variations between species may be almost insignificant in genetic terms. Consider the cichlid fish, which can be found in Africa's Lake Nyas. The cichlid, which has differentiated from one species to hundreds over a mere 11,500 years, "differ among themselves as much as do tigers and cows," Jared Diamond has noted. "Some graze on algae, others catch other fish, and still others variously crush snails, feed on plankton, catch insects, nibble the scales off other fish, or specialize in grabbing fish embryos from brooding mother fish." The kicker, these variations are the result of infinitesimal genetic differences--about 0.4 percent of their DNA studied.

In humans too, it is not the percentage of genes that is most critical, but whether and how the genes impact our physiology or behavior. Diamond mused that if an alien were to arrive on our planet and analyze our DNA, humans would appear, from a genetic perspective, as a third race of chimpanzees. Although it is believed they took a different evolutionary path from humans only five million years ago, chimps share fully 98.4 percent of our DNA. Just 50 out of 100,000 genes that humans and chimps are thought to possess--or a minuscule 0.3 percent--may account for all of the cognitive differences between man and ape. For that matter, dogs share about 95 percent of our genome; even the tiny roundworm, barely visible to the naked eye, share about 74 percent of its genes with humans.

Most mammalian genes, as much as 70 percent, are "junk" that have accumulated over the course of evolution with absolutely no remaining function; whether they are similar or different is meaningless. But the key 1.4 percent of regulatory genes can and do have a huge impact on all aspects of our humanity. In other words, small genetic differences do not automatically translate into trivial bodily or behavioral variations. The critical factor is not which genes are passed along but how they are patterned and what traits they influence.

Lewontin did collate genetic variability from known genetic markers and find that most of it lay within and not between human populations. Numerous scientists since have generalized those findings to the entire human genome, yet no such study has been done. Now it is believed that such an inference is dicey at best. The trouble with genetic markers is that they display "junk" variability that sends a signal that variability within populations exceeds variability between populations. However, the "junk" DNA that has not been weeded out by natural selection accounts for a larger proportion of within-population variability. Genetic makers may therefore be sending an exaggerated and maybe false signal. In contrast, the harder-to-study regulatory genes (that circumscribe our physical and athletic abilities) signal that between-group variability is far larger than has been believed. In other words, human populations are genetically more different than Lewontin and others who have relied on his work realize.

[Anonymouse]

continued.......


Now, after 40 years of affirmative action, the questions persist why there are so many seemingly innate differences between races. The egalitarian left, in not giving up on finding excuses for these differences, keep trying. They keep looking for the elusive Factor X. That is, some cause for disparate racial differences that does not rely on genetics. But for the last couple of decades, behavior genetics has used the new tools of twin studies and sibling studies to determine, for numerous traits, how much is genetic and how much is environmental. For example, intelligence is approximately 60% genetic during childhood and approaches 80% when reaching adulthood. That is, whatever environmental differences impact intelligence, genetic causes are increasingly more important. There just is no evidence that given a moderately normal childhood, that is not being locked in the basement or some other horrific conditions, children grow up to have the intelligence that their genes equipped them with.

And the same is true of blacks when it comes to athletic ability. One very interesting aspect of black childhood is that black children are far more advanced than Asians or whites when it comes to walking, athleticism, etc. That is, blacks mature much faster than whites in physicality. This is in keeping with Rushton's r-K continuum, where the evolutionary strategy of sub-Saharan Africans relies less on parental investment and more on numerous births. The early ability of black children to be independent physically allows the mother to have more children. Whites and Asians invest more in their children, and therefore have fewer children. At the same time, this parental investment slows down the need for early precociousness, and allows for an increase in intelligence. This trade-off reflects the different environments impacting black versus Asian/white evolution. Blacks are more physical and less intelligent, Asian/whites are more intelligent but less physically robust. Evolving in a glacial climate meant planning ahead was far more important, and intelligence allows for this yearly cycle of planning and adapting to the severe cold.

Taboo discusses numerous aspects of these differences. Unlike the brain, muscles can be inspected and probed to find out how blacks are different. Far more options are available to see directly the genetic differences that are acting to make blacks better athletes--tools that are not available to those studying the differences in cognitive abilities. Looking for example at fast-twitch versus slow-twitch muscles, vascular density around muscles, different chemical reactions and energy conversion cell densities, these and many more differences must be in fact genetic. No amount of training, nutrition, or other supposed environmental cause could account for the genetic differences found. So unlike intelligence, these non-cognitive anatomical differences are visible, measurable, and they are significant. In every area of athletics except intelligence, blacks trounce everyone else.

Omissions are often as telling about an author's perspective as what they say. It is obvious that the author did not want to wade into the intelligence debate too deeply. However, it would have been enlightening to contrast those sports and the team positions that do require cognitive ability over pure athleticism. For instance, at one time quarterbacks on football teams were expected to "stay in the pocket" and did not need to scramble for a first down. Now, more and more, a quarterback that can run is an asset that is used quite often. In addition, quarterbacks now have receivers in their headsets to receive plays and instructions from coaches, so they do not need to think as much on their own as before. So, it would be expected that black quarterbacks would be more prevalent now than say twenty years ago. But this very obvious condition is not really discussed--though the author does admit to being a running enthusiast--not a football enthusiast--so the omission may be understandable. Though I doubt it never came up in discussions during the book's research.

Finally, to show how athletic ability cannot be attributed to training or other environmental causes, Taboo takes a look at the East German Communist athletic machine prior to the collapse of Communism. The East Germans had little to show for their utopian state, so they embraced an all-out effort to replace economic success with Olympic success. The weight of the totalitarian state was thrown behind one goal--to produce more Olympic stars than any other country for its size. No amount of effort was spared. All children, at an early age, were tested and observed to find the very best specimens for athletic competition. And once they entered the field of sport, nothing was spared for their advancement.

These future stars were given every opportunity to be the best they could be. They were sent to special athletic camps, elaborate sports stadiums and gymnasiums were built around the country, coaches and trainers were paid like Western CEOs to make them into winners. Nothing was spared, including sacrificing their future health to the state's goal.

On top of giving these athletes every available opportunity and resources, they also gave them every available strength enhancing drug, and as much as the athlete could endure, short of killing them. Men and women alike became enormously stronger with these drugs, and the State's scientists kept one step ahead of the Olympic skeptics and eventual tests to keep pumping up their athlete's ability artificially. What was the result of this enormous environmental enhancement, both naturally and chemically artificial? Blacks who had no special training, opportunities, or drugs were still able to beat the East German athletic machine. Would this dispel the environmental cause of racial differences in abilities? Nope. Science breaks down at this point, just like it has with differences in intelligence, and dogma and ideology take over:

What would satisfy skeptics? "For me to be convinced," states Owen Anderson, "[geneticists] would simply have to identify the genes that are important for endurance performance and show that those genes are more prevalent among Kenyan runners. Since we don't know which genes are important, it's impossible to measure the relative frequencies of performance-enhancing genes in different groups of runners." Since specific genes cannot yet be directly linked to specific sport skills, Anderson refuses to even consider that there may be population-linked athletic talents. By demanding a "smoking gun," he has set up a straw man.

Evolutionary biologist Jonathan Marks has erected his own nearly impossible standard. Marks asserts that only an airtight experiment would convince him that there are meaningful differences between populations--yet he knows that airtight experiments are impossible. A scientist can test the patellar tendon reflex, measure the muscle fiber types, or evaluate endurance in a laboratory, but sports demands the messy reality of a playing field. "If no scientific experiments are possible, than what are we to conclude?" he writes. "That discussing innate abilities is the scientific equivalent of discussing properties of angels."

Ironically, the arguments advanced by Marks and Anderson echo the creationist attack on evolution. "The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe," the Creation Legal Research Fund represented in a legal brief argued (unsuccessfully) before the Supreme Court. "Evolution is not a scientific 'fact,' since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. . . . The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a 'myth.'" In other words, since no one was present at earth's beginning, and the creation of life cannot be replicated in an experiment, any statement about the origin of life is "the scientific equivalent of discussing properties of angels," to borrow Marks's phrase.

If scientific theories depend only upon observable evidence or laboratory experiments then everything from the atomic theory of matter to the theory that the earth revolves around the sun could be written off as speculative. Geneticists may never isolate the particular strands of DNA that resolve what little ambiguity remains in the debate about race and athletics, "but that is not the same as saying that there is not a genetic basis for the racial patterns we see in sports," asserts Bengt Saltin. There is an incredibly complex relationship among genes, culture, potential, and performance. "Identifying genes will not and cannot expect to resolve the issue."

Nor should genetics by itself for athletic success is a bio-cultural phenomenon. Genetic and behavioral research has shown that genetics and the environment are part of an endless loop, each reinforcing and reshaping the other. At the end of the nineteenth century J. M. Baldwin observed that when a species learns a useful new skill--for argument sake, say, sprinting or jumping--the addition to its behavioral repertoire can reshape its biology. Over time, natural selection blesses the ensuing generations whose limbs and brains are suited to this learned maneuver and culls out those whose anatomy is ill suited to the innovation.

So it seems unlikely that this book will have any impact on the Marxist/egalitarian left who deny racial differences. But it does provide one more very important piece to the genetic puzzle that clearly understands that humans, just like any other species, must have differences between population groups in order for evolution to persist in changing the genetic code to deal with the existing environment. Athleticism was at one time and in some places very important to survival. Now, intelligence is very important for success. If we are to understand what made humans so different from any other species, we must take into account how we got here. Racial differences, properly understood, give us the understanding to progress rather than sink into a dysgenic morass of barbarism and inhumanity. Will we have the courage to accept the results of science?

[Fadix]

Answer to "Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It," by JONATHAN MARKS(Jonathan Marks teaches biological anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, and is author of "Human Biodiversity.")

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/feckless.html

A Feckless Quest for the Basketball Gene

By JONATHAN MARKS

ERKELEY, Calif. -- You know what they say about a little knowledge. Here's some: The greatest sprinters and basketball players are predominantly black. Here's some more: Nobel laureates in science are predominantly white.

What do we conclude? That blacks have natural running ability and whites have natural science ability? Or perhaps that blacks have natural running ability but whites don't have natural science ability, because that would be politically incorrect?

Or perhaps that we can draw no valid conclusions about the racial distribution of abilities on the basis of data like these.

That is what modern anthropology would say.

But it's not what a new book, "Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It," says. It says that blacks dominate sports because of their genes and that we're afraid to talk about it on account of a cabal of high-ranking politically correct postmodern professors -- myself, I am flattered to observe, among them.

The book is a piece of good old-fashioned American anti-intellectualism (those dang perfessers!) that plays to vulgar beliefs about group differences of the sort we recall from "The Bell Curve" six years ago. These are not however, issues that anthropologists are "afraid to talk about"; we talk about them a lot. The author, journalist and former television producer Jon Entine, simply doesn't like what we're saying. But to approach the subject with any degree of rigor, as anthropologists have been trying to do for nearly a century, requires recognizing that it consists of several related questions.

First, how can we infer a genetic basis for differences among people? The answer: Collect genetic data. There's no substitute. We could document consistent differences in physical features, acts and accomplishments until the Second Coming and be entirely wrong in thinking they're genetically based. A thousand Nigerian Ibos and a thousand Danes will consistently be found to differ in complexion, language and head shape. The first is genetic, the second isn't, and the third we simply don't understand.

What's clear is that, developmentally, the body is sufficiently plastic that subtle differences in the conditions of growth and life can affect it profoundly. Simple observation of difference is thus not a genetic argument.

Which brings us to the second question: How can we accept a genetic basis for athletic ability and reject it for intelligence? The answer: We can't. Both conclusions are based on the same standard of evidence. If we accept that blacks are genetically endowed jumpers because "they" jump so well, we are obliged to accept that they are genetically unendowed at schoolwork because "they" do so poorly.

In either case, we are faced with the scientifically impossible task of drawing conclusions from a mass of poorly controlled data. Controls are crucial in science: If every black schoolboy in America knows he's supposed to be good at basketball and bad at algebra, and we have no way to measure schoolboys outside the boundaries of such an expectation, how can we gauge their "natural" endowments? Lots of things go into the observation of excellence or failure, only one of which is genetic endowment.

But obviously humans differ. Thus, the last question: What's the relationship between patterns of human genetic variation and groups of people? The answer: It's complex.

All populations are heterogeneous and are built in some sense in opposition to other groups. Jew or Muslim, Hutu or Tutsi, Serb or Bosnian, Irish or English, Harvard or Yale -- one thing we're certain of is that the groups of most significance to us don't correspond to much in nature.

Consider, then, the category "black athlete" -- and let's limit ourselves to men here. It's broad enough to encompass Arthur Ashe, Mike Tyson and Kobe Bryant.

When you read about the body of the black male athlete, whose body do you imagine? Whatever physical gift these men share is not immediately apparent from looking at them.

Black men of highly diverse builds enter athletics and excel.

Far more don't excel. In other words, there is a lot more to being black and to being a prominent athlete than mere biology. If professional excellence or over-representation could be regarded as evidence for genetic superiority, there would be strong implications for Jewish comedy genes and Irish policeman genes.

Inferring a group's excellence from the achievements of some members hangs on a crucial asymmetry: To accomplish something means that you had the ability to do it, but the failure to do it doesn't mean you didn't have the ability. And the existing genetic data testify that known DNA variations do not respect the boundaries of human groups.

To be an elite athlete, or elite anybody, presumably does require some kind of genetic gift. But those gifts must be immensely diverse, distributed broadly across the people of the world -- at least to judge from the way that the erosion of social barriers consistently permits talent to manifest itself in different groups of people.

In an interview with The Philadelphia Daily News in February, Mr. Entine observed that Jews are overrepresented among critics of the views he espouses. But is that a significantly Jewish thing? Or is it simply a consequence of the fact that among any group of American intellectuals you'll find Jews overrepresented because they are a well-educated minority? There's certainly no shortage of non-Jews who find the ideas in "Taboo" to be demagogic quackery.

Of course, Jewish academics may sometimes be speaking as academics, not as Jews. Likewise black athletes may perform as athletes, not just as embodied blackness.

How easy it is to subvert Michael Jordan, the exceptional and extraordinary man, into merely the representative of the black athlete.

The problem with talking about the innate superiority of the black athlete is that it is make-believe genetics applied to naïvely conceptualized groups of people. It places a spotlight on imaginary natural differences that properly belongs on real social differences.

More important, it undermines the achievements of individuals as individuals. Whatever gifts we each have are far more likely, from what we know of genetics, to be unique individual constellations of genes than to be expressions of group endowments.

Jonathan Marks teaches biological anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, and is author of "Human Biodiversity."

[Darorinag]

Oh boy, you really don't get it do you? The marker that is found among Sub Saharian Africans is not necessarly found among other blacks elsewhere. This is only purly statistical analysis, but since you consider blacks as inferiors, anything that disprove your belief is just wrong. You are acting like a Turk here that no matter what one may provide, won't move an inch from his preestablished belief. The only thing that this genetic test demonstrate is that 40% of the genetic makeup were from Sub-Saharian encestory, the other 60% most probably other blacks who did not possess that marker or others from the region. In order to be more specific, we have to use other genetic markers which would permit to study those 60% left.

My claim was not that they weren't black. My claim was that they weren't 100% Negroid. The article says:

The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations.

So that means that if "the frequency of genes from this area is estimated at around 39%", then the "morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley."

Now North Africans (particularly Egyptians) at the time were not Negroids. And even today, North Africans are not Negroids, although they are often a mixture of Negroid and Semites.

As for what I post, because they are not on the web, it must be because they are not relevant?

I never said that makes it irrelevant. I was simply trying to show you how your argument can be twisted into my viewpoint, and how then you will see that it is wrong.

If you look at the material I've posted, some of it has two sides of the story, unlike your biased articles.

You are acting like a Turk here

Refrain from personal attacks please.

You act exactly like a Turk here

Refrain from personal attacks please.

but since you have even not read the article and have read louseyourname comment, you insinuated that I have no read that article, because the article was saying the contrary of what I affirmed.(what you believed based on anothers opinion)

You are making assumptions again. How do you know I haven't read it? In fact, I did read them.

And another thing, it takes brain dommage to compare Armenia a country that the literacy rate is of 99% with a country where there would be hardly anyone understanding what an IQ test is, because the majority of the population is illetrate.

Here you go, from the CIA world factbook, on Equatorial Guinea literacy:


total population literacy: 85.7%

For Armenia:

total population literacy: 98.6%

Assuming that this difference contributes to the IQ gap, let's say, for 10 IQ points, you still have 6 IQ points difference. And I'm being VERY generous here, I even lowered Armenia's IQ estimate from 93 to 90 (although it was an estimate between Russia and Turkey, and could as well be higher than 93) and had a margin of error of 15. So a minimum of 6 IQ points if I'm VERY VERY generous... Now let's also be super generous and assume that Lynn is right in that a 4 points difference would be considered comparable. You still have that gap of 2, and that is AFTER you've subtracted the alleged margin of error of 15 IQ points, which might not have existed.. actually, it's lower than 15. it's probably closer to 5 or 6.

To add to that, education is not really a defining marker of intelligence. But above, I am assuming that it is, and hence why I reduced the 10 points for the difference in illiteracy.


Now let's look at Iran, shall we?

total population literacy: 79.4% (CIA world factbook)

IQ: Iran - 84

total population literacy for Eq. Guinea: 85.7%

IQ: Eq. Guinea - 59

But what can we expact from a Dan, that do believe things not based on supportable evidences, but because of his preconcieved beliefs.

Look above, genius. Your theories about the correlation between IQ and illiteracy just crumbled.

total population literacy for China: 86%
IQ: China - 100

Compare with Russia:

total population literacy for Russia: 99.6%
IQ: Russia - 96

Syria:
total population literacy: 76.9%
IQ: Syria - 87

Turkmenistan:
total population literacy: 98%
IQ: Turkmenistan - 87

India:
total population literacy: 59.5%
IQ: India - 81

Uganda vs India:
Uganda literacy: 69.9%
India literacy: 59.5%

Uganda IQ: 73
India IQ: 81

Dear lad, try again. But before claiming that literacy and IQ have a positive relationship, make sure you know what you're talking about. And I can come up with many more examples.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Anonymouse It is racist to state that there are racial differences. Most researchers think blacks have more inherent athletic ability than whites. This is a scientific question of interpreting the evidence, and is just like evaluating the evidence for IQ differences. Notice how one is "racist", but the other is clearly never questioned.

Of course, that's because of the social effects of being called "dumb", although I don't think civilized people would use such a term. This is because we live in a time where it's OK and even encouraged for men to be more feminine acting, and even sissies. Notice that this happens mostly in non-black communities though, blacks are portrayed as very masculine and physical. So physical strength and masculine / feminine behaviour is not emphasised as much as intelligence is. First they had a revolution on gender. Now they're having a revolution on race. Let's see what's next. You gotta love those "liberals." Now that they've "asserted" the physical superiority of blacks, they want to FORCE everyone to "admit" that the blacks are equal to non-blacks in intelligence, and hence, if you take the whole package, blacks would be even more superior than the rest of the pack which lags behind.