# OT: Anthropology and the NBA



## August West (Oct 27, 2003)

As I was skimming through the predicted NBA team depth charts provided by ESPN.com I started to notice some interesting trends with regard to representation of race and nationality amongst the league's starters. Of the 30 teams’ 150 available starting jobs, I counted 32 (21%) of those jobs were predicted to be filled by Caucasian players. Of those 32 Caucasian starters, 17(53%) are international players, 13 (40%) play the center position, and 7 (21%) have been All Stars during their career (Nowitski, Nash, Sojakovic, Ginobili, Kirilenko, Szerbiak, and Miller) Of those Caucasian All-Stars only 2 (Wally Szerbiak and Brad Miller, each only one All Star appearance) are Americans, meaning only 1.3 % of total NBA starters are Caucasian Americans and All-Stars. 

These numbers lead to some interesting anthropological questions with regard to the NBA. Granted this is just a quick, amateur statistical analysis, however based on these numbers one could argue that being white and American in the NBA is synonymous with “role player”. How is the paucity of white American star players in the NBA, as compared to international born players, explained? Can the popular argument that international players receive a greater emphasis on the fundamentals of basketball during their development explain this? Or can this discrepancy be attributed different cultural expectations that white Americans face as opposed to those of international origin. For example, a white player growing up in the United States, weather true or not, is exposed to the “White Men Can’t Jump” stereotype that black players are simply better athletes and perhaps will be better suited for success in basketball. You can imagine that this popular (mis?)conception might be a deterrent for some white players to pursue the sport, or for those that do, to feel completely confident in their abilities. This is a cultural dynamic that international players simply do not face with the same intensity. Anyway, perhaps this question is of interest to no one but me, but I thought I’d throw it out there for discussion. I’m just curious what folks think.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Very interesting analysis, I think your assumption about the "white men can't jump" syndrome is probably somewhat accurate. White players in the U.S. try to emulate players they grew up watching, a majority who are African / African American. As has been proven the makeup of a caucasian male muscle wise to a African male is completely different in terms of short twitch/fast twitch muscle fibers. Thus caucasian players end up trying to emulate a style of game that isn't best suited for their genetic makeup. Caucasian European players emulate other caucasian european players whose style of game are better suited for the caucasian genetic makeup IMO. Frankly I don't know "jack" about the science of this, just going back to the little bit I learned in HS and College. 

Although I do think your mention of focusing on pure fundamentals has alot to with it as well. Fundamentals just aren't stressed enough here in the U.S. in young basketball players IMO.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> As has been proven the makeup of a caucasian male muscle wise to a African male is completely different in terms of short twitch/fast twitch muscle fibers.


Being a biologist, I'd sure like to see the "proof" of that one. As a biologist I know that "race" is not a biological but a social category and that racial differences are literally skin deep.
I look for sociological explanation. Certain sports are associated with certain demographics. Basketball in the US, especially men's basketball, is associated with urban inner city street ball. So it's not surprising that these young men would dominate the sport. When teams look outside the country they are going to look not for mediocre (they can find that here without dealing with translators and contracts to foreign teams) but for the best, hence the prevalence of all-stars, and with positions that are hard to fill (centers & power forwards). Sadly, in some cities there is a feeling that fans won't root for an all-black team. Coaches will play their best players even if they're green Martians, but when it comes to the 11th and 12th men, they won't get much PT. Sportswriter Jim Ballinger ran the stats and showed that while black players dominate the 1-9, white players dominate the 10-12 slots. He hypothesized that some GM's are more likely to fill the benchwarmer slots with white native born players in order to avoid an all-black team.
You can see trends in baseball, for a time it was a truly multiracial sport. After Jackie Robinson, black boys wanted to be baseball players and they played and played. Then for various reasons basketball became primary. In 2005 less than 10% of MLB rosters are native born black players. It's not because black men lost their ability to throw and hit a baseball, it's sociological. Meanwhile, Latin players from pale to very dark skin tones are more and more dominant because baseball is the national sport in many Latin countries (where it isn't soccer) and is seen as the ticket out of poverty. Latin boys play baseball all day just as some U.S. black boys play basketball all day.
You can also see trends in other physical activities. While tennis has the Williams sisters and golf has Tiger Woods, both are heavily white. Equestrian events, skiing, swimming, diving, speed and figure skating, gymnastics, hockey are heavily white, and many of these involve jumping. These sports also involve expensive training and/or specialized equipment, something that in the U.S. are more likely to be available to white people who are in general more prosperous, or are seen as "foreign" such as hockey. In dance, European males dominate in ballet, since ballet in the U.S. is seen as "gay" or a "girl thing" and straight boys often avoid it, while in Europe there is no such connection. It's not that American straight men are incapable of _tours en l'aire_ or lifting a ballerina while Russian straight men are capable of doing so.
Incidentally, female college basketball players have high graduation rates while men's rates are dismal. Is it biological, are women smarter? Much as I'd like to say yes I have to say it is sociological. Men in Divison I college basketball have dreams of NBA millions. Women, even if they play professionally, make much less money so have to plan for post-sports careers and hence pay more attention to their education.


----------



## Chalupa (Jul 20, 2005)

I'd agree with *crandc* in that social and cultural practices are primary reasons for these trends.

That said as a 5'8" white guys with no hopps and hands the same size as an average 12 year old girl; I know that some people are not genetically inclined to be NBA players.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> Being a biologist, I'd sure like to see the "proof" of that one. As a biologist I know that "race" is not a biological but a social category and that racial differences are literally skin deep.


Hum I could have sworn I read that % of fast twitch/slow twitch muscle fibers was different in caucasians and africans. Well thanks for clarifying, glad i included my disclaimer saying I am basically a ******* when it comes to this subject. Apparently my memory of my HS and college isn't as good as I thought. 



> Frankly I don't know "jack" about the science of this, just going back to the little bit I learned in HS and College.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

I think it's cultural......and probably largely due to self-fulfilling cultural expectations.

Among white kids, is being an NBA player even on the radar screen as far as dream jobs? Maybe for a few. But my guess is it's a lot more common among black kids. It is obvious why......lots of rich black men in the NBA. The more black men that are in there, the more black kids aspire to that same goal. It is attainable in their eyes for themselves. For the majority of white kids, they are hardly even thinking about basketball, relatively speaking.

Likely, it would take either very dramatic American white player or a combination of numerous less-dramatic American white stars working together to change a trend like that in the NBA.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

I watched a program on TLC or Discovery on what makes a world class athlete. The scientists determined that the most important feature these athletes share is symmetry. Both sides of their bodies were as close to identical as possible. They were saying that even a tiny discrepancy in leg length can be the difference between a gold medal sprinter and a sprinter who wouldn't even be able to qualify for the Olympics.

They also noted that many athletes are very attractive for the same reason, their faces are symmetrical. Apparently the human eye and brain can subconsciously process these measurements and is drawn to the most symmetrical faces and perceives it as beautiful.

Anyway, kind of off the subject but I thought it was really interesting.

P.S. Before it even starts... Yes, I know there are exceptions and don't intend to start a thread about "The ugliest NBA players in the league".

P.P.S. Crandc, sometimes I read your posts and just think, "Dang, she's really smart". :biggrin:


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> Hum I could have sworn I read that % of fast twitch/slow twitch muscle fibers was different in caucasians and africans


It's very possible you did, sa. I've read wilder things than that. But I doubt you read it in a professional peer-reviewed journal!

One thing the Human Genome Project showed: we are pretty much alike. The difference between individuals in a "racial" group are larger than the average number of differences between "racial" groups, and every "racial" group carries among its members pretty much the entire complement of human genes. We see different features because we are raised in a society that puts importance on certain features. If you look at folks in your own "racial" group you can see there is huge variation in physical characteristics but it means little beyond personal taste.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> It's very possible you did, sa. I've read wilder things than that. But I doubt you read it in a professional peer-reviewed journal!


 :rofl: LOL me reading a professional Biology journal...I don't think I could understand the first sentence. I do pharmaceutical research now so if it involved that stuff then I might be able to grasp some of it. I do more of the research gathering though and let the Pharm D., MD, and Masters in Public Health people decide what it means.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that there is no difference from a biological standpoint, beyond color of skin. If skin color was the only difference then facial features would remain similar. Granted on a basic level there isn't much different, but it is fair to say IM (non qualified) opinion that people of different races have higher tendencies of physical attributes. Look beyond basketball, look at other sports Football, baseball, track. If you do a sampling of the fastest runners in each sport it is heavily in favor of the African american players, not to say that there aren't caucasian players present in the results, but is dominated by the african american athletes. I doubt that more African American kids are playing football than caucasian kids, in fact if you take a sampling of the US as a whole then African Americans are in the minority of the population, so if there were no difference in the likelyhood of them being faster, why then is it that a minority group is so dominant at a single aspect?

Even within Ethnic Racial Groups there can be differences, In Caucasians ther is in fact physical differences from "tribe" to "Tribe" wether it's muscles mass, fat content, height, etc etc...Obviously there are always exceptions.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/B0002H6NY8/102-5616258-4554569

Few issues are as provocative and as poorly understood as biological differences among the races. So loaded are statements suggesting racial superiority or inferiority that, for the most part, an anxious hush surrounds the topic.  copyrights fork. don't post that much information from another site. provide a link, and a small sampling. Or in this case, you could give a hint towards where it was located (down a bit from the initial link). Thanks


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that there is no difference from a biological standpoint, beyond color of skin. If skin color was the only difference then facial features would remain similar


That's not quite what I said, Schilly. I said differences are literally skin deep, meaning also hair etc. In other words, strictly our surfaces. Not our brains, moral character, athletic ability, et al. 
As for facial features ... look around. I've seen "black people" with thin lips and "white people" with thick ones, but thick lips are supposedly a "black" characteristic. I've seen people of European and of African descent with almond eyes, supposedly an Asian feature. 
The fact is, Nazis to the contrary, there are no "pure" races anymore. We are all pretty mixed. 
Here's a funny story. My mother had a friend, a light skinnned black woman. Clearly black but light skinned. Her grandfather had been white. She married a man who was very dark. They had one son who was in between. He married a woman who was black and Puerto Rican. She looked like a light skinned black woman. They have 3 daughters. Two resemble the parents and are clearly "black". In the youngest daughter the recessive Euro genes of both parents came out. She looks like a white girl. Light brown wavy hair, light eyes, fair skin, "European" features. So is she black? White? Puerto Rican? Can you call her "white" when her parents are "black"? Can you call her "black" when anyone seeing her without her family would think she's "white"?
I mean, my immediate ancestors came from Eastern Europe but they were Jews, who more remotely are Middle Eastern. We have retained Middle Eastern features but I have very light skin and blue eyes, characteristics of East Europe. Palestine was the main trade bridge between Europe on the one hand and Asia and Africa on the other, well into recent centuries. Human beings being what we are, no telling who among those old-time traders mixed with whom. My mother has a cousin who I once mistook for Japanese, her features are so Asian. 
The point of this screed is ... let's celebrate our individual differences. And let's make sports and arts available to all who enjoy and have a talent for them, regardless of whether they are a "black thing" or a "white thing", a "guy thing" or "girl thing", an "American thing" or a "European thing".


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> That's not quite what I said, Schilly. I said differences are literally skin deep, meaning also hair etc. In other words, strictly our surfaces. Not our brains, moral character, athletic ability, et al.
> As for facial features ... look around. I've seen "black people" with thin lips and "white people" with thick ones, but thick lips are supposedly a "black" characteristic. I've seen people of European and of African descent with almond eyes, supposedly an Asian feature.
> The fact is, Nazis to the contrary, there are no "pure" races anymore. We are all pretty mixed.
> Here's a funny story. My mother had a friend, a light skinnned black woman. Clearly black but light skinned. Her grandfather had been white. She married a man who was very dark. They had one son who was in between. He married a woman who was black and Puerto Rican. She looked like a light skinned black woman. They have 3 daughters. Two resemble the parents and are clearly "black". In the youngest daughter the recessive Euro genes of both parents came out. She looks like a white girl. Light brown wavy hair, light eyes, fair skin, "European" features. So is she black? White? Puerto Rican? Can you call her "white" when her parents are "black"? Can you call her "black" when anyone seeing her without her family would think she's "white"?
> ...


Cran thats fair enough, you will note later in my post that I mention that it isn't 100% but it does favor people haveing certain features....right here



> Even within Ethnic Racial Groups there can be differences, In Caucasians ther is in fact physical differences from "tribe" to "Tribe" wether it's muscles mass, fat content, height, etc etc...Obviously there are always exceptions.


Nothing is certain, but I think it is safe to say that people are predisposed to havig traits based on their background biologically. As you point out, lips, well if a noticably larger percentage of one group of people have thin lips versus another group, isn't it safe to say that it is a trait that is more common in said group? Asian people are in fact predisposed to having almod shaped eyes...DO they all have almond shaped eyes? Certainly not, be the odds are greater that an asian child will than a German child will. 

You are right celebrate our differences, I agree whole heartedly. Myself Heinz 57, French German, Native American, AFrican American (many generations removed but there nonethe less). I think the issues of race are so sensitive that people are afraid to discuss obvious traits that in fact are more likely to be different from one group to the next, the majority of which are a product of our ancestors environment.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I just want to add, that to me it is no different tha from family to family...

Example a couple the father is 6'5" and the mother is 6' tall....Odds are that their children will be 6' or taller
Neighbor couple Dad is 5'8" and Mom is 5'2" Chances are that their children won't be 6' or taller.

In either case it is possible that the child will be under 6' in the 1st or over 6' in the 2nd, but the genetics of it make it unlikely.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> Nothing is certain, but I think it is safe to say that people are predisposed to havig traits based on their background biologically


There are some, for example, people whose ancestors come from cold Northern climates tend to have pale skin. But people who come from cold Southern climates don't.

The traits that are known to have these connections are skin deep. And we are all so mixed you can't even go by them anymore. That trend is expected to increase; in the Dark Ages, few people strayed within 5 miles of where they were born. Very far from current patterns.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> There are some, for example, people whose ancestors come from cold Northern climates tend to have pale skin. But people who come from cold Southern climates don't.
> 
> The traits that are known to have these connections are skin deep. And we are all so mixed you can't even go by them anymore. That trend is expected to increase; in the Dark Ages, few people strayed within 5 miles of where they were born. Very far from current patterns.


Exactly and It would be safe to say that given time we will all be one race.

What about Sickle Cell Anemia? While not llimited to those with African heritage it is far more prevelant in people of African descent, here is one theory as to why....









So if that theory has credence then a environmental variable has led to a difference amongst a group with similar decent, that is more than skin deep. How about people of scandanavian decent who consume extremely high fatty diets, yet have little heart disease. Their bodies have adapted to be able to process foods differently, to accomodat their environmet, that's a little more than skin deep too. What about certain grops who are more or less likely to tolerate lactose?

Now let me ask....Why would any of these things be offensive?


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> How about people of scandanavian decent who consume extremely high fatty diets, yet have little heart disease


Now that's a real interesting one. Did you know when their descendents came from Scandinavia to America their rates of heart disease went up?
Because many in Scandinavia were farmers. The men and women both worked hard doing physical labor, but it was tuned to rhythm of the seasons, not a factory. And they took breaks to socialize during the day. They lived in close-knit communities with a lot of solidarity. They came here, worked in factories, lived in isolated apartments, ate the same food and heart disease increased. So was it genetics or environment?

And MAN are we getting far off basketball?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> Now that's a real interesting one. Did you know when their descendents came from Scandinavia to America their rates of heart disease went up?
> Because many in Scandinavia were farmers. The men and women both worked hard doing physical labor, but it was tuned to rhythm of the seasons, not a factory. And they took breaks to socialize during the day. They lived in close-knit communities with a lot of solidarity. They came here, worked in factories, lived in isolated apartments, ate the same food and heart disease increased. So was it genetics or environment?
> 
> And MAN are we getting far off basketball?


Of course now experts are saying that heart disease is more a result of elevated stress than anything, and in the real world the stress level in america is far higher than the rest of the world...really a result of our fast paced society.

The demands on the human body over the course of millenia do in fact mold it to what it is today. If you wnt to say it's cultural, fine, but culture also determines the demands on the body. Example, the muscles that farmers use are different thant hte muscles fishermen use, or Herders use.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

I'll toss in this tidbit: when we're talking about the NBA, we're talking about elite-level athletes. The separation in physiology and ability between them and non-NBA athletes is very small. This means that if a given gene pool (combined or relatively isolated) has even slightly higher averages for NBA-relevant traits, and have the opportunities/interest/motivation to play, then those people from that gene pool will show up in disproportionately high numbers in the final number of NBA-level players. On average, two groups might be very, very close, but at the extremes of the scale under extreme competition, the group representation would be very disproportionate.

It's very hard to have a full and accurate genetic history of any group or individual, and the variables of opportunity and motivation are huge, so I doubt there could be very much solid evidence to try and tie any groups to NBA success, but it's kind of interesting to think about. I've seen some of the considerable debate about the success of marathon runners coming from certain gene pools in west Africa, but I don't think there was anything conclusive even after much examination.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> marathon runners coming from certain gene pools in west Africa


Actually the marathoners come from East Africa mostly (Kenya, Ethiopia).....and alot of their dominance stems from training at high altitude (8,000+ ft).

That said, I don't think there's any doubt that there are differences in physiology that result in blacks being faster and better jumpers.....how can you explain their dominance in basketball, football, sprinting, jumping, etc? Especially when the overwhelming majority of youth basketball players (and track athletes, and football players) are white, yet as they grow up the vast majority of elite level (NBA, NFL, Olympic sprint/long jump) athletes are black. The numbers speak for themselves. As politically incorrect it is to say, I think whoever said it stems from the fact that slaves where paired to produce strong offspring is absolutely correct.

Funny, but there was one black kid in my entire high school.....and he just so happened to be the best player on the basketball team!


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Felonius, you are absolutely right that we are dealing with elite athletes and not the general population. You are also correct that it's hard if not impossible to separate genetics from environmental variables.
I admit I get irritated when I hear "theories" about black superiority in sports, because really aside from a certain group of sports (football except quarterbacks, basketball, some track and field activities, boxing) that is just not factually the case. And I forget who it was but one black pro athlete I saw on TV said it makes him nervous because it's a short jump from blacks being physically superior to saying white people are intellectually superior.
I am for equal opportunity for all in all sports ... and I'd still be a total klutz!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Here's a random point...I have even heard that caucasians are less athletic because of their early development of firearms. The argument basically was that caucasian's were able to shoot their prey / food rather then have to chase it down and or use a more physical means to kill it. 

Not sure of the validity of this hypothesis but I thought it was at the very least a interesting one.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Here's a random point...I have even heard that caucasians are less athletic because of their early development of firearms. The argument basically was that caucasian's were able to shoot their prey / food rather then have to chase it down and or use a more physical means to kill it.
> 
> Not sure of the validity of this hypothesis but I thought it was at the very least a interesting one.


I would assume actually that domestication of Horses would have affected that aspect even more so.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

crandc said:


> Being a biologist, I'd sure like to see the "proof" of that one. As a biologist I know that "race" is not a biological but a social category and that racial differences are literally skin deep.


OK. I'll bite. 

This is pure bunkum. There are differences between races, and genetics matter. A lot. Certain tribes in Africa have very short people. Others have far taller than average people. Environment? Nuts. If your folks are tall, you are likely to be tall as well. If your mother had a big butt, it is a good bet that you will, too. This should be obvious even to a biologist.

Let's broaden this out, and pick something which is truly not "skin deep" -- disease resistance. How come people from the West Indies are black and not Indian or European looking? Because African diseases like Malaria and Yellow Fever wipe out white folks, just like chicken pox wiped out Indians. The Indians settled the islands first, then the Europeans, but it is the ex-slaves, the late arrivals who brought African disease with them, who dominate the gene pool there now. These are clear differences between races which crandc would have us think are "just skin deep" and their resistance to diseases. As a very general rule, America was overwhelmed by non-fatal European diseases. And in warm climes, Europeans were in turn wiped out by African diseases. 

People can be bred for any genetic trait whatsoever. For thousands of years, Chinese have bred for intelligence. So have Jews (and got high rates of Schizophrenia as a byproduct). In Europe, the Catholic Church took the smartest folks and made them celibate (monks and nuns). Over a thousand years or two, it starts to make a difference.

Are blacks better athletes than whites? No. Crandc is right about this. There is astounding genetic variation between black people, much more than whites (there was a very long New York Times Magazine on this a dozen years ago or so). 

But it is empirically obvious that the *best* black athletes are better than the *best* white athletes. They run faster and jump higher -- even in ballet, a direction in which one does not assume sociological forces are at play.

Anyone who thinks the best black athletes are not athletically superior in clearly measurable ways than the best white athletes are simply blinded by their ideology. 

iWatas

P.S. Just to stir the pot (if I have not done it enough already)... The diseases that terrify us today are ones from Africa -- West Nile, AIDS, Ebola. Africa has more diversity than any other continent, and in that competitive environment superior specimens emerged. African animals (elephants and cheetahs and panthers and camels) beat the socks off their Indian and South American equivalents. African bees and ants dominate everywhere else on the planet. Is it any surprise that African people have best evolved to survive in that kind of environment? If people are just animals, why shouldn't the environment that generated the fastest, strongest and fiercest animals have done precisely the same thing with people?

Flame shields up! 
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Here's a random point...I have even heard that caucasians are less athletic because of their early development of firearms. The argument basically was that caucasian's were able to shoot their prey / food rather then have to chase it down and or use a more physical means to kill it.


I think this is incorrect. Humans have apparently evolved for millions of years. Common ownership of firearms is only 200-300 years old, and then only in places like the US (not Europe). That is not long enough to make a big difference. It takes a long time for traits to breed in or out.

iWatas


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> Flame shields up!
> :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:


You're a brave man, IW!

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I just wanted to ask about another variable that in a sense eliminates the cultuaral aspect....Communism.

We all know about sports in the eastern Block communist countries were handled almost like a military entity thebest were hand selected young and basiclaly their whole lives devoted to training. If the equality is there, how come Soviet Sprinters never dominated? Did they work less hard than the american sprinters (all I can remember were of african decent)? I think it could be said that they worked harder over the course of their lives, but it didn't make them favorites in the olympics. The Soviets were never really favirties in speed categories, but they were often favorites in strength sports, lifting, Shot Put, rowing, boxing, wrestling etc etc... 

The only caucasian I can remeber being a contender in the 100 was the fellow from Greece in 2000, but in an unusual development, he lost his eligibility for 2004 due to a failed drug test for performance enhancing drugs....Oops.Of Course there was a caucasian runner from IIRC Baylor University who was very fast in the 400 in the most recent olympics in Athens.

BTW someone stop me if I start sounding like Reggie White.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> BTW someone stop me if I start sounding like Reggie White.


I guess it's easy for me to say as a white male, but I don't think that accepting the possibility of differences based on ethnicity is bad or racist. I find it an intellectually untenable situation to do anything different (for many of the reasons that you and Iwatas articulate).

While it's been drilled into my head that we're all equal, that there are no differences between races, I don't see how that can be possible.

If we ASSUME that some african-americans have an enhanced predisposition to succeeding in certain sports, I don't think that it undermines any individuals' achievements one iota.

We know that most NBA players are pretty darn tall guys, but that trait doesn't diminish them as basketball players. Not every tall player is a good basketball player, and height alone doesn't define a player.

Similarly, any player who succeeds to the level of the NBA partly because of their athletic genetic predisposition--whether because of racial origin or because their parents were olympic athletes--deserves a tremendous amount of respect as a basketball player and no ethnic differences should change that.

But it also shouldn't be the case where we decline to study or talk about it merely because it's a touchy subject in our society and around the world, IMO.

Ed O.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

FeloniusThunk said:


> This means that if a given gene pool (combined or relatively isolated) has even slightly higher averages for NBA-relevant traits, and have the opportunities/interest/motivation to play, then those people from that gene pool will show up in disproportionately high numbers in the final number of NBA-level players.....It's very hard to have a full and accurate genetic history of any group or individual, and the variables of opportunity and motivation are huge, so I doubt there could be very much solid evidence to try and tie any groups to NBA success.....


The key here is what you termed opportunities/interest/motivation. There's no doubt there are physical differences between the so called races. However, IMO these other factors influence the numbers of blacks vs whites in the NBA a lot more than any inherent racial physical differences.


----------



## Swan (Jun 27, 2005)

This has been a pretty interesting thread to read.

One theory which hasn't really been discussed, which I think I remember from school is that when you are dealing with elite-level athletes, basically you are dealing with a very select group, well above the norm, almost a radical in terms of their genetic gifts.

What I think I remember from school is reading that Africa has more genetic variation in terms of the people that live there than other regions such as Europe etc, and that this increased genetic heterogenity and mixing raises the probability of people with the unique combination of gifts to make them an elite athlete. Again, I'm not 100% sure on that (and don't have a ready source to back it up,) but I do remember reading/hearing it somewhere in the foggy haze of collegedom. But this wouldn't be a race question then, but rather a genetic one.

As regards basketball, I think a lot of it is sociological. Different groups socially play different sports, and I believe athletes do tend to get "slotted" into different sports. I mean, how many African-American NASCAR drivers do we have? (I honestly don't know, cause I don't follow NASCAR)


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

Can anyone name one white cornerback in the NFL: a position that requires the most quickness and agility? There was Jason Sehorn a couple years ago, but he sustained a career ending injury.

And ALL of our top sprinters are AFRICAN AMERICAN. And the keyword is AFRO AMERICAN, not purely black. The athletes from Africa, are not necessarily better than athletes from any other country. Soccer is very popular in Africa, and commonly played, but african nations fare no better in soccer than European. In fact, Europeans are usually better.

The mixture of white and black genes, or the breeding of slaves seems to have created an ethnic group that is simply faster and quicker than regular white people.

However, Europeans have an advantage over Americans in that they emphasize skill more than athletisism. Not sure why there are hardly any sucessful white american players. I think the school of thought these days is to select the athlete over the shooter.


----------



## MrWonderful (May 18, 2003)

*Race: Quick-twitch muscle vs slow-twitch*

Some of you probably know that the African continent has the greatest genetic diversity of any continent. That's one of the proofs for the "Out of Africa" theory. Interestingly, Africa also has the greatest range of quick-twitch muscle vs slow-twitch muscle ratios, with black East Africans (and Kenyans in particular) having the highest ratio of slow twitch muscle fibers on the planet, and West African blacks having among the highest ratio of quick-twitch fibers. Caucasians of all sorts fall somewhere in between.

That's one of the reasons why Kenyans dominate distance racing events, while athletes of West African ancestry, including most North American, British and Caribbean blacks, are not among the world's better distance runners. However, runners of West African descent win most of the elite 100 meter races.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

CelticPagan said:


> And ALL of our top sprinters are AFRICAN AMERICAN. And the keyword is AFRO AMERICAN, not purely black. The athletes from Africa, are not necessarily better than athletes from any other country. Soccer is very popular in Africa, and commonly played, but african nations fare no better in soccer than European. In fact, Europeans are usually better.
> 
> The mixture of white and black genes, or the breeding of slaves seems to have created an ethnic group that is simply faster and quicker than regular white people.


Well, nutrition *does* count for something. Africans are not as well fed as Africans in the US. And yes, certain athletes from Africa are better. Kenyan runners are simply far better marathoners than African-Americans.

The slaves from Africa were not necessarily superior to the people who stayed behind. After all, the slaves were the "loser" tribes, the ones their neighbours captured and sold. If you had to bet on superior physical gifts, the genetic edge probably tips towards the black African slaver, not the African slave.

iWatas


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

Where are you people gettin' these facts from? Seriously, drop a link from somewhere reputable. Sounds like some of you guys are just spouting stuff that your 'smart uncle' told you.


----------



## MrWonderful (May 18, 2003)

*Re: Links*

I can't vouch for anybody else, but my commentary on Africans and quick v slow twitch muscle fibers is very common knowledge and 30 seconds on Google would satisfy your requirement.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

For those who haven't seen the ol' East vs. West African vs. the World athlete genetic thing, here's a good run-down: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0657.htm. I think it's pretty obvious that genetics matter, but the current research is a little amusing to see. It's kind of like reading 19th century physicists or (flame shields up) 20th century psychologists. The science is so new and primitive, the facts so thin and uncomprehensive, yet the arguments quickly go to the "God's plain truth" level of assertiveness. No one taking the time to write and publish really wants to admit just how preliminary any conclusions whatsoever can be (though there are always messageboards for us to go to!).

The funny thing is, while I can see a fair likelihood in the assertion that some East Africans have a genetic advantage for distance running, I don't see this having much to do with basketball. There are few clear physical advantages to the sport (height, quickness, jumping ability), but none that are overwhelming, and all are quite subject to needing complementary skills/traits to help, and are suspect to becoming less important via rules or trends in play. For awhile, every GM wanted to draft the next Michael Jordan, so speed and athleticism were overvalued. Now, with the return of zone defenses, shooting may become overvalued. Height will always matter to some degree, but there have been plenty of players of below average height (much less NBA average height) who have excelled. This type of mixing of skills and traits and trends just isn't possible in a competition as plain as running or powerlifting, so the whole argument has a somewhat limited scope for basketball.

Of course, there are always some willing to take wild leaps of imagination from a few base facts. Going from the prevalence of muscle fiber types in certain populations being largely responsible for success in basketball is illogical enough, but what most people are really afraid of is where it could go from there. Measuring how fast people can run a certain distance is simple. The relevant physiology is somewhat well understood. What goes into baseball or judo is not. What makes up intelligence is demonstrably not. Why can't people see the obvious truth, that [strike]blacks disproportionately outnumber whites[/strike], [strike]Liths, Serbs and Croats disproportionately outnumber other Europeans[/strike], city kids outnumber rural kids?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

BBALLSCIENCES said:


> Where are you people gettin' these facts from? Seriously, drop a link from somewhere reputable. Sounds like some of you guys are just spouting stuff that your 'smart uncle' told you.


Here's a topical source. This one is even less PC than the discussion here.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12002015_1

Here is an excerpt (the numbers are to footnotes):



> Two items in the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet IQ tests are known as “forward digit span” and “backward digit span.” In the forward version, the subject repeats a random sequence of one-digit numbers given by the examiner, starting with two digits and adding another with each iteration. The subject’s score is the number of digits that he can repeat without error on two consecutive trials. Digits-backward works exactly the same way except that the digits must be repeated in the opposite order.
> 
> Digits-backward is much more g-loaded than digits-forward. Try it yourself and you will see why. Digits-forward is a straightforward matter of short-term memory. Digits-backward makes your brain work much harder.59
> 
> The black-white difference in digits-backward is about twice as large as the difference in digits-forward.60 It is a clean example of an effect that resists cultural explanation. It cannot be explained by differential educational attainment, income, or any other socioeconomic factor. Parenting style is irrelevant. Reluctance to “act white” is irrelevant. Motivation is irrelevant. There is no way that any of these variables could systematically encourage black performance in digits-forward while depressing it in digits-backward in the same test at the same time with the same examiner in the same setting.61


iWatas


----------



## MrWonderful (May 18, 2003)

*In response to Felonius Thunk*

Actually, the science is pretty solid and simple. Here's a summary of skeletal muscle fiber types from Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cn...zcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_f_05zPzhtm):

muscle fibers, fast twitch: paler-colored muscle fibers of larger diameter than slow twitch fibers, and having less sarcoplasm and more prominent cross-striping; used for forceful and rapid contractions over short periods of time.

muscle fibers, intermediate: muscle fibers having characteristics intermediate between red and white muscle fibers.

muscle fibers, slow twitch: small dark muscle fibers rich in mitochondria, myoglobin, and sarcoplasm and with only faint cross-striping; designed for slow but repetitive contractions over long periods of time.

Thus fast-twitch muscle, "used for forceful and rapid contractions over short periods of time" will be more useful for quick first steps, full-court dashes, and skying to the hoop, while slow-twitch muscle will enable players to maintain the levels of endurance necessary for extended minutes. Since we all have a mixture of these two (and the intermediate type, as well), our basic "toolkit" of fiber types will predetermine, to some degree, where our individual talents may lie. 

That's not to say that we cannot modify our musculature, particularly before we mature: "Muscle fiber types and their relative abundance cannot be varied by training, although there is some evidence that prior to maturation of the muscular system the emphasis on certain activities can influence their development (http://webanatomy.net/anatomy/muscle3_notes.htm).

Merge the above information with the statistical studies concerning ratios of muscle fiber types among genetic forebears and you have some information from which to fashion a general theory that can help relate natural abilities on the basketball court and genetic ancestry.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Good grief. This is going all over the map and I will not try to deal with everything.
1. Shortness. A lot of ethnicities were thought to be genetically short, then when nutrition improved so did height. There is a genetic component in height but it is individual. There are short and tall people across the world. And in virtually every socieity height is correlated with income. The better the income, the taller the children. You see that among immigrants who came to the US seeking a better life; many prospered and their children are taller than they are. The exception is the Netherlands. Currently the Netherlands has the tallest average population, both men and women. In the Netherlands they have had comprehensive free medical care, including nutrition, dentistry and preventive care, for 3 generations. It is one country where you can no longer tell socioeconomic status from physical appearance (clothing maybe, but not looks); working class, middle class and wealthy are all tall, well nourished and have good teeth.
2. Eastern Europe. Yes they did select and train elite athletes, but they concentrated on certain sports. I don't know exactly how many Olympic sports there are but it's a lot and no country, even a large one, can be well represented in all of them. Most Eastern European countries with smaller populations focused on a handful of sports.
3. Again on "race" and sports. Baseball is increasingly dominated by Latin American players. Are Latins genetically better baseball players than people of European or African descent? If so, why are there almost no American baseball players of Latino descent? The Latins are all from other countries, not born here. The few exceptions like Eric Chavez are mostly assimilated Latinos (Chavez can't even speak Spanish). 
4. Muscle twitches. Yes they exist and there are variations. What I question is "proof" that some "races" have, as a group, different kinds.
5. Intelligence. Chinese and Jews do NOT "breed for intelligence". It's impossible, first of all. Unlike height which can be objectively measured, there is no objective measure for "intelligence"; there is not even a generally accepted definition for "intelligence". There is certainly no single gene for "intelligence". What Jews and Chinese do have is a reverence for scholars and an emphasis on education. That means that a poor family will sacrifice material comforts to educate their children. I know this was true in my (Jewish) family; we did not have the material goods that other families in our neighborhood did, but all of us went to college. In another culture the family might be more likely to buy the new TV or whatever.
BTW, what were the quotes from? Sounds like "The Bell Curve", which has been largely exploded. The fact that someone can find a quote to say some people (usually white) are smarter than others does not mean it is factual.
6. Guns, not only answered already, but gunpowder was actually invented in China. Weapons have had a major impact on world history but not on athletic ability of groups.
7. Disease resistance. This is a function of geography, not "race"; people living in an area where a certain disease was prevelant gained immunity because the susceptible people died off, providing a selective advantage to resistant people. In the case of Native Americans, for example, they had never encountered smallpox, so a huge proportion of the population died. In Europe, where smallpox was a regular scourge, there was more resistance because the susceptible portion of the population was more likely to die and less likely to leave (susceptible) offspring. Basic genetics, but not a "racial" difference, a difference devloped over centuries. Similarly, it is true that sickle cell trait carries some immunity to malaria. Sickle cell trait is not common among all people of African descent; only those whose ancestors are from areas of the continent where malaria is endemic.
8. The issue of race. There are no pure races. We are all mixed. It's simply not possible to say that this or that trait is a characteristic of this or that "race". 
I'm out.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

crandc said:


> Good grief. This is going all over the map and I will not try to deal with everything.
> 1. Shortness. A lot of ethnicities were thought to be genetically short, then when nutrition improved so did height. There is a genetic component in height but it is individual. There are short and tall people across the world.


Good grief indeed! Do you actually believe this nonsense? Are you suggesting that pygmies, with proper nutrition, are the same height as equally undernourished Africans from other tribes who are much taller than the world's averages? 

What I *will* say is that race is only a very general classification. Or as the Commentary author puts it (much better than I could):



> In all cases, the variation within groups is greater than the variation between groups. On psychological and cognitive dimensions, some members of both sexes and all races fall everywhere along the range. One implication of this is that genius does not come in one color or sex, and neither does any other human ability. Another is that a few minutes of conversation with individuals you meet will tell you much more about them than their group membership does.


But then we have more Crandc....


> And in virtually every socieity height is correlated with income. The better the income, the taller the children.


Sure. This is why the NBA is dominated by black men. Because blacks make more money than whites. Now I see the light! :banana: 



crandc said:


> 5. Intelligence. Chinese and Jews do NOT "breed for intelligence". It's impossible, first of all. Unlike height which can be objectively measured, there is no objective measure for "intelligence"; there is not even a generally accepted definition for "intelligence".


I agree with you 100% that there is no objective way to measure intelligence. There are different kinds of smart, and different kinds of stupid. But that is no excuse for ignoring that "smart" and "stupid" still exist and have meaning!

Every society has subjective ways to measure intelligence, and they give pretty good ideas of the differences between a stupid person and a smart person. China had tests, and people who could pass the tests, in turn married the offspring of others who could as well. Among observant Jews, there has been two millenia of breeding for logical (Talmudic) skills. Great scholars marry their children off (these are arranged marriages, remember) to the children of other great scholars. If this is not breeding for intelligence, I don't know what is. 




crandc said:


> BTW, what were the quotes from? Sounds like "The Bell Curve", which has been largely exploded.


I gave the source. I recommend that you go straight to the underlying studies. Attack the scholarship, not the scholar.



crandc said:


> 7. Disease resistance. This is a function of geography, not "race"; people living in an area where a certain disease was prevelant gained immunity because the susceptible people died off, providing a selective advantage to resistant people. In the case of Native Americans, for example, they had never encountered smallpox, so a huge proportion of the population died. In Europe, where smallpox was a regular scourge, there was more resistance because the susceptible portion of the population was more likely to die and less likely to leave (susceptible) offspring. Basic genetics, but not a "racial" difference, a difference devloped over centuries. Similarly, it is true that sickle cell trait carries some immunity to malaria. Sickle cell trait is not common among all people of African descent; only those whose ancestors are from areas of the continent where malaria is endemic.


You are tying yourself in knots. Let's see here... even though race is geographical, we cannot classify by it. We can classify by disease, because it *is* geographical. Yeah. That makes sense. 

What, precisely, is the difference between saying that since certain Africans were hunter-gatherers, faster men survived and bred (so certain African tribes have very fast men), and saying that since certain Africans were exposed to disease, they have a resistance to that disease? What is the big problem between admitting that native americans have a much lower alcohol tolerance (something any scholar will admit), and admitting that there may be other racial differences as well?



crandc said:


> 8. The issue of race. There are no pure races. We are all mixed. It's simply not possible to say that this or that trait is a characteristic of this or that "race".
> I'm out.


You claim to be a biologist. Take dogs. Every dog is "genetically" virtually identical to every other dog. Yet there are very different "races" of dogs. Like people, they can interbreed. And like people, totally "pure" races may not exist. Yet do you deny that Great Danes tend to have bigger offspring than Daschunds, and that nutrition does not explain it all? Do you deny that some dog "races" are, on average, bigger or smaller, faster or slower, more clever, less clever than others? Or are you saying that people are not at all like other animals? If so, you would be a rare biologist indeed!!!

The same Commentary source:


> Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity.27 In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self-identified ethnic group.28 When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.


I suggest you take a look at the references quoted, and open your mind! I'll make it easy for you. See 

Commentary again


> Tang, Quertermous, Rodriguez et al. (2005). The self-identified ethnic groups consisted of non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, East Asian, and Hispanic. The statistical procedure was cluster analysis. The algorithms in cluster analysis are not trying to find groupings that correspond to any pre-identified characteristic of the people in the sample—that is, the researchers did not use any information about the physical characteristics that humans use to identify ethnicity. Cluster analysis simply looks for interrelationships among the genetic markers that identify statistically distinct entities.


Any scientist worth their salt actually examines the evidence before stating their opinion. But what I am reading here is a case of: "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." You can do better.

iWatas


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> Good grief indeed! Do you actually believe this nonsense? Are you suggesting that pygmies, with proper nutrition, are the same height as equally undernourished Africans from other tribes who are much taller than the world's averages?


Actually, Iwats, although there are some true "pygmies", first they are not a "race". Second, in some cases groups that were thought to be pygmies did indeed gain if not exceptional at least average height when better nourished.

Jews don't breed for Talmudic skills, that is close to an insult, aside from being just plain bizarre. Talmudic skills are inherited? So a converted Jew can't understand Talmud because he/she does not have the genes?

Iwats, you make a lot of statements but I see no evidence, you just ridicule what I and others say. Just what you accused me of.


----------



## dr_a2k (May 26, 2003)

i am so sick of this talk all the time about black vs white and so on, there is no reason to talk about it b/c do we ever find the answer? no we dont, lets drop it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> Actually, Iwats, although there are some true "pygmies", first they are not a "race". Second, in some cases groups that were thought to be pygmies did indeed gain if not exceptional at least average height when better nourished.


Nobody's saying that nutrition is not a factor. It CLEARLY is. But environment alone doesn't determine height, IMO.

And mere variance within a population doesn't mean that there are no group-wide trends. So stating that there are tall and short people all over the world doesn't mean much to whether certain "races" tend to be taller or shorter than others.



> Jews don't breed for Talmudic skills, that is close to an insult, aside from being just plain bizarre. Talmudic skills are inherited? So a converted Jew can't understand Talmud because he/she does not have the genes?


Does intelligence aid in Talmudic study?

Does intelligence have any genetic basis at all, and is that set of genetic traits and/or dispositions something that can be passed to offspring?

I would say yes to both questions, and I think that most people would, too. Based on that I think that IWatas's position makes more sense than your distortion of it. Maybe you're not reading what he's written very carefully.

Ed O.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> Does intelligence aid in Talmudic study?
> 
> Does intelligence have any genetic basis at all, and is that set of genetic traits and/or dispositions something that can be passed to offspring?


Some things are obvious.
Intelligence, however defined, aids in studying anything. But breeding for intelligence when it is almost certainly a complex interplay of numerous genetic factors and environmental factors is not possible now, let alone 2000 years ago when genetics was unknown.
As for what can be passed to offspring, again it's hard to tell. For example, if a family emphasizes music or science then it's not surprising if many of its members are musicians or scientists, but how much is aptitude (at least some of which is inborn, no amount of training will make a singer out of someone who just can't carry a tune) and how much environment is anyone's guess. 
And again we're talking individuals. The fact that Luciano Pavarotti can sing hardly means all Italians, let alone all Europeans, can sing.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: In response to Felonius Thunk*



MrWonderful said:


> ...
> 
> Thus fast-twitch muscle, "used for forceful and rapid contractions over short periods of time" will be more useful for quick first steps, full-court dashes, and skying to the hoop, while slow-twitch muscle will enable players to maintain the levels of endurance necessary for extended minutes. Since we all have a mixture of these two (and the intermediate type, as well), our basic "toolkit" of fiber types will predetermine, to some degree, where our individual talents may lie.
> 
> ...


This is all fine and well, but is far from scientific and I don't see it making the case you seem to think it does. There are two big implicit assumptions about the beginning and end points: figuring out who has what muscle group attributes (skin color or "African" isn't enough, and will probably be even less useful as a flag in the future), and that there is some particular, well-defined, testable combination of muscle composition that will make better basketball players (I alluded to this before, with rules/trends changing what defines desirable skills and traits: not every Michael Jordan style athlete makes a good basketball player, though many believed it for awhile).

There are trends, like height=good and quickness=good, but those aren't nearly as determinant in basketball as simpler sports. Everything else being equal, size/speed/strength wins, but all else is never equal. If it were really this easy, draft results would be much more predictable, for one thing. 

This, to me, is a pretty good example where a little bit of science and fact can get stretched beyond the logical conclusions. I don't think I'll try and touch the more extreme examples Iwatas et al bring in about intelligence.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think it is a mistake to assume that by identifying differences from one group to the next that it is creating a division in any way, or that differences are degrading. 

It's also a mistake to a mistake to assume that there are 3 basic races, as there are several branches within each. 

It doesn't offend me that there are characteristical differences, wether it's something as simple as height or something much more complex. It Does concern me though when qualified people say that there is a predisposition for people of western african decent to be better jumpers or more explosive runners at an elite level, that people wnat to discredit what should be considered a compliment.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> Some things are obvious.
> Intelligence, however defined, aids in studying anything. But breeding for intelligence when it is almost certainly a complex interplay of numerous genetic factors and environmental factors is not possible now, let alone 2000 years ago when genetics was unknown.
> As for what can be passed to offspring, again it's hard to tell. For example, if a family emphasizes music or science then it's not surprising if many of its members are musicians or scientists, but how much is aptitude (at least some of which is inborn, no amount of training will make a singer out of someone who just can't carry a tune) and how much environment is anyone's guess.
> And again we're talking individuals. The fact that Luciano Pavarotti can sing hardly means all Italians, let alone all Europeans, can sing.


Again Pavorotti is an elite singer...And then you have to factor culture, where european Opera is far mor prevelent in Italy than it is in Brazil. Also singing isn't something that is measurable as a talent, it is opinion. I have heard people who are perfect in pitch but the tome of their voice is like anils on a chalkboard, yet have heard people with beatuiful voices, but no sense of tone at all...

Physical accomplishments such as speed and jumping are measurable.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Does intelligence aid in Talmudic study?
> 
> Does intelligence have any genetic basis at all, and is that set of genetic traits and/or dispositions something that can be passed to offspring?
> 
> ...


I suspect you're dodging the obvious questions for the sake of argument: have Jews and Chinese been "breeding for intelligence" more capably than others? Since the successful tend to marry the successful everywhere and everywhen, good luck providing anything resembling evidence on that one.

And why am I reminded of some reading many years ago, where Romans commonly thought the barbaric north would never have the intelligence for mathematics and higher pursuits. Probably not may people feel that italians are innately superior at math nowadays. Of course, reeks thought Romans were lesser, Egyptians probably thought the Greeks were, etc. I suppose it's human nature to assume that the current state of affairs must be some sort of grand culmination of plans or events, rather than just, well, the current state of affairs.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

FeloniusThunk said:


> I suspect you're dodging the obvious questions for the sake of argument: have Jews and Chinese been "breeding for intelligence" more capably than others? Since the successful tend to marry the successful everywhere and everywhen, good luck providing anything resembling evidence on that one.


I have no idea whether Jews or Chinese did any such thing. Could it happen, though? Sure. And was Iwatas stating that converted Jews cannot be successful Talmudic scholars? I didn't see that at all.



> And why am I reminded of some reading many years ago, where Romans commonly thought the barbaric north would never have the intelligence for mathematics and higher pursuits. Probably not may people feel that italians are innately superior at math nowadays. Of course, reeks thought Romans were lesser, Egyptians probably thought the Greeks were, etc. I suppose it's human nature to assume that the current state of affairs must be some sort of grand culmination of plans or events, rather than just, well, the current state of affairs.


The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans had very little concept of statistics or the scientific method. While my personal knowledge of each of these is rudimentary, I would bet that my paradigm is still much more advanced than the approach taken by civilizations that have been gone for over a millenium.

I'm making no judgments on intelligence here, other than not precluding genetic predispositions that could be strains for certain tribes/ethnicities/races. 

Also, unlike the ethnocentric perspective based on cognitive abilities that your example civilizations had (and which I will accept I might have, too), some things related to basketball and sports in general aren't as subjective or transitive as "intelligence". Height, speed, arm length, etc., are all measurable and seemingly more objective than how we define intelligence today and attempt to capture in tests.

Ed O.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

FeloniusThunk said:


> I suspect you're dodging the obvious questions for the sake of argument: have Jews and Chinese been "breeding for intelligence" more capably than others? Since the successful tend to marry the successful everywhere and everywhen, good luck providing anything resembling evidence on that one.


Jews are what, 2% of the US population, and 0.2% of the world's population?

% Jewish 
20-30% Westinghouse Science Prize
30% Faculty at elite colleges
30% Supreme Court Law Clerks
27% Ivy Leaguers
25% ACM Turing Award
27% Nobel Prizes won by Americans

And yes, this is a result of breeding as well as culture (they are behaviorally inseparable). I know of many Jewish families who can trace their bloodlines back 1000 years, generations upon generations of scholars and rabbis. There is inbreeding as a result -- dynastic rabbinical families married their intellectually-qualified cousins for so long that uniquely Jewish diseases like Tay-Sachs resulted. Mental illness is far more prevalent as well. Schizophrenia is FAR more common among the brightest families -- the very thin line between genius and madness is well known in Jewish circles. 

Jews are also, by any objective measurement, WORSE athletes than other white-folk. White Jewish men have a MUCH better chance of owning the NBA team than ever playing on one. Work ethic, like nutrition, can make you better. But unless the genetic stuff is there, neither work ethic nor good food can vault someone into the ranks of the elite. This is true for any competitive environment whatosever.

So yes, one can breed for any inherited trait or genetic predisposition -- and I would argue that there are certain groups of people who have been doing precisely that for a long time, with some success.

iWatas


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

crandc said:


> As for what can be passed to offspring, again it's hard to tell. For example, if a family emphasizes music or science then it's not surprising if many of its members are musicians or scientists, but how much is aptitude (at least some of which is inborn, no amount of training will make a singer out of someone who just can't carry a tune) and how much environment is anyone's guess.


Well, let's take an objective measurement for musicians. One cannot put a number on musical ability or talent for composition or somesuch. But we *can* work from a very well known ability which is clearly identifiable -- perfect pitch. 

Like intelligence, there is no "perfect pitch gene" one can point to. It is almost certainly a combination of many genetic factors.

http://perfectpitch.ucsf.edu/ppstudy.html


> ... a sibling (with early musical training) of a Perfect Pitch possessor is as much as 15 times more likely to possess Perfect Pitch than is another individual with early musical training but with no family history of Perfect Pitch.


So in answer to your position that it is "anyone's guess" how much is genetic is also debunked. If you have certain talents, they are more likely to be passed on to your offspring. This seems like common sense -- after all, children often *do* look like their parents. If the parents are tall, the kids are more likely to be tall as well. And if the parents are vietnamese, the children are not very likely to look aryan. What on earth is the difference between inherited physical *appearance* and inherited physical *traits* or predispositions? 

And why, oh why, do we consider it *unthinkable* that the fact that we inherit physical traits might imply that we can also inherit mental traits? Is not the brain part of the body?

This all looks like the commonest of sense to me. I guess it takes an idiot like me to point out that the emperor is buck nekkid. 

iWatas


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Jews are what, 2% of the US population, and 0.2% of the world's population?
> 
> % Jewish
> 20-30% Westinghouse Science Prize
> ...


(I know I'm supposed to be working, but I can't resist.)

This is circular logic, not evidence. You're trying to prove the Jews are smarter because they "breed" for it. How do we know Jews breed for it? Because they're smarter. That's circular. It's subtle and sounds good, but isn't actually logical. I'm open to the fact that it might be the case, but see no evidence for it.

Indeed, in the case of Jews a simple piece of contra-evidence comes to mind: traditionally, for lo these many millenia, Jews marry Jews, regardless of intelligence. That gives a bit of evidence to the Tay-Sachs syndrome frequency, but seems to be the opposite of "breeding" for intelligence (and can't we use a word that doesn't bring to mind animal husbandry, like "select for" or "favor" or something?).

I should get extra points for using "lo" in a sentence not involving Christmas.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

FeloniusThunk said:


> How do we know Jews breed for it?


I know it as firsthand knowledge. I live within a very observant Jewish community, and the arranging of marriages is a very serious business. The single most important factor in a young man within this community (be it Gateshead or London or New York or Jerusalem) is: how well does he learn? Put another way: what kind of a scholar is he?

This question is answered in hindsight as well. Everyone knows that so-and-so married such-and-such's daughter. Geneology is part and parcel of a Jewish education, and great families are legendary for their learning. Learning is the only way a poor Jew in Eastern Europe could move up the social ladder. Every yeshiva student dreamed of marrying the Principle's daughter. In fact, friends of mine just celebrated the engagement of their son to his very prominent teacher's daughter. And voila! They have arrived. They have now become someone.

Within Yeshivish and Chassidish circles, great scholars *are* the aristocracy. And they have been since at least the fall of the Roman empire. The Talmud records at length whose children married other great scholars. Within my own family, ancestors kept the family geneology. Until my grandfather, every one was a Rabbi or the daughter of a Rabbi, going back to medieval France. And that is just what is recorded. At weddings of these aristocrats today (many of them very poor), breathless guests recite the bloodlines of the bride and groom with awe. A society which measures people on the basis of their ancestors' scholarship is one which is always concerned with perpetuating these bloodlines. The best marry the best.

I'll add to this that communities committed to supporting their scholars. Even if a village was very poor, they paid for at least one scholar. He was consistently the most likely person, because of this support, to be able to feed his family. And in generations where 10 children were often born, with 3 or 4 survivors, that kind of extra edge makes a difference. 

Conclusive? Probably not for everyone. But enough for me. FWIW, I have precisely the same bias. I married a woman who attended an Ivy League school, who went on to get a PhD, and who is descended from very bright parents. The chain is likely to continue.

iWatas


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

Whites tend to be smarter, blacks tend to be faster. Now let's just put this discussion to rest. And please don't have a hissy fit about my comments. We're like different breeds of dogs, we have different attributes and different abilities.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

CelticPagan said:


> Whites tend to be smarter, blacks tend to be faster. Now let's just put this discussion to rest. And please don't have a hissy fit about my comments. We're like different breeds of dogs, we have different attributes and different abilities.


This is clearly a gross oversimplification and insulting to most--if not all--people.

I'm not going to go into why I think this, but since I've posted in this thread I want to make sure that no one thinks my silence here would act as agreement.

Whether that's a hissy fit or not I don't know.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> This is clearly a gross oversimplification and insulting to most--if not all--people.
> 
> I'm not going to go into why I think this, but since I've posted in this thread I want to make sure that no one thinks my silence here would act as agreement.
> 
> ...


I'll agree with Ed O completely on this one, more than anything for the complete and utter lack of tact involved, in post in question.


----------



## MrWonderful (May 18, 2003)

*Re: Smarter/Faster*

I want to go on record noting that my commentary only regarded ratios of quick-twitch to slow-twitch muscle fibers among peoples of regional ancestry. Any discussion about relative intelligence among racial subtypes has been thoroughly discredited.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: Smarter/Faster*

I am torn about this. On the one hand, I believe deeply that everyone was made in G-d's image. What this means is that there should be as much equality of opportunity as possible. 

What concerns me is that a lot of people miss the nuance, and conclude that since People X are smarter than People Y, then there is no use in giving People Y the same opportunities. This is how racists from eugenics and nazis to the KKK have tried to change this world -- based on the attributes they assign to specific groups. I think this policy of NOT debating racial differences is at the core of political correctness -- a very good and righteous desire to keep Pandora's box closed tight, even if that means shutting down debate. If I had to choose between honest discussion with racist outcomes and dishonest discussion and no racist outcomes, I'd probably plump for the latter. 

But I'd like to think that people are smarter than that.



MrWonderful said:


> Any discussion about relative intelligence among racial subtypes has been thoroughly discredited.


MrWonderful is suggesting that discussion *itself* is discredited. This is saying that we cannot discuss things in the first place, never mind what conclusions we might draw. I hope he is wrong. Only with lots of discussion and searching can we ever even hint at truth. We certainly cannot find the truth by refusing to ask questions.

Variations within groups exceed variations between different groups. People of all kinds come from all races. So "blacks are faster" is not supported by the evidence. Yet, "The fastest blacks are faster than the fastest whites" is perfectly obvious to all but the most ideologically blinkered. I think we can all agree on this. 

The question is whether or not we can (or should!) even discuss the variations between groups. I can tell you that had I expressed myself ten years ago as I have here, I would have been condemned as evil incarnate. So I guess we are moving back toward more open debate. And I'd like to think that this is a good thing. It depends on whether or not people understand the limits of the conclusions, and our duty to treat every person on this planet as if they have g-dliness within them. Because, IMO, they do.

iWatas


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

*Re: Links*



MrWonderful said:


> I can't vouch for anybody else, but my commentary on Africans and quick v slow twitch muscle fibers is very common knowledge and 30 seconds on Google would satisfy your requirement.


Just as I suspected. 100% myth.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Smarter/Faster*



Iwatas said:


> The question is whether or not we can (or should!) even discuss the variations between groups. I can tell you that had I expressed myself ten years ago as I have here, I would have been absolutely pilloried. So I guess we are moving back toward more open debate. And I'd like to think that this is a good thing. It depends on whether or not people understand the limits of the conclusions, and our duty to treat every person on this planet as if they have g-dliness within them. Because, IMO, they do.
> iWatas


I think this is very well put. The intentions of political correctness are good but they sometimes get carried away. I think that if everyone in the debate carried the attitudes that you are displaying here, there would be no need for political correctness. 

As an intellectual debate, it is interesting and valuable, but when it gets to the point where people are being declared "superior", it becomes counterproductive to an open and free society.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

This has been a real interesting thread. Glad it wasn't crushed by the PC police.


----------

