Too White to Win (now enhanced with an evolutionary biology lecture!)
Comments
-
RhythmicSlappingDawg said:
I love how Dennis chins his own poasts, it's something only a fast strategy gay man would do.
-
Ivory tower fag DDY, is also the best DDY.
-
Self chinning is the epitome of fast strategy.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:I love how Dennis chins his own poasts, it's something only a gay man would do.
-
Stop plagiarism my shit fucko.dnc said:
Self chinning is the epitome of fast strategy.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:I love how Dennis chins his own poasts, it's something only a gay man would do.
-
You yankoff right? Does that make you gay? I would chin my shiet if I could.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:I love how Dennis chins his own poasts, it's something only a gay man would do.
-
It's almost as if this thread is laden with sexual innuendoes.
-
Neil Sedaka?RaceBannon said:Somewhere in the distance I hear the bells ring
Darkness settles on the town as the children start to sing
And the lady 'cross the street she shuts out the night
A cast of thousands waiting as she turns out the light
But we're too white, too white, too white
Too white to win
But we're too white, too white, too white
Too white
London boys are gazing, girls go hand in hand
A pocket full of innocence, the entrance is grand
The queen of the dream stands before them all
She stretches out her hand as the curtain starts to fall
But we're too white, too white, too white
Too white to win
But we're too white, too white, too white
Too white
Standing by the trapdoor aware of me and you
The actor and the clown—they're waiting for their cue
And there's a lady over there. She's acting pretty cool
But when it comes to playing life she always plays the fool
But we're too white, too white, too white
Too white to win
But we're too white, too white, too white
Too white
But we're too white, too white, too white
Too white to win
But we're too white, too white, too white
Too white -
Bottom line: We need more blue-hued blacks.
Case closed. Simple fact. -
People suck at probability and statistics. And understanding causation vs correlation.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Fast strategy doesn't have anything to do with being an athlete directly. Though it may influence kids to try and play sports in a kind of 'get rich or die trying' sort of way.tvoie said:Not to be a contrarian, but based on the Fast strategy I should have been a great athlete. I wasn’t.
Also this is an interesting (but ultimately flawed) podcast on how race affects athletic performance: http://cooperandrupert.com/2016/04/24/deep-dive-7-why-african-americans-dominate-american-sports-2/
All the people here say FS things, but it is interesting.
One guy comes on and says 'oh, it's all genetics, West Africans have that shit', the next guy (who is an AfAm prof and don't fucking get me started on the social science gulag that is ethnic/social construct studies) says 'oh it has nothing to do with genes, AfAms just try harder and have less options' (BS).
The third guy, who is the best, but is logically incoherent says 'well, it has to do with genes, but genes don't have to do with race' - and he's right about that on an important level. The thing he's wrong about is that he doesn't seem to understand how co-occurence is not perfectly determinant.
Basically the thing is, just because west africans in general have more of the type of genes that make you a good athlete it doesn't mean that ALL west africans have those genes. It also doesn't mean that people from other parts of the world don't have them either.
It's a pretty easy idea, but I agree with the dude that in America we've gotten ourselves so hyped up on the IDEA of race that we treat it like it's a real thing instead of being (as I've said) just a confluence between (what we perceive as) phenotype similarity and cultural similarity.
Humans are weird in terms of how they understand categories.
Anyway, let's say mama bear has 70% of the genes you need to be a great athlete and papa bear has 70%, the kid is going to (on average) have 75% of those genes. If you have a population that is normally distributed around 70% of those with a standard deviation of 14% you can easily see how mate pairings from THAT population are going to render MORE athletes, but not everyone from that population will be a great athlete.
Similarly, if you have a population of where the average amount of genes you need to be a great athlete are 20% and the standard deviation is 5%... well, you get the picture.
It's - like most things - about averages. We can, on average, predict that football players in America are going to be (what we call) 'black' and fast-strategy.
It doesn't mean you have to be those things to be a good athlete, it doesn't mean that being those things makes you a good athlete. It's just that ON AVERAGE those will be traits associated with being a good athlete.
When you bet the averages you usually win. Ask Vega$!!!! lolololol
It's why humans developed things like religion.
-
This shit is confusing so my people created mescaline so horses and chickens and shit could answer our questions. Works every time.whlinder said:
People suck at probability and statistics. And understanding causation vs correlation.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Fast strategy doesn't have anything to do with being an athlete directly. Though it may influence kids to try and play sports in a kind of 'get rich or die trying' sort of way.tvoie said:Not to be a contrarian, but based on the Fast strategy I should have been a great athlete. I wasn’t.
Also this is an interesting (but ultimately flawed) podcast on how race affects athletic performance: http://cooperandrupert.com/2016/04/24/deep-dive-7-why-african-americans-dominate-american-sports-2/
All the people here say FS things, but it is interesting.
One guy comes on and says 'oh, it's all genetics, West Africans have that shit', the next guy (who is an AfAm prof and don't fucking get me started on the social science gulag that is ethnic/social construct studies) says 'oh it has nothing to do with genes, AfAms just try harder and have less options' (BS).
The third guy, who is the best, but is logically incoherent says 'well, it has to do with genes, but genes don't have to do with race' - and he's right about that on an important level. The thing he's wrong about is that he doesn't seem to understand how co-occurence is not perfectly determinant.
Basically the thing is, just because west africans in general have more of the type of genes that make you a good athlete it doesn't mean that ALL west africans have those genes. It also doesn't mean that people from other parts of the world don't have them either.
It's a pretty easy idea, but I agree with the dude that in America we've gotten ourselves so hyped up on the IDEA of race that we treat it like it's a real thing instead of being (as I've said) just a confluence between (what we perceive as) phenotype similarity and cultural similarity.
Humans are weird in terms of how they understand categories.
Anyway, let's say mama bear has 70% of the genes you need to be a great athlete and papa bear has 70%, the kid is going to (on average) have 75% of those genes. If you have a population that is normally distributed around 70% of those with a standard deviation of 14% you can easily see how mate pairings from THAT population are going to render MORE athletes, but not everyone from that population will be a great athlete.
Similarly, if you have a population of where the average amount of genes you need to be a great athlete are 20% and the standard deviation is 5%... well, you get the picture.
It's - like most things - about averages. We can, on average, predict that football players in America are going to be (what we call) 'black' and fast-strategy.
It doesn't mean you have to be those things to be a good athlete, it doesn't mean that being those things makes you a good athlete. It's just that ON AVERAGE those will be traits associated with being a good athlete.
When you bet the averages you usually win. Ask Vega$!!!! lolololol
It's why humans developed things like religion.






