Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Too White to Win (now enhanced with an evolutionary biology lecture!)
Comments
-
-
HurtfulDennis_DeYoung said:
The correct person to ask here is @WilburHooksHands - he's the keeper of all Houston knowledge.WeakarmCobra said:
I think curne comes from a fairly nice middle class black family that understand what Pete is selling. If curne was from the hood, then a different story. @Tequilla is the high school curne went to in the hood?dnc said:Here's a big question, can a black coach do a better job of making the slow strategy approach appeal to black kids? Obviously Bonerpopper and Lake do the best job of bringing in black kids on the staff, but they also recruit the blackest positions. Are they getting black kids because they're black, or because that's the position they recruit? I'm guessing with Lake it's A and Keif it's B. Would a black coach on the DL or LB do a better job getting Fast Strategy kids to buy into Slow Strategy life? Obviously it would have to be the right black coach, but it seems likely the answer is yes.
The next question is how well do poly coaches sell fast strategy to black kids since we have two on our staff and another poised to be promoted?
Final thought - how the fuck did Huff pull Curne from Texas??? That might have been the recruiting job of the year. -
I was going to go all Middlebury for a moment before realizing this was a really good poast.AZDuck said:
This is a pretty fascinating concept - in part because the science of it starts to veer toward verboten topics like eugenics and the Bell Curve. But of course, there are both genetic and sociological factors present WRT athletic performance.dnc said:
Good chit. This is definitely the smartest thread of 2018. I'm learning and shit.NorwegianHusky said:
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.Dennis_DeYoung said:
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it.
I think it is difficult for laypersons to distinguish between the real science and the junk science and to avoid lazy generalizations.
This is a good discussion though.
-
If you are mixed race you should be a shoe in for UW. Worked for me.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:
I can confirm this. However, my RSA side of the family is very wealthy. They moved to Canada in the late 70s but in SA they were objectively in the middle class. Mixed race families in RSA can really range from wealthy to poor depending on if the father/male is black or white.NorwegianHusky said:
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.Dennis_DeYoung said:
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it. -
#fauxcahontasSwaye said:
If you are mixed race you should be a shoe in for UW. Worked for me.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:
I can confirm this. However, my RSA side of the family is very wealthy. They moved to Canada in the late 70s but in SA they were objectively in the middle class. Mixed race families in RSA can really range from wealthy to poor depending on if the father/male is black or white.NorwegianHusky said:
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.Dennis_DeYoung said:
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it.
Just kidding... -
I have high cheek bones man.YellowSnow said:
#fauxcahontasSwaye said:
If you are mixed race you should be a shoe in for UW. Worked for me.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:
I can confirm this. However, my RSA side of the family is very wealthy. They moved to Canada in the late 70s but in SA they were objectively in the middle class. Mixed race families in RSA can really range from wealthy to poor depending on if the father/male is black or white.NorwegianHusky said:
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.Dennis_DeYoung said:
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it.
Just kidding... -
Now you're getting it.BlastDoor said:It's great, I forgot that this board has a token black, a token native, a token asian. I can see how I fit in as a token latino. It's like I was born to do this. Now we just need a poly man so we can be a truly multiethnical board.
-
And now you're REALLY getting it.BlastDoor said:
I don't get the joke, but I'll upvote so I feel like a part of group.RaceBannon said:
You might want to meet our token LatinaBlastDoor said:It's great, I forgot that this board has a token black, a token native, a token asian. I can see how I fit in as a token latino. It's like I was born to do this. Now we just need a poly man so we can be a truly multiethnical board.
@allpurpleallgold -
It's not even eugenics, it's discussing heritable traits that is increasingly verboten - except when it's not.AZDuck said:
This is a pretty fascinating concept - in part because the science of it starts to veer toward verboten topics like eugenics and the Bell Curve. But of course, there are both genetic and sociological factors present WRT athletic performance.
I think it is difficult for laypersons to distinguish between the real science and the junk science and to avoid lazy generalizations.
This is a good discussion though. -
I would say that it is most certainly not INCREASINGLY verboten. It's probably increasingly accepted in science (maybe some PC dickwads on twitter don't like it, WGAF).jarlsbergraygun said:
It's not even eugenics, it's discussing heritable traits that is increasingly verboten - except when it's not.AZDuck said:
This is a pretty fascinating concept - in part because the science of it starts to veer toward verboten topics like eugenics and the Bell Curve. But of course, there are both genetic and sociological factors present WRT athletic performance.
I think it is difficult for laypersons to distinguish between the real science and the junk science and to avoid lazy generalizations.
This is a good discussion though.
However, at issue is that when traits are mostly discussed on the positive side (like athletic ability) there's not so much danger in understanding heritability. However, we should all (IMO) rightly be cautious when we start talking about who is worthy of equal treatment, human, etc.
When we look at heritable traits, it's important to have a firm understanding of what the 'trait' is. Muscle mass, height, etc. is all relatively easily perceived (though we are still developing understanding), measured and understood. However, there is not a single unifying theory of intelligence, social behavior or learning that can guide us in terms of what's being inherited. IQ, EQ, school performance, SATs etc are easily shown to be constructs that are (at the very least) second order. They are groups of ideas for which no one in humanity has hit bedrock on.
To say it in language @Swaye can understand: mental traits (like intelligence) are not like muscles, we cannot directly measure them. No one agrees on them and what they are, are for, etc.
So, looking at 'trait' heritability in cases where we don't fully understand the traits is nonsense.
This, coupled with our common tendency to view out-groups as inhuman and we have some serious reason to be careful.
TLDR: Physical traits are pretty easy to understand. Mental ones aren't.
