I am not sure if I should be astounded or offended by all of this. I am really conflicted. But I will admit this is super interesting, and I presume, relevant. This place is so fucking bizarre.
Agreed.
I love this board because there are a lot of smart people here that know shit that I don’t. And the board is also great because we are better than other sites where you have to pay for info you can get here (minus Ruth, Ruth is the GOAT).
So this thread is really serious and basically graduate level stuff is being discussed in a sane manner. Meanwhile at Dawgman, they are trying to figure out how to start a fire with sticks and hurling their feces at each other.
Anyways, love you all.
Would all you fuckos stop plagiarisming my shit? Shit is my bailiwick.
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.
It's not even eugenics, it's discussing heritable traits that is increasingly verboten - except when it's not.
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).
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: physical traits (like huge tits) are not like intelligence, we can directly measure them. Everyoneagrees 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.
Not to be a contrarian, but based on the Fast strategy I should have been a great athlete. I wasn’t.
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.
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
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
Not to be a contrarian, but based on the Fast strategy I should have been a great athlete. I wasn’t.
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.
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
People suck at probability and statistics. And understanding causation vs correlation.
Not to be a contrarian, but based on the Fast strategy I should have been a great athlete. I wasn’t.
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.
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
People suck at probability and statistics. And understanding causation vs correlation.
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.
Comments
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
Case closed. Simple fact.
It's why humans developed things like religion.