Re: t-and-f: Follow the money?....one last post...well I guess not
>From: Jon Entine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Follow the money?one last post...I promise..:) > >Alan: > >You could say all you want that the 800 meters is not a distance event, but >this is a matter of climes, not boxes. Physiological studies show that one >needs to draw on your aerobic energy reserves after about 45 seconds or so. >That makes 800 meters very much a distance race. The anatomical and >physiological profile of every event is slightly different. Check out >JMTanner's studies on this, or more recent ones by Robert Malina, Claude >Bouchard, Lindsay Carter, and many others. There is quite a large gap >between the 400 meter profile and the 800 meter profile. Period. And the 1500 and 800 profiles are very different as well. Coe and Juantorena represent two examples of completely different profiles that were essentially equally successful at 800 (and not that NEITHER is Kenyan). Essentially, the 800 stands at the fuzzy border between distances and sprints, with more and more sprint types moving into the event over time. >Here is a fact: athletes of West African ancestry (African Americans in >particular) will NEVER become great long distance runners. There might be >some abberations, generally because of racial mixing and the roulette wheel >of genetics, such as Johnny Gray. There you go again, making ABSOLUTE generalized statements that you cannot support. What about Brazilian Roba DaSilva? And if you are counting the 800 as a distance event, Gray is far from an "aberration"--he is in fact the norm! I think you need to take a look at the US 800 all time list, or just the start of the Olympic Trials 800 this year. It makes me wonder if you have ever been to a track meet! African-Americans, whom I assume are of West African origin, hold an almost dominant position in the event. And few blacks competed in this event until James Robinson started in the mid-1970s. We're seeing more of them in the 1500 as well now, with Holman and Lassiter as good, but not sole, examples. There may be proportionately FEWER great distance runners of West African descent, but that is far from NONE, which is what you're saying. Richard McCann
Re: t-and-f: Follow the money?....one last post...well I guess not
At 09:01 PM 5/2/2001 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote.. >Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 18:02:17 -0700 >From: Jon Entine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Try to grasp the difference between INDIVIDUALS and GROUPS. There may be an >"ideal" body type based on the AVERAGE of INDIVIDUALS, but it is not >eliminate the possibility of wide variation. So if you grasp the difference between individuals and groups, why is it that you insist on making broad generalizations about groups with NO exceptions for individuals? You never once mention the dispersion of individual traits and the impact on relative levels of ability. Best as I can tell from your posts (and since this discussion in on this list, I insist sticking to statements made here, not in your book), here is what you have been saying: The genetic traits of various groups differ widely around the world, leading to dramatic relative differences in abilities between the groups. The differences among these groups (e.g. East Africans in distances, West Africans in sprints) are so large as that individual variations WITHIN any one group is not sufficient to close the gap in ability differences among those groups. Here's my basic thesis: The mean ability levels of various groups around the world are approximately the same in genetic makeup. However, the variations in ability levels as determined genetically within a particular group differ significantly from group to group, i.e., the standard deviation differs (and perhaps skewness as well). This difference in variation leads to some groups have more individuals of outstanding abilities in certain endeavors (e.g. East Africans in distances, West Africans in sprints). In addition, certain other factors--cultural, economic, nutritional, etc.--influence the preponderance of individuals who become successful in those endeavors. My thesis is not so different from yours, but uses a more sophisticated application of statistical theory and allows for a wider variety of explanatory factors. >I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. The lack of scientific >sophistication on this point is unbelievable. > > > > > >> Here is a fact: athletes of West African ancestry (African Americans in > >> particular) will NEVER become great long distance runners. There might be > >> some abberations, generally because of racial mixing and the roulette > wheel > >> of genetics, such as Johnny Gray. > > > > There you go again, making ABSOLUTE generalized statements that you cannot > > support. What about Brazilian Roba DaSilva? > >Last I noticed, Roba DaSilva was not an African American or of West African >ancestry. He is a mix of three different genetic ancestries, European, Asian >and West African. In fact, I discussed this in an article I wrote for a >Brazilian magazine that's on my web site. > >I'll say it again: Athletes of West African ancestry (African Americans in >particular) will NEVER become great long distance runners. You just refuted yourself and conceded my point! DaSilva is of West African descent! You said that such athletes will "NEVER become great distance runners." There are virtually no "purebreds" left in the world, e.g., you should well-know that 90% of African Americans have some European lineage. And what about Holman and Lassiter? Are they little green men from Mars? And again, you make NO allowances for differences in culture or climatic conditions. Try becoming a top line distance runner in a region where temperatures are above 90 and humidity similarly high almost year-round? It is one heck of lot easier to become a sprinter in those conditions! >You may not like such statements -- and sure, there is a chance that natural >human diversity will prove the absolute statement wrong...but as a >GENERALIZATION, it is absolutely accurate... Generalizations should NEVER be made with the word "NEVER." > >And if you are counting the > > 800 as a distance event, Gray is far from an "aberration"--he is in fact > > the norm! > >I have dealt with this before, but here goes: the 800 is on the cusp between >sprints and distance events. IT is certainly not a "long distance event." Then why did you bring up Gray as an "aberration" in the first place? I was only addressing your claim. > >I think you need to take a look at the US 800 all time list, or > > just the start of the Olympic Trials 800 this year. > >WHO CARES ABOUT THE US--LOOK AT THE INTERNATIONAL RESULTS. Even at the 800, >ONLY 11 percent of the top times are held by runners of West African >ancestry (and almost all by one man, Johnny Gray). 57 percent are held by >Kenyans or other East/North Africans and 22 percent by whites. Not so fast--if you look at the world lists from the 1980s through to the early 1990s, you'll find that US runners were in fact quite competitive and often medal favorites. The decline of US 800 running is in absolute terms relative to that period, not just relative to the rest of the world.
Re: t-and-f: Follow the money?....one last post...well I guess not
On 5/3/01 11:58 AM, "Richard McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 09:01 PM 5/2/2001 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote.. >> Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 18:02:17 -0700 >> From: Jon Entine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Try to grasp the difference between INDIVIDUALS and GROUPS. There may be an >> "ideal" body type based on the AVERAGE of INDIVIDUALS, but it is not >> eliminate the possibility of wide variation. > > So if you grasp the difference between individuals and groups, why is it > that you insist on making broad generalizations about groups with NO > exceptions for individuals? You never once mention the dispersion of > individual traits and the impact on relative levels of ability. I've actually mentioned in numerous times. > > Best as I can tell from your posts (and since this discussion in on this > list, I insist sticking to statements made here, not in your book), here is > what you have been saying: The genetic traits of various groups differ > widely around the world, leading to dramatic relative differences in > abilities between the groups. That's only partly accurate. The differences are actually small, and they are not group differences but differences at the elite level. >The differences among these groups (e.g. > East Africans in distances, West Africans in sprints) are so large as that > individual variations WITHIN any one group is not sufficient to close the > gap in ability differences among those groups. > > Here's my basic thesis: The mean ability levels of various groups around > the world are approximately the same in genetic makeup. This statement is not accurate or even coherent. "Mean ability levels" are neither the same nor different in genetic makeup ..it's a non sequitur as you wrote it. If you meant that the mean ability levels of different populations are the same, that too is not accurate. If you mean that the mean genetic makeup of different populations around the world is the same, that too is not accurate. >However, the > variations in ability levels as determined genetically within a particular > group differ significantly from group to group, i.e., the standard > deviation differs (and perhaps skewness as well). This may or may not be true, but it is speculation. The distribution curve of abilities may be shifted to one side or another, or longer at the ends, or fatter at the ends, or a combination of all three. Scientists are quite certain that INDIVIDUAL differences, as represented by the ends of the normal distribution curve, are quite different for some phenotypes from one population to another (and the makeup of the population itself can change based on the phenotype..a population can be geographic -- Rift Valley East Africans -- or otherwise socially constructed -- people who are lactose intolerant). > This difference in > variation leads to some groups have more individuals of outstanding > abilities in certain endeavors (e.g. East Africans in distances, West > Africans in sprints). Again, a non sequitur. If you are saying that the greater genetic variation leads to greater phenotypic variation and that results in more individuals of outstanding abilities in certain endeavors, you are absolutely wrong on a number of counts. Genetic variation does not relate with even mild correlation to greater phenotypic varation. If you are saying that greater phenotypic variation is correlated with more individuals of outstanding abilities in certain endeavors, that may or may not be true depending on what endeavor you are focusing on. In your examples cited, East Africans in distance and West Africans in sprints, there is NO evidence to suggest that their success in sharply different endeavors has anything at all to do with variation (of what ever kind you are suggesting), let alone their performance in certain sports. If anything, the truth is probably the opposite of what you state. The less phenotypic variation, the more likely one population is likely to find success at a particular body-type/physiologically linked sport because their distribution at that phenotype would be fatter and (perhaps) longer. >In addition, certain other factors--cultural, > economic, nutritional, etc.--influence the preponderance of individuals who > become successful in those endeavors. That's a truism that adds nothing to the debate. > My thesis is not so different from > yours, but uses a more sophisticated application of statistical theory and > allows for a wider variety of explanatory factors. Thank you for such a sophisticated analysis. Grade: D. Now retake logic and statistics 101. > > >> I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. The lack of scientific >> sophistication on this point is unbelievable. >> >> >>> Here is a fact: athletes of West African ancestry (African Americans in particular) will NEVER become great long distance runners. There might be some abberations, generally because of racial mixing and the roulette >> wheel of ge
Re: t-and-f: Follow the money?....one last post...well I guess not
Jon wrote: > Thank you for such a sophisticated analysis. Grade: D. Now retake logic and > statistics 101. Not that I agree with all of Richard's points, but my statistics 101 said that you can't conclude much from correlations like the ones that have been cited. My logic 101 teacher said that when using logical analysis provides results that don't make intuitive sense, chances are you are missing something. I'd say Richard's posts match what my teachers told me more than yours. - Ed Parrot
