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 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. Drop
> Earl Jones, James Robinson, David Mack, John Marshall, Tony Padilla, a
> younger Mark Everett and others from that era into today and they would be
> sweeping the national championships, AND would be challenging at the world
> level. ALL were world ranked at some point, and all ran sub 1:44. Your
> lack of historical perspective is showing.
>
>
>> We live in a WORLD. I know you might believe that the US is the center of
>> all things good, but try to take a broader view here.
>>
>> Beyond the 800 meters, THERE ARE NO BLACKS OF OVERWHELMINGLY WEST AFRICAN
>> ANCESTRY WHO HAVE TIMES RANKED AMONG THE ELITE. NONE. ZERO.
>
> As I said before, is Steve Holman a little green man from Mars? (Maybe
> that explains is his problems at nationals ;^)). And how do you account
> for southern Africans? And what about the very successful Kenyan 400
> runners of the 70s and 80s listed previously?
>
> To put it simply, your theory is much too simplistic and totally fails to
> capture the wide variety of individuals and what motivates them to pursue
> different endeavors. Your thesis is as laughable as the one put forward in
> the "Bell Curve," which tried to masquerade as a scientific study by
> manipulating the facts and conveniently ignoring other primary explanations
> such as socio-economic standing and cultural influences.
>
>
>>> It makes me wonder if
>>> you have ever been to a track meet!
>>
>> Richard, that's your mirror talking.
>
> I'll leave it to the list to judge that issue.
>
> This is my last post on the issue. Apparently presenting an internally
> logical explanation that incorporates much of Mr. Entine's empirical
> findings are not sufficient. I must be willing to buy his entire ideology!
>
> Richard McCann
--
Jon Entine
RuffRun
6178 Grey Rock Rd.
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
(818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804
http://www.jonentine.com
