Are blacks better athletes than EVERY OTHER RACE

[rjv]

so when i watch manu, i am really watching a black man ?

[LnGrrrR]

Sure. Like economics and sociology, two other so-called sciences.

Eh, I see a slight difference between psychology and economics/sociology. The difference? Patients can speak for themselves on the efficacy of the treatment.

Sure, there's things like selection bias and placebos, etc etc, but that happens with regular medicine as well.

If psychologists do X procedure, and it works 75% of the time, as opposed to Y procedure which works 30% of the time, then go with procedure X based off scientific research.

With economics and sociology, you can spin the data any which way you want... it's not like money and dead people can speak for themselves.

[Winehole23]

Eh, I see a slight difference between psychology and economics/sociology. The difference? Patients can speak for themselves on the efficacy of the treatment.

The satisfied customer. Ok.

That's different from economics for sure, but lots of things have satisfied customers.


Advertising and marketing have empirical analysis and satisfied customers; does that make it science?

[DarkReign]

so when i watch manu, i am really watching a black man ?

Latinos dont count. Different thread.

[rjv]

Latinos dont count. Different thread.

sorry. my mistake.

[jack sommerset]

so when i watch manu, i am really watching a black man ?

No, you are watching a athlete from another country that did not have to go through the ty sterotypes our country put race in. If he had to go through our sports system he would be playing soccer or baseball.

[LnGrrrR]

The satisfied customer. Ok.

That's different from economics for sure, but lots of things have satisfied customers.


Advertising and marketing have empirical analysis and satisfied customers; does that make it science?

Eh, in a sense. For instance, if X tactic when advertising helps sell 50% more product, in the majority of campaigns it's used in, then that's using empirical research to back up a claim. (ie science)

Of course, that says nothing about the PRODUCT, or whether the ad was tasteful/truthful/arty etc etc. But I would think that if I were to make a claim, say that bandwagon commercials cause consumers to buy more product, then did the relevant research and laid out my findings, I don't see how it wouldn't be science.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sorry the blacks kept you from going pro, jack.

[Winehole23]

But I would think that if I were to make a claim, say that bandwagon commercials cause consumers to buy more product, then did the relevant research and laid out my findings, I don't see how it wouldn't be science.

I can see what you mean, but at the end of the day economics, sociology, psychology and things like mass marketing are essentially liberal arts straining to be sciences. They follow scientific procedures and review, but at their core human gooeyness dictates the limit of quantifiability and resists theory.

[jack sommerset]

I'm sorry the blacks kept you from going pro, jack.

You should't blame blacks. It's not there fault. ing racist.

[ChumpDumper]

You could have been a contender, jack.

I'm sorry the blacks and every Pop Warner coach in America ruined it for you.

[David Bowie]

Tennis, Swimming, and some other soprts that nobody has ever heard of are mostly white.

[DarkReign]

Tennis, Swimming, and some other soprts that nobody has ever heard of are mostly white.

The Williams sisters say "Hi".

[hater]

You should't blame blacks. It's not there fault. ing racist.

of course it was the black's fault. they ran faster and jumped higher than you.

don't worry. eventhough you will not be making $$$ in sports endorsments at least you will have a decent life after 50s. give some take some

[jack sommerset]

of course it was the black's fault. they ran faster and jumped higher than you.

That is racist.

at least you will have a decent life after 50s. give some take some

I eat red meat, I live next to a cigarette smoker, I have a cell phone, I drink soda, I ony go to the doctor once every two years (I pay for my own healthcare), I own a gun, I without rubbers, and I drink water from the tap. I should be dead already!

[hater]

That is racist.

nature is racist. just accept it and move on

I eat red meat, I live next to a cigarette smoker, I have a cell phone, I drink soda, I ony go to the doctor once every two years (I pay for my own healthcare), I own a gun, I without rubbers, and I drink water from the tap. I should be dead already!

and yet, you will probably outlive most black men in your generation.

[David Bowie]

The Williams sisters say "Hi".

I said mostly. And Serena is not the greatest of all time. Margaret Court, Steffi Graff and MArtina Navoratilova have all won a lot more grand slams then she has. The Williams sisters are great athletes. But if you look at the history of tennis (both men and women) , it is mostly a white sport.

[jack sommerset]

I said mostly. And Serena is not the greatest of all time. Margaret Court, Steffi Graff and MArtina Navoratilova have all won a lot more grand slams then she has. The Williams sisters are great athletes. But if you look at the history of tennis (both men and women) , it is mostly a white sport.

All white and not American.

[mogrovejo]

I can see what you mean, but at the end of the day economics, sociology, psychology and things like mass marketing are essentially liberal arts straining to be sciences. They follow scientific procedures and review, but at their core human gooeyness dictates the limit of quantifiability and resists theory.

Why? Agreed about sociology, most of the psychology, mass marketing and, of course, normative economics, but I think it's difficult to argue that economics isn't a science (and I don't particularly like the hard/soft science dichotomy). What are the criteria that make a field a science or not? Is meteorology a science?

[LnGrrrR]

I can see what you mean, but at the end of the day economics, sociology, psychology and things like mass marketing are essentially liberal arts straining to be sciences. They follow scientific procedures and review, but at their core human gooeyness dictates the limit of quantifiability and resists theory.

True, but then you're REALLY limiting the definition of the word "science", in my eyes. Also, as 'gooey' as humans are, I think that many facts about the world can be just as gooey, or at least, human interpretation of those facts.

[MiamiHeat]

and I drink water from the tap. I should be dead already!

Actually, in the United States, municipal water supplies are quite safe to drink. Bottled water is no safer to drink than city water.

[mogrovejo]

Frankly, I'd be shocked if heritable traits for intelligence -- whatever those are -- were distributed in an equalitarian way. And I have little problem with the idea science could someday produce credible generalizations showing this.

I'm skeptical of the people who are so keen to know in the results right now,and a bit mystified about why the research is so important.

After all, differences of intelligence within racial groups is going to be much greater then the mean differences between them.

Isn't that suggestion of ulterior motives a way of conditioning the interest of people by using a bogey man? "Oh, this guy is researching the relationship between race, genes and intelligence, I wonder if he likes to burn crosses...".

The obvious problem with this kind of pressures - that are very intense and widespread in the academic/political world - is the precedent they open. I find the analogy with the creationism/evolutionism debate quite apt. It's a form of obscurantism to use scaremongering, even if with the best intentions and for good political reasons, to obstruct the discovery of the truth.

Maybe we're better without knowing some things. I admit that. All the preliminary evidence that points to an existence of a relationship between ethnic groups, certain genes, big head sizes and psychometric tests results will eventually lead to some racist groups claiming a scientific support for their political thesis. I don't see the big deal. It doesn't make them right in any way. But in the end we can't really know what things we're better without knowing, because we don't know what we don't know and it will prove to be futile: the impetus to search the truth is too strong.

What if there are some guys with a couple of alleles selected and their common in some populations but not others (and, because of that, have some sort of cognitive advantage)? Dr. Lahn research has pretty much settled that there are differences in brain function between groups. Yeah, probably asians are smarter than whites and whites are smarter than blacks because of their different evolutionary process. But as you say the differences withing groups are much, much larger, and, in the end, the difference in genetics is microscopic when compared with the similitudes.

The danger is that, as it's already happening, genetics research when it comes to the brain is abandoned because of the fear of repercurssions if "politically incorrect" results are find:

"You have to follow the data wherever it leads, but speculating in this field is dangerous," says Spencer Wells, head of the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project, a five-year, $40 million effort to collect DNA samples from 100,000 indigenous people. Dr. Wells says the project team might try to find evolutionary reasons for physical differences such as why Danes are taller than pygmies. But Dr. Wells says National Geographic won't study the brain.

This is grothesc because it has to do with pressure motivaded by political views and not sound scientif reasons. We know there are genetic differences between races that give advtanges or disavantges. Adult whites can digest milk much better than asians or blakcs. Some blacks have a gene that protects them from malaria that whites miss. Etc. etc. The brain is a potentially more dangerous territory, but that's not a good reason to not make science.

What has been happening to scientists like James Walton, Charles Murray, Arthur Jensen and many others is an absolute disgrace for a free and civilized society.

[Winehole23]

Why? Agreed about sociology, most of the psychology, mass marketing and, of course, normative economics, but I think it's difficult to argue that economics isn't a science (and I don't particularly like the hard/soft science dichotomy). What are the criteria that make a field a science or not? Is meteorology a science?

I would put it this way: what science seems more germane to questions relating to human heredity, sociology, psychology or biology?

[mogrovejo]

I would put it this way: what science seems more germane to questions relating to human heredity, sociology, psychology or biology?

That question is difficult to answer that way. What do you do of a paper co-authored by a psychologist, a biologist and a geneticist? It's 2/3 science and 1/3 liberal art?

[Winehole23]

The danger is that, as it's already happening, genetics research when it comes to the brain is abandoned because of the fear of repercurssions if "politically incorrect" results are find:

Maybe. I doubt racial differences in heredity are really as important as you are suggesting.

This is grothesc because it has to do with pressure motivaded by political views and not sound scientif reasons. We know there are genetic differences between races that give advtanges or disavantges. Adult whites can digest milk much better than asians or blakcs. Some blacks have a gene that protects them from malaria that whites miss. Etc. etc. The brain is a potentially more dangerous territory, but that's not a good reason to not make science.

The only reason you know this is that scientists are free to do science. Right?

What has been happening to scientists like James [Watson?], Charles Murray, Arthur Jensen and many others is an absolute disgrace for a free and civilized society.

I can see what you mean with Arthur Jensen, but he is still a professor emeritus at UCal-Berkeley and he still publishes.

Charles Murray does whatever it is potted plants at the AEI do, and James Watson retired at the age of 79. Watson is free to pop off without fear of repercussions, and the AEI pays Charles Murray to do it. I see nothing disgraceful there.