Science Killed Racism

Did somebody assert that a particular race cannot excel in science and technology? Of course not. A shameless non sequitur such as this is a waste of time. It is intellectually lazy, and not productive in the slightest.

 

You can, in fact, practice sprinting, as well as long distance running. Tough terrain and prolonged practice have made Kenya's excellent long distance runners.

 

The point is that intellectual and athletic pursuits both come to fruition primarily because of application, not genetics.

 

We arent talking about long distance running, we are talking about sprinting.

Yes you can practice sprinting (obviously), but you cannot teach speed. If a person is weak, they can lift weights and become stronger. If a person cannot catch they can practice day and night, improve their muscle memory, and become adept at that skill. If a long distance runner works their lungs they can improve exponentially.If a person doesnt understand the intricacies of a certain game they can study and learn it inside and out. While a certain level of god given ability is required to be great at any sport, how hard one works at it makes a huge difference as to how good they are in all sports other than sprinting. With sprinting, you are either fast or you are not. Working hard makes only a miniscule difference.

 

Spoken like somebody that lacks any form of a practical understanding of athletics in general, and much less the corresponding impact of god-given ability in the pursuit of excellence in that endeavor.

Provided that one is reasonably intelligent, great success intellectually is limited mainly by how hard one is willing to work.
Provided that one is reasonably athletic, great success athletically is limited mainly by ones god given ability.
Provided that one is reasonably fast at sprinting, great success is impossible.

There is an enormous difference.

 

Spam ... and thanks for sharing nothing.

 

You've stumbled upon a son of the emerald isle, but rather than "go there" ... YES! it is exactly like that ... sorta. Like American revolutionaries had common racial ancestry will the English, and sans racial frictions, classism and rather small religious observance created prejudice within a nearly homogeneous society.

 

Racialism doesn't necessary have a relative value judgment. It simply means "a theory that race determines human traits and capacities" ( Merriam Webster, 2018 ). That said, usually racialists believe racist things. Anyway, you are making racialist claims.

Your claim that for there to be a scientific basis for race is it has to be predictive with scientific certainty is nothing more than an arbitrary straw man is absolutely incredible! Yes, in order for anyone to claim anything like there is the biological basis for what we are calling race today, they must have an evidence-based method for making that claim. Otherwise, it's simply intuition, philosophical, or religious-based claims. You already conceded that earlier that you believed something to the effect that we know race intuitively. You used words like "deep down inside." If one wants the current idea of race to be seen with a scientific basis or real, they have to prove it scientifically.

We use science so we can verify that something is true. This is the principle! We use the scientific method because we need to rely on empirical, repeatable test to reveal the truth. When scientist did go across the world to conduct their evidence-based experiments, they found that the current ideas of race were not supported. They found that people cannot be grouped into their own race because many of their traits were shared elsewhere and there were distinct traits in some groups within the same "race." The distinct groups found only further undermined the current ideas of race.

And yes, race should be predictive if it is to have a scientific basis. The Duke study concluding that whites have longer torsos wasn't even concluded to be based on race! "The researchers believe that these differences are not racial, but rather biological...It all comes down to body makeup, not race, Jones and Bejan said" (Duke.edu, 2010). In the study they used words like "tend" and "on average." This opening allows for other explanations such as diet, access to facilities to practice swimming, and other better ways to explain why certain people are good swimmers. It also allows people to see that certain body types aren't exclusive to a race.

All in all, the current idea of race does not a biological construct, it is a social construct. Racialists have yet to provide empirical evidence that all the races share the same traits to be called the same race for one and two, they rely on things like averages, incidences, intuition, stereotypes, etc to claim who is who.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racialist
https://pratt.duke.edu/about/news/speediest-athletes-its-all-center-gravity

 

I wanted to quickly point out how you cherry picked an out of context sentence to make it appear to say something that it most certainly did not intend. It is biological not racial? What does that even mean? Do you even care what it means or did it speciously appear to support your position so you decided to run with it? Are biological and racial two distinctly different entitites? If you look right before that sentence, the same person said.....

“There is a whole body of evidence showing that there are distinct differences in body types among blacks and whites,” said Jones, who specializes in adolescent obesity, nutrition and anthropometry, the study of body composition. “These are real patterns being described here -- whether the fastest sprinters are Jamaican, African or Canadian -- most of them can be traced back generally to Western Africa.”.....

.....So this person is saying there is a whole body of evidence demonstrating that there are distinctly different body types among races.

- Since this person is a scientist that specifically studies body composition, how can this body of evidence he is collecting and reporting documenting differences in body types among races not be scientific? Objective data collection is beyond any shadow of a doubt a scientific endeavor. How can you possibly conclude that measurably different body types ( in the aggregate) supporting the notion that there isnt any scientific evidence for the existence of race? You cant. All you have is overused language regarding the scientific method for drawing a scientific conclusion. The pursuit of science may be in search of a definitive conclusion, but that in no way precludes any interim steps in drawing that conclusion to be considered scientific.

-To say that race is not real from a scientific perspective is a headline, and little else. It is literally impossible to summarily dismiss the very wide range of racial differences that have been documented including the work presented in this article regarding body composition amongst races. Identifying the difference in body composition is most assuredly NOT a social construct. It is a 100% objective scientifically determined data point. You undoubtedly will not respond to this particular topic, and you will instead pontificate endlessly with long-winded language about the scientific method for drawing a conclusion. You don't have to have 100% predictability about a conclusion for an individual before you call something scientific. Science is a search for the truth, and typically that truth takes a long time to be determined and proven. If we require proof before anything is considered science then we have to throw large swaths of quantum mechanics completely out the window.

-There arent any scientists running around calling quantum mechanics a social construct? Why?.....because there isnt a political reason for doing so.



....After your one cherry-picked sentence that purposefully skewed the intent, they went on to say.....


“Blacks tend to have longer limbs with smaller circumferences, meaning that their centers of gravity are higher compared to whites of the same height,” Bejan said. “Asians and whites tend to have longer torsos, so their centers of gravity are lower.”

Bejan and Jones cite past studies of the human body which found that on average, the center of gravity is about three percent higher in blacks than whites. Using this difference in body types, the researchers calculated that black sprinters are 1.5 percent faster than whites, while whites have the same advantage over blacks in the water. The difference might seem small, Bejan said, but not when considering that world records in sprinting and swimming are typically broken by fractions of seconds.

The center of gravity for an Asian is even more advantageous to swimming than for a white, but because they tend not to be as tall, they are not setting records, Bejan said."......




-Oh yes...... it looks like more scientists pontificating about their objective data points that you are bogusly calling a social construct.

-If blacks in the aggregate have a center of gravity that is 3% higher than whites, how is that conclusion a social construct? Did society take those measurements?, or was that science?



https://pratt.duke.edu/about/news/speediest-athletes-its-all-center-gravity

 

And it's ALL Genetic

Why Kenyans Make Such Great Runners: A Story of Genes and Cultures
MAX FISHER - APR 17, 2012
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...runners-a-story-of-genes-and-cultures/256015/

How an ethnic minority that makes up 0.06% of the world's population came to dominate most of its long-distance races.

For such a popular, straightforward question, there's less consensus than you might think. Western research on the nature of Kenyan runners, and on successful African athletes in general, is complicated by some particularly thorny racial politics. There's a nasty history, after all, to white scientists evaluating the physical attributes of Africans. But that hesitancy to really study Kenyan runners' success has allowed some probably false, and often culturally reductive, theories to persist. The scientific research hits on some of the most sensitive racial anxieties of Western-African relations, but it's also an amazing story of human biodiversity.

The statistics are hard to ignore. This medium-size country of 41 million dominates the world in competitive running. Pick any long-distance race. You'll often find that up to about 70 or 80% of its winners since the late 1980s, when East African nutrition and technology started catching up with the West, have been from Kenya. Since 1988, for example, 20 of the 25 first-place men in the Boston Marathon have been Kenyan. Kenyan women appear to have had a later start, winning none of marathons before 2000 (possibly due to discriminatory laws and a tradition of forcing girls into marriages, both of which were partially rolled back by 1990s reforms) and 9 of 13 since then. Of the top 25 male record holders for the 3000-meter steeplechase, 18 are Kenyan. Seven of the last 8 London marathons were won by Kenyans, and the sole outlier was from neighboring Ethiopia*. Their record in the Olympic men's marathon is more uneven, having placed in the top three in only four of the last six races. Still, not bad for one country. And even more amazing is that three-fourths of the Kenyan champions come from an ethnic minority of 4.4. million, or 0.06% of global population.

It turns out that Kenyans' success may be innate. Two separate, European-led studies in a small region in western Kenya, which produces most of the race-winners, found that young men there could, with only a Few months training, reliably Outperform some of the West's best professional runners.
In other words, they appeared to have a physical advantage that is common to their community, making it probably Genetic. The studies found significant differences in body mass index and bone structure between the Western pros and the Kenyan amateurs who had bested them. The studied Kenyans had less mass for their height, longer legs, shorter torsos, and more slender limbs. One of the researchers described the Kenyan physical differences as "bird-like," noting that these traits would make them more efficient runners, especially over long distances.

Surprisingly, Western popular writing about Kenyans' running success seems to focus less on these genetic distinctions and more on cultural differences.
For years, the cultural argument has been that Kenyans become great runners because they often run several miles to and from school every day. But, about a decade ago, someone started asking actual Kenyans if this was true, and it turned out to be a merely a product of Western imaginations:
14 of 20 surveyed Kenyan race-winners said they'd walked or ridden the bus to school, like normal children do. Another cultural argument says they run barefoot, which develops good habits, but if this were true then surely the far more populated countries of South Asia, where living without shoes is also common, would dominate over Kenyans. Another ascribes it to the "simple food" of Kenya, but this again is true of many parts of the world, and Kenya's not-so-great health record suggests the country has not discovered the secret to great nutrition. And there is a cringe-inducing theory, still prevalent, that Kenyans' history as herders means they get practice running as they chase their sheep across the countryside.
[......]​

 

You have conceded many times without realizing it, especially with this Duke study. Here's how:

I, Dark Skies, can define, for example, sex as male and female. I can definitively give you traits that are exclusive to males and traits exclusive to females. With that, every human I come across on this planet, I can conclude that one is either a male or female and be correct darn near 100% all the time. I can do this with defining animals even of same species as well.

Conversely, those who believe in the current idea of race cannot do the same. You guys can not provide traits exclusive to any race. If you travel across the planet with your beliefs, you will be wrong about your assumptions a lot of the time, if not most of the time.

All your examples of sprinting, sickle cell, and swimming have other explanations. We can talk about those who have developed sickle cell traits as people being from places dealing with malaria, for example. The sickle cell trait isn't exclusive to a certain race. Instead, it can be found in all sorts of people from different parts of the world, especially in peoples who share heritage of people who have lived or people who are living in places dealing with malaria. The Duke study is worse. I didn't cherry pick anything. The researchers themselves drew the conclusion that they believed it was more biological than race.

See how I'm able to provide a credible alternative to what you've proposed? If you can't even define race so that there isn't an incredible amount of exceptions, you are doing so because you are relying on means outside of science.

 

Precisely.
The PC authors are trying to Cover their asses from attack by making a nonsense Disclaimer/180° contradictory generalization to the meat of the article.
The sentence you point to is Nonsensical gibrish.

Saying "it's cultural, not biological" would make sense!
The article sentence makes none, and then, with Contradiction, goes on to Show/elucidate RACIAL Differences among Whites, Blacks, and Asians!

The article and study authors are Confused, Stupid, and transparently defensive and Lying.

But "Body Make up" IS part, if not Most of Race, and/so they put these bogus disclaimers in between the Meat which contradicts those claims.
ie/LOL

DarkSkies Link:

“"There is a whole body of evidence showing that there are distinct differences in body types among blacks and whites,” said Jones, who specializes in adolescent obesity, nutrition and anthropometry, the study of body composition. “These are real patterns being described here -- whether the fastest sprinters are Jamaican, African or Canadian -- most of them can be traced back generally to Western Africa.”​

and

Swimmers, Jones said, tend to come from Europe, and therefore tend to be white. He also pointed out that there are cultural factors at play as well, such as a lack of access to swimming pools to those of lower socioeconomic status.

It all comes down to body makeup, not race, Jones and Bejan said.
​

But then immediately says Body makeup/Type IS Racial!

“Blacks tend to have longer limbs with smaller circumferences, meaning that their centers of gravity are higher Compared to Whites of the same height,” Bejan said.
“Asians and whites tend to have longer torsos, so their centers of gravity are lower.”

Bejan and Jones cite past studies of the human body which found that on average, the center of gravity is about 3% higher in Blacks than whites.
Using this DIFFERENCE IN BODY TYPES, the researchers calculated that Black sprinters are 1.5% faster than Whites, while Whites have the same advantage over Blacks in the water. The difference might seem small, Bejan said, but not when considering that world records in sprinting and swimming are typically broken by fractions of seconds.

The center of gravity for an Asian is even more advantageous to swimming than for a White, but because they tend not to be as tall, they are not setting records, Bejan said.
[.....]
Jones said that the Differences in Body Densities between Blacks and Whites are Well-documented, which helps explain Other Health Differences, such as the observation that Black women have a Lower incidence of osteoporosis than White women because of the increased density of their bones.
[.....]
​

the whole article IS, in fact, about Bio-Racial differences (Body density, Body Type, Health, Height, Speed, Center of Gravity Differences) .. in between contradictory disclaimers so they don't get tagged as Racists/Racialists and ejected from 'decent' society!
Hysterical!
and Thanks for the Link.
It's about the most obvious piece of Self-Impeached desperado PC as I have EVER seen.
It shows how afraid of the truth people are, and how Dishonest and convoluted their utterances have become.
`

 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau these are the following races:

• White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
• Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
• American Indian or Alaska Native – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
• Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
• The 1997 OMB standards permit the reporting of more than one race. An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification.

Source:
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

 

Sincerely, this post isn't adding anything new to the conversation. We have covered this ground ad nauseam. I feel pretty good that I have more than proven my point, and I am sure that you feel you have proven your point. It is time to let the reader decide.

 

Adios!

 

Tax, don't be afraid to quote or at me dude. I almost missed this passive aggressive post.

If you are alright with accepting some of what the researcher said, why can you not be alright with the rest? You are picking and choosing what fits your beliefs. He said what you liked, but he also said what you did not like. That's too bad. You have to accept his findings whether you don't like the "PC" or not especially since you are ok with using some of what he found.

 

I posted virtually ALL his findings, which again, ARE Bio-Racial, despite a CONTRADICTORY polite disclaimer or two in between Racial Difference Fact after Racial Difference Fact.
Another logic error/non sequitur on your part.
I do NOT have to accept everything written in the article just because a PC sentence Conradicts it's own findings.
LOL
I am perfectly entitled to point that out.

And you had NO Answer to that contradiction
Really, this is just your usual semantic illogic and inability to debate your own postings.

I already explained that, and you had NO answer.
And, of course, there's MY article at the top of the page.. UNTOUCHED by you.. which says basically the same thing (IT'S Racial/Genetic) without the cherry-picked contradictory sentence your article uses for protection/innoculation.

So Who's "Afraid" "dude"? Unlike you I will take on any post that seriously disagrees my beliefs, including your post/article to Faw that we are discussing now.
Hark!
I didn't have to be addressed, I Jumped in confident of my beliefs...
while you WHIFFED on my post on the top of this page that could not be missed, and was an answer to you as well as arborville.
And Most else of my meaty posts previous like my #143 on the last page.
?
I've been debating this with much more knowledgebale people for 10 years. Including in the Race section here.
Where you been?
"Afraid" of you!
I debate this with article authors.

After my criticisms of your empty/no citation/etc 'debate' style, you Finally post a L!NK, but Ironically, it agrees with ME!

Bye
Gameover #689, #690
`

 

Why don't we listen to someone who is training in Kenya about some of their methods for success:

How to train for a marathon like a Kenyan:

https://medium.com/enda-sportswear/how-to-train-for-a-marathon-like-a-kenyan-93726ef782cc

 

Not really. What it is based on would cause the same problems if we were all albinos.

 

Assuming a strict Out of Africa theory is even true, which is isn't, why does being descended from something (a type of organism in a place), or some ancient version of it, mean you are that thing? Are we all amoebae too?

Susan Goldberg is the new editor of National Geographic isn't she? Not really hard to see what's going on there is it?