Why are Black runners so much faster than whitey?

pspr · Aug 20, 2012

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

What I see is liberals tripping all over themselves running away from scientific fact.
More...

Facts are Kryptonite to liberals.

Mav88 · Aug 20, 2012

Quote from mrbill:

How can you even equate science and reason as being against liberalism, or by default, FOR conservatism? When the conservatives tend to believe in bible stories instead of solid scientific fact, the most basic of which is evolution. ?? Come on, you have to see the craziness in that stance, right?
More...

I lean toward economic conservative, and I am not religious. I don't really have a suitable label, I'm a realist.

This isn't the first time science has had to fight off the left and it won't be the last. It started with Marx, there was a more recent example in the 90's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

The left treats their ideology as a sacred religion, most outwardly the communists, http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article238.html
but liberals have kept strands of it. These pieces, such as strict egalitarianism and multiculturalism, become unquestioned tenets of their worldview.

That all races are exactly equal is one of those dogmas, however it is starting to fall apart, as it always should have. I don't need this or necessarily want it, but it is the reality and so opinions should be formed around it.

This physics professor, who isn't hiding btw, echoes me pretty closely in his conclusions, but I think he backs off slightly at the end for fear of campus PC I bet. The world gives us plenty of evidence, but economically all I care about is performance. It isn't fair to everyone to insist on equal economic outcomes and race based preferences.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html

Suppose that the human genome has 30,000 distinct genes, which we will label as i = 1,2, ... N, where N = 30k. Next, suppose that there are n_i variants or alleles (mutations) of the i-th gene. Then, each human's genetic information can be described as a point on a lattice of size n_1 x n_2 x n_3 ... n_N, or equivalently an N-tuple of integers, each of whose values range from 1 to n_i. For the simplified case where there are exactly 10 variants of each gene, the number of points in this N dimensional space is 10^N or 10^{30k}, one for each distinct 30k digit number. It's a space of very high dimension, but this doesn't stop us from defining a metric, or measure of distance between any two points in the space. (For simplicity we ignore restrictions on this space which might result from incompatibility of certain combinations, etc.)

Note that the genomes of all of the humans who have ever lived occupy only a small subset of this space -- most possible variations have never been realized. For this reason, the surprise expressed by biologists that humans have so few genes (not many more than a worm, and far less than the 100k of earlier estimates) is no cause for concern -- the number of possible organisms that might result from 30k genes is enormous -- far more than the number of molecules in the visible universe.

To define a metric, we need a notion of how far apart two different alleles are. We can do this by counting base pair differences -- most mutations only alter a few base pairs in the genetic code. We can define the distance between two alleles in terms of the number of base pair changes between them (this is always a positive number). Then, we can define the distance between two genomes as the sum of each of the i=1,2,..,N individual gene distances. It is natural, although perhaps not always possible, to choose the n_i labeling of alleles to reflect relative distances, so variants n_1 and n_2 are close together, and both very far from n_10.

The exact definition of the metric and the allele labeling are somewhat arbitrary, but you can see it is easy to define a meaningful measure of how far apart any two individuals are in genome space.

Now plot the genome of each human as a point on our lattice. Not surprisingly, there are readily identifiable clusters of points, corresponding to traditional continental ethnic groups: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Native Americans, etc. (See, for example, Risch et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76:268â275, 2005.) Of course, we can get into endless arguments about how we define European or Asian, and of course there is substructure within the clusters, but it is rather obvious that there are identifiable groupings, and as the Risch study shows, they correspond very well to self-identified notions of race.

From the conclusions of the Risch paper (Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76:268â275, 2005):

Attention has recently focused on genetic structure in the human population. Some have argued that the amount of genetic variation within populations dwarfs the variation between populations, suggesting that discrete genetic categories are not useful (Lewontin 1972; Cooper et al. 2003; Haga and Venter 2003). On the other hand, several studies have shown that individuals tend to cluster genetically with others of the same ancestral geographic origins (Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Stephens et al. 2001; Bamshad et al. 2003). Prior studies have generally been performed on a relatively small number of individuals and/or markers. A recent study (Rosenberg et al. 2002) examined 377 autosomal micro-satellite markers in 1,056 individuals from a global sample of 52 populations and found significant evidence of genetic clustering, largely along geographic (continental) lines. Consistent with prior studies, the major genetic clusters consisted of Europeans/West Asians (whites), sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. ... We have shown a nearly perfect correspondence between genetic cluster and SIRE [self-reported ethnicity] for major ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%.

This clustering is a natural consequence of geographical isolation, inheritance and natural selection operating over the last 50k years since humans left Africa.

Every allele probably occurs in each ethnic group, but with varying frequency. Suppose that for a particular gene there are 3 common variants (v1, v2, v3) all the rest being very rare. Then, for example, one might find that in ethnic group A the distribution is v1 75%, v2 15%, v3 10%, while for ethnic group B the distribution is v1 2% v2 6% v3 92%. Suppose this pattern is repeated for several genes, with the common variants in population A being rare in population B, and vice versa. Then, one might find a very dramatic difference in expressed phenotype between the two populations. For example, if skin color is determined by (say) 10 genes, and those genes have the distribution pattern given above, nearly all of population A might be fair skinned while all of population B is dark, even though there is complete overlap in the set of common alleles. Perhaps having the third type of variant v3 in 7 out of 10 pigmentation genes makes you dark. This is highly likely for an individual in population B with the given probabilities, but highly unlikely in population A.

We see that there can be dramatic group differences in phenotypes even if there is complete allele overlap between two groups - as long as the frequency or probability distributions are distinct. But it is these distributions that are measured by the metric we defined earlier. Two groups that form distinct clusters are likely to exhibit different frequency distributions over various genes, leading to group differences.

This leads us to two very distinct possibilities in human genetic variation:

Hypothesis 1: (the PC mantra) The only group differences that exist between the clusters (races) are innocuous and superficial, for example related to skin color, hair color, body type, etc.

Hypothesis 2: (the dangerous one) Group differences exist which might affect important (let us say, deep rather than superficial) and measurable characteristics, such as cognitive abilities, personality, athletic prowess, etc.

Note H1 is under constant revision, as new genetically driven group differences (e.g., particularly in disease resistance) are being discovered. According to the mantra of H1 these must all (by definition) be superficial differences.

A standard argument against H2 is that the 50k years during which groups have been separated is not long enough for differential natural selection to cause any group differences in deep characteristics. I find this argument quite naive, given what we know about animal breeding and how evolution has affected the (ever expanding list of) "superficial" characteristics. Many genes are now suspected of having been subject to strong selection over timescales of order 5k years or less. For further discussion of H2 by Steve Pinker, see here.

The predominant view among social scientists is that H1 is obviously correct and H2 obviously false. However, this is mainly wishful thinking. Official statements by the American Sociological Association and the American Anthropological Association even endorse the view that race is not a valid biological concept, which is clearly incorrect.

As scientists, we don't know whether H1 or H2 is correct, but given the revolution in biotechnology, we will eventually. Let me reiterate, before someone labels me a racist: we don't know with high confidence whether H1 or H2 is correct.

Finally, it is important to note that group differences are statistical in nature and do not imply anything definitive about a particular individual. Rather than rely on the scientifically unsupported claim that we are all equal, it would be better to emphasize that we all have inalienable human rights regardless of our abilities or genetic makeup.
More...

RCG Trader · Aug 20, 2012

Quote from Mav88:

I lean toward economic conservative, and I am not religious. I don't really have a suitable label, I'm a realist.

This isn't the first time science has had to fight off the left and it won't be the last. It started with Marx, there was a more recent example in the 90's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

The left treats their ideology as a sacred religion, most outwardly the communists, http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article238.html
but liberals have kept strands of it. These pieces, such as strict egalitarianism and multiculturalism, become unquestioned tenets of their worldview.

That all races are exactly equal is one of those dogmas, however it is starting to fall apart, as it always should have. I don't need this or necessarily want it, but it is the reality and so opinions should be formed around it.

This physics professor, who isn't hiding btw, echoes me pretty closely in his conclusions, but I think he backs off slightly at the end for fear of campus PC I bet. The world gives us plenty of evidence, but economically all I care about is performance. It isn't fair to everyone to insist on equal economic outcomes and race based preferences.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html
More...

I personally don't have an issue with unique genetic physical characteristics, what Nazi's like you will do tho is try to extrapolate that piece of truth into other arenas.

Mav88 · Aug 20, 2012

Quote from RCG Trader:

I personally don't have an issue with unique genetic physical characteristics, what Nazi's like you will do tho is try to extrapolate that piece of truth into other arenas.
More...

Professor Hsu says:

"Hypothesis 2: (the dangerous one) Group differences exist which might affect important (let us say, deep rather than superficial) and measurable characteristics, such as cognitive abilities, personality, athletic prowess, etc. "
More...

So is the professor from oregon a Nazi? He extrapolates the same as I did.

The only other 'arena' we have been talking here about is cognitive ability and it's impact on economic success. You have no problem whatsoever with every part of the body, except the brain, being subject to genetic clustering? Well then my extrapolation is supported by science and reason, yours is not.

What loser race communists like you do is demagogue race issues to your political advantage.

Ricter · Aug 20, 2012

The important thing is that there are "black" people who are stronger, faster, more coordinated, more talented, more hardworking, and more intelliegent than Mav88. So, with equal opportunity and time, their offspring will, on average, advance further still, leaving Mav88's offspring far behind (on average).

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 21, 2012

Quote from Ricter:

The important thing is that there are "black" people who are stronger, faster, more coordinated, more talented, more hardworking, and more intelliegent than Mav88. So, with equal opportunity and time, their offspring will, on average, advance further still, leaving Mav88's offspring far behind (on average).
More...

I'm sorry but the facts of reality tell a different tale as far as I understand it.
With equal opportunity the group with the lower scoring cognitive skills are likely to fall further and further behind in successive generations (if heritability is the primary mode of transference).

I could be wrong but I see very little evidence that environment plays a large role in transmission of cognitive ability to offspring.(reason being is the female is born with all the eggs she will ever produce so oops virtually no chance for environment to enhance the genes already present).

But of course what do I know I'm supposedly only an ignorant racist redneck who refuses to engage in group think.

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 21, 2012

Quote from RCG Trader:

I personally don't have an issue with unique genetic physical characteristics, what Nazi's like you will do tho is try to extrapolate that piece of truth into other arenas.
More...

Are you trying to infer that those "unique genetic physical characteristics" (you don't have an issue with) must somehow magically exclude the brain and functional cognitive ability?

Surely you are joking , RIGHT!

(are you sure you are a nurse?)

RCG Trader · Aug 21, 2012

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

Are you trying to infer that those "unique genetic physical characteristics" (you don't have an issue with) must somehow magically exclude the brain and functional cognitive ability?

Surely you are joking , RIGHT!

(are you sure you are a nurse?)
More...

and, right on cue

GoldenMember · Aug 21, 2012

A bit amazed ET condones such a Politically incorrect Topic.

What is the next thread?

Why do Blacks have larger Penis's than Asians?

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 21, 2012

Quote from GoldenMember:

A bit amazed ET condones such a Politically incorrect Topic.

What is the next thread:

Why do Blacks have larger Penis's than Asians?
More...

Funny thing , charges of racism fall harmlessly to the floor once it's know whites do not occupy the highest scoring ethnicity.

From the studies I've read, in descending order it's:
jews
asians
whites
hispanic
black

I think the small differences between White and Asian are mostly illusory.
Higher IQ Asians (I believe) tend towards self selection for testing.