07-04-2004 04:29									#211
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking What you said in your first post is: quote: Probably it would turn out that the genes for dark skin and good running skills are prevalent in the same populations This is simply not probable. This is not the same argument you are making now. The word "prevalent" I guess troubles me.

If we also accept that skin colour is to a high degree determined by genes, I don't really see how one can disagree with what you quote above and agree with what I wrote in my second post. Try substituting "prevalent" with "of higher relative frequency" if that makes you happier.

(Or is the problem the admittedly very loosely defined "dark-skinned"? Since we've otherwise been speaking in terms of black vs non-black, it really should be replaced with the genes causing people to be black, but unless we chose a very liberal definition of dark-skinned, I doubt it would make any much difference statistically - there simply aren't that many Australian Aborgines and Veddas around.)

quote: Simply put, I suppose I don't agree with calling "dark skinned" a population. I see no evidence for defining this as a population. (Probably because I am an idiot.) Why you would choose to put pygmies, ethiopes, dinkas, bushmen, australian aboriginies in the same population is beyond me. Is a Carib "dark-skinned"? A Papuan is, yes?

You appear to be reading something into the word "population" I didn't intend by it (this is very possibly my fault - I'm not a native speaker of English). I intend it to mean a groups of people - why should I need evidence for defining one?

quote: I agree with the arguments you are making now: quote: genes conducive to top sprinting ability are more common among black people than among other people. But while this: quote: a black person chosen at random is much more likely (several times, infact) to be a top sprinter than a randomly chosen non-black person. is true, it is not particularly informative. Because the probability in either case approaches zero. You are talking about the extreme fringe of Poisson distribution here. 1 in 1,000,000. You cannot deduce anything reliable about a population by looking only a sample of the extreme fringe.

Assuming you mean that one cannot decuce anything reliable about the typical or average member of a population a population by looking only at a sample of the extreme fringe, we're in agreement. If we want to draw conclusions about the extreme fringe, clearly there's where we should look.

quote: By the way, where did I personally insult you?

You didn't insult me, but printing up a so long and loud (partly ALL CAPS) response what was obviously jocularly meant did appear pretty idiotic, especially as my points have essentially been made earlier in this thread.

Nonetheless, I apologize for suggesting you were an idiot. It was uncalled for.

	07-04-2004 04:31									#212
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Drogue There isn't really a purpose, but the PC stuff that says that people of all ethnic backgrounds can do every single thing equally well, that there is no correlation between ethnic background and ability in any field, annoys me somewhat, because it isn't true.

Its not the fact that a person is black that they are better runners, nobody here believes that (I hope), so why mention it?

	07-04-2004 06:06									#213
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking You don't need to claim causation. You associated the traits. Repeatedly. Without saying "isn't this a peculiar coincidence?" Causation was implied. I know you will deny this, and who knows, maybe you didn't mean to imply it.

You're the one who is assuming things, not me. I'm trying to prove that it's valid to state correlations based on race in the first place, because people saying stupid things like that you CAN'T pisses me off (even if I don't care about the issue at all _

quote: So it is likely that blacks are both taller and shorter.

NO! My point was that if they have better extremes, it is likely that the media - the tallest part of the curve - is simply SHIFTED towards whatever extreme was better. Thus the median of one group would be different from the median of another.

	07-04-2004 06:09									#214
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking This is simply not probable. This is not the same argument you are making now. The word "prevalent" I guess troubles me. Simply put, I suppose I don't agree with calling "dark skinned" a population. I see no evidence for defining this as a population. (Probably because I am an idiot.) Why you would choose to put pygmies, ethiopes, dinkas, bushmen, australian aboriginies in the same population is beyond me. Is a Carib "dark-skinned"? A Papuan is, yes?

Those people AREN'T put in the same population. Technically speaking, pygmies are a different race from blacks, which are seperate from the aboriginal australians (I believe the polynesians are the same race as them), which are seperate from the Indians (people of the "Indian" race live in Madagascar IIRC), which are seperate from ANOTHER group in Africa that I forget. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

	07-04-2004 06:13									#215
	Suffering from ads?

quote: My point is that when it comes to sports, arts, or jobs the potential or success cannot be determined by skin color.

But in the absense of knowledge of those attributes, the probability that a person possesses a certain attribute can be based on race.

For example, a white person is more likely to be a Congressman than a black person.

Again, though, this is merely notice of a correlation, not a claim of causation.

	07-04-2004 06:30									#216
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I agree that congressmen are most likely to be white. I'm sure you also agree that that does not mean that whites have an innate ability at governing.
Society and historical events have led to a dominance of whites in golf and blacks in hip-hop. Then comes a Tiger Woods. Then comes a Marshall Mathers.
I'm saying that statements that say one group is NATURALLY better than another group at a certain thing is incorrect and racist. IMHO.

	07-04-2004 18:00									#217
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking Simply put, I suppose I don't agree with calling "dark skinned" a population. I see no evidence for defining this as a population. (Probably because I am an idiot.) Why you would choose to put pygmies, ethiopes, dinkas, bushmen, australian aboriginies in the same population is beyond me. Is a Carib "dark-skinned"? A Papuan is, yes? Those people AREN'T put in the same population. Technically speaking, pygmies are a different race from blacks, which are seperate from the aboriginal australians (I believe the polynesians are the same race as them), which are seperate from the Indians (people of the "Indian" race live in Madagascar IIRC), which are seperate from ANOTHER group in Africa that I forget. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

I did read it.

YOU are the one who said blacks and running fast are correlated. Now you are redefining blacks to exclude blacks that don't run fast.



I have no more time to debate with someone who has nothing to offer but sophistry.

I suspect you learned something, so all was not lost.

	07-04-2004 18:01									#218
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist If we also accept that skin colour is to a high degree determined by genes, I don't really see how one can disagree with what you quote above and agree with what I wrote in my second post. Try substituting "prevalent" with "of higher relative frequency" if that makes you happier. (Or is the problem the admittedly very loosely defined "dark-skinned"? Since we've otherwise been speaking in terms of black vs non-black, it really should be replaced with the genes causing people to be black, but unless we chose a very liberal definition of dark-skinned, I doubt it would make any much difference statistically - there simply aren't that many Australian Aborgines and Veddas around.) You appear to be reading something into the word "population" I didn't intend by it (this is very possibly my fault - I'm not a native speaker of English). I intend it to mean a groups of people - why should I need evidence for defining one? Assuming you mean that one cannot decuce anything reliable about the typical or average member of a population a population by looking only at a sample of the extreme fringe, we're in agreement. If we want to draw conclusions about the extreme fringe, clearly there's where we should look. You didn't insult me, but printing up a so long and loud (partly ALL CAPS) response what was obviously jocularly meant did appear pretty idiotic, especially as my points have essentially been made earlier in this thread. Nonetheless, I apologize for suggesting you were an idiot. It was uncalled for.

Apology accepted. My post may indeed have been a tad LOUD.

I think we are in complete agreement, when we both further explain our positions.