Breeding a white population with greater athletic potential

[President Barbicane]

White people are generally less athletic than black people. Although black people make up something like 13% of the population in the US, they make up 80% of NBA players, and 65% of NFL players.

Of course, there is some evidence that white people are more athletic than Asians, but right now I'm focusing on the black-white difference in athletic ability.

I am making a few assumptions. First, I am assuming that the observed difference in athletic performance between black people and white people is genetic. Next, I am assuming that this difference is due to some allele or more likely a set of alleles present in the black population, but absent or nearly so in the white population. Both of these assumptions are reasonable given the evidence we have now. They could be more rigorously tested, but I doubt they ever will be since the topic is so taboo.

Breeding a population of white people with athletic capabilities similar to black people could be done with a technique similar to the technique used by the American Chestnut Foundation to breed American chestnut trees resistant to the Asian chestnut blight. For more information, see here. (http://www.acf.org/r_r.php) The technique begins by creating a hybrid population -- in the case I'm considering a population of black-white hybrids. You would then select from this population the most athletically gifted people (I imagine some sort of 'athleticism test' using objective measurements like sprint times, jumping heights, etc.) and backcross them with the original stock (in my case white people). Then select the most athletically gifted backcross them, and so on. Do this 4 times, and the resulting population would be 15/16 white, but have the average athletic capability of a black population.

The population would be genetically 15/16ths white, meaning that on any genetic trait except athletic performance (for instance skin color, hair texture, facial features), they would be 15/16ths of the way towards white people. I suspect the black ancestry would be almost imperceptible, although if not we could do additional backcrossings; it would only take time.

One problem with this approach is that some of these alleles may control more than one trait. It could be, for instance, that some alleles increase a person's athletic ability, but decrease their intelligence. Thus this technique may breed white people with the bad traits of black people. It is unlikely that all of the alleles which confer athletic ability also confer a negative trait, but probably some of them do.

Another problem with this approach is that there would be a small population of these athletic white people, so the really rare athletic talent wouldn't be there. I'm not sure the best way to address this.

Another problem is that these athletic white people would probably wish to interbreed with non-athletic whites (after all it would be very difficult to tell the difference between them), and thus these traits would be diluted out of existence. One way to prevent this would be to isolate the athletic white population, perhaps on some secluded island.

Similar techniques could be used to breed any sort of trait into a population. For instance, one could breed a 'white' population with dark skin to reduce the incidence of skin cancer. One could also breed a black population as intelligent as whites. The possibilities are endless.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Why do so many young white men like to use the animal husbandry/farmer's term "breeding" when referring to human procreation. I just don't get it. Is it instruction taken from homosexuals or what?

[harjit]

Why do so many young white men like to use the animal husbandry/farmer's term "breeding" when referring to human procreation. I just don't get it. Is it instruction taken from homosexuals or what?
The Phora is packed with emotionally-stunted eugenics-obsessed internet nerd homosexual farmers.

[numba_one]

The Phora is packed with emotionally-stunted eugenics-obsessed internet nerd homosexual farmers.


LMFAO! You've got that right.

[Amerika-jin]

The Phora is packed with emotionally-stunted eugenics-obsessed internet nerd homosexual farmers.

LMFAO! You've got that right.

My guess is President Barbicane throws a ball like a girl.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

The Phora is packed with emotionally-stunted eugenics-obsessed internet nerd homosexual farmers.
I think it's unfair to slander them as "homosexuals." That's going a bit far. Gay calling is beyond rude.

I think what it is: The general moral decline which leads young men to think of sex in the crudest terms. A general moral decline brings decline in all aspects of civilization, and language is one of those.

It might have been that for this thread headline, the word was a reasonable choice. But I notice this word being used almost exclusively now by ostensible young White racialists. It's the queers who like to call procreation "breeding" to demean the natural and wholesome sexuality (heterosexuality), or even White populations themselves. It's the Jews whose word "goyim" means cattle, and cattle are definitely "bred." So you'd think if one wanted to fight this rot, he'd find better terms. "Developing a white population..." would have worked. Even "birthing." Creativity is good; so is noble thought. At this point, words are extremely important in the culture war and the covert race war, to both sides. Don't thoughtlessly use the enemy's own weapons against your own.

[Draconian]

Since when basketball and nfl are become true athletic disciplines?
Soccer is the most underestimated sport in USA, but soccer (Real Football!) players have great ability and stamina, unlike those bastards from NFL, which are slow (!), too stocky and why they use Protection unlike Rugby players?
Not to mention baseball, the most boring sport in USA.

[numba_one]

White people are generally less athletic than black people. Although black people make up something like 13% of the population in the US, they make up 80% of NBA players, and 65% of NFL players.

Of course, there is some evidence that white people are more athletic than Asians, but right now I'm focusing on the black-white difference in athletic ability.

I am making a few assumptions. First, I am assuming that the observed difference in athletic performance between black people and white people is genetic. Next, I am assuming that this difference is due to some allele or more likely a set of alleles present in the black population, but absent or nearly so in the white population. Both of these assumptions are reasonable given the evidence we have now. They could be more rigorously tested, but I doubt they ever will be since the topic is so taboo.

Breeding a population of white people with athletic capabilities similar to black people could be done with a technique similar to the technique used by the American Chestnut Foundation to breed American chestnut trees resistant to the Asian chestnut blight. For more information, see here. (http://www.acf.org/r_r.php) The technique begins by creating a hybrid population -- in the case I'm considering a population of black-white hybrids. You would then select from this population the most athletically gifted people (I imagine some sort of 'athleticism test' using objective measurements like sprint times, jumping heights, etc.) and backcross them with the original stock (in my case white people). Then select the most athletically gifted backcross them, and so on. Do this 4 times, and the resulting population would be 15/16 white, but have the average athletic capability of a black population.

The population would be genetically 15/16ths white, meaning that on any genetic trait except athletic performance (for instance skin color, hair texture, facial features), they would be 15/16ths of the way towards white people. I suspect the black ancestry would be almost imperceptible, although if not we could do additional backcrossings; it would only take time.

One problem with this approach is that some of these alleles may control more than one trait. It could be, for instance, that some alleles increase a person's athletic ability, but decrease their intelligence. Thus this technique may breed white people with the bad traits of black people. It is unlikely that all of the alleles which confer athletic ability also confer a negative trait, but probably some of them do.

Another problem with this approach is that there would be a small population of these athletic white people, so the really rare athletic talent wouldn't be there. I'm not sure the best way to address this.

Another problem is that these athletic white people would probably wish to interbreed with non-athletic whites (after all it would be very difficult to tell the difference between them), and thus these traits would be diluted out of existence. One way to prevent this would be to isolate the athletic white population, perhaps on some secluded island.

Similar techniques could be used to breed any sort of trait into a population. For instance, one could breed a 'white' population with dark skin to reduce the incidence of skin cancer. One could also breed a black population as intelligent as whites. The possibilities are endless.



Wasn't there a program in Australia that attempted to eliminate the Aboriginal racial characteristics by mixing them with Whites until they resembled other White people, but it was stopped because it was unethical? That's the biggest problem you'd face if you tried something like this. While I don't believe that there are any differences between the intelligence of different racial groups, I do believe there are differences in athletic ability. However, I think these differences have more to do with inbreeding than anything to do with race. The reason why Black people tend to be more athletically gifted is because they are the most genetically diverse race on the planet. The most genetically inbred are Native Americans and Melanesian/Aboriginal types, since they were stuck on their respective islands or continents for tens of thousands of years without mixing with outside populations.

Japanese are more inbred than Chinese and other East Asians, since they've been stuck on their islands for thousands of years. Japanese tend to have very weak looking legs(they have soft doughy legs without much muscle showing). Europeans are better off than Asians on average in terms of genetic diversity, but even they are inbred to a certain degree. Africans are the most diverse genetically and it shows; Africans tend to look very muscular and they are faster on average than the other races. Studies have shown that on average Blacks have more fast twitch muscle fibers and more testosterone than Whites and on average Whites have more fast twitch muscle fibers and testosterone than Asians. I think this goes well with the pattern of genetic diversity; Blacks are more genetically diverse than Whites, which is why they happen to be better athletes on average than Whites and Whites are more genetically diverse on average than Asians, which is why they happen to be more athletically gifted on average than Asians.

There has never been a non-Black athlete who has run under 10 seconds for the 100m dash. However, there have been athletes who are either 1/2 or 1/4 Black or less who have run under 10 seconds, which shows that the athletic ability of Blacks can be transferred when they mix outside of their race. Both Whites and Asians would benefit by being less inbred. Even mixing with other White ethnic groups would make White Europeans less inbred, which is why White Americans are on average more athletic than White Europeans(due to all the ethnicity mixing that's been going on between different White ethnic groups in America.) For instance, you won't find many examples of freakishly talented athletes like Michael Phelps or Lance Armstrong among Europeans. Asians need a lot more help, since mixing with other Asians won't make them taller on average(they need to mix with a race that's tall to compete with Black and White athletes in most sports).

[Draconian]

I think it's unfair to slander them as "homosexuals." That's going a bit far. Gay calling is beyond rude.

I think what it is: The general moral decline which leads young men to think of sex in the crudest terms. A general moral decline brings decline in all aspects of civilization, and language is one of those.

It might have been that for this thread headline, the word was basically decent. But I notice this word being used almost exclusively now by ostensible young White racialists. It's the queers who like to call procreation "breeding" to demean the natural and wholesome sexuality (heterosexuality), or even White populations themselves. It's the Jews whose word "goyim" means cattle, and cattle are definitely "bred." So you'd think if one wanted to fight this rot, he'd find better terms. "Developing a white population..." would have worked. Even "birthing." Creativity is good; so is noble thought. At this point, words are an extremely important, and central, aspect of the culture war, and the covert race war.
But Mentious, humans are animals. We are highly evolved animals, this is the main difference between us and monkeys for example.

[numba_one]

Since when basketball and nfl are become true athletic disciplines?
Soccer is the most underestimated sport in USA, but soccer (Real Football!) players have great ability and stamina, unlike those bastards from NFL, which are slow (!), too stocky and why they use Protection unlike Rugby players?
Not to mention baseball, the most boring sport in USA.


Sorry but soccer is lame. I don't understand how Europeans can enjoy it.

[Jake Featherston]

We need a healthy populace. Athletic exploits are fine as a diversion, but they are of no real consequence. The problem is that we're a society of people who will drive around a parking lot for ten minutes in order to avoid having to walk what they imagine is "a long ways," not that we're not setting athletic records. And I'm not sure that problem is genetic, but rather cultural.

[Draconian]

Sorry but soccer is lame. I don't understand how Europeans can enjoy it.
Everyone have the right to be with bad taste like you.

[Jake Featherston]

Sorry but soccer is lame. I don't understand how Europeans can enjoy it.

Its the only sport more boring than baseball. Although hockey and basketball are pretty dull too (fast-paced nothing, instead of slow-paced nothing). Football is mildly diverting, but I can't sit through a three hour game. Seeing a sweet shot being made in golf during the sports highlights on the local news is cool, but watching golf for hours at a time? Just shoot me now. I won't even comment on spectator tennis.

The only sport I enjoy watching on tv is fishing. That's because they mainly just show when the fish is pulled from the water ie., the interesting part.

[numba_one]

Everyone have the right to be with bad taste like you.



American football is a manly sport because guys get hit hard all the time and injuries happen all the time. You won't see these kinds of hits in soccer:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyhSPd-TK1o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1BhQMkPEc

[numba_one]

Its the only sport more boring than baseball. Although hockey and basketball are pretty dull too (fast-paced nothing, instead of slow-paced nothing). Football is mildly diverting, but I can't sit through a three hour game. Seeing a sweet shot being made in golf during the sports highlights on the local news is cool, but watching golf for hours at a time? Just shoot me now. I won't even comment on spectator tennis.

The only sport I enjoy watching on tv is fishing. That's because they mainly just show when the fish is pulled from the water ie., the interesting part.



The only sport I watch routinely is the NFL. It helps to have a favorite team because then you can watch them play every week and it makes the game more enjoyable. I also watch the NBA during the playoffs, but I don't care too much about it because my city doesn't have an NBA team so I don't have a favorite team. Baseball is boring. The only thing I like about hockey is the fights. Soccer is a sissy sport.

[Commander]

I think a lot of the young blacks, the ones who are in good shape, it's because they are in jail so much. (pumping the weights, etc.)

If you look at them, you can tell the ones who have been out not that long.

The easy livin' and fried chicken has not caught up with them yet. :blackface:

[numba_one]

What you are proposing isn't breeding, it's race mixing. By adding a second race to the mix you're also adding their problems too. All the worlds fastest horses are purebred Arabic horses. If we were talking about animals rather than humans one would surely propose culling the slowest and fattest from the gene pool in any way one sees fit, this would leave a gene pool where the average was higher than before, in this case faster and leaner. Those animals would bred towards the mean which was higher than before. You would keep doing this till the population was more towards what you want, then you let them multiply their numbers.

Europeans, unlike Africans, have beaten their enemies through technological superiority, or specifically intelligence, not by numbers or through brute strength. To suggest that athletic ability is the be all and end all of humanity is incorrect, throwing stones at riflemen does very little as the Zulus found when they went up against the Imperial British Army in 1879.


Originally the Upper Class used horse breeding as an example of how humans should breed. The best should breed with the best and the worst should not breed at all.


By your logic, if the Ancient Greeks and Romans had killed off everyone who they believed was intellectually inferior from the White race, then they would have decimated Northern Europeans, since they believed them to be stupid and only good for fighting and brute strength. Read up on what the Ancient Greeks and Romans thought about the Nordic Whites and you wouldn't be so quick to promote wiping out, "inferior" peoples.



Like you can talk.


I wasn't the one who made the original comment.

[numba_one]

I think a lot of the young blacks, the ones who are in good shape, it's because they are in jail so much. (pumping the weights, etc.)


Yea, that explains why the ones in Africa are also athletically gifted. http://www.the-boondocks.org/forum/images/smiley_icons/rolleyes.gif

[Commander]

Yea, that explains why the ones in Africa are also athletically gifted. http://www.the-boondocks.org/forum/images/smiley_icons/rolleyes.gif

I don't know about Africa, but I am familiar with Detroit.

[Draconian]

I think a lot of the young blacks, the ones who are in good shape, it's because they are in jail so much. (pumping the weights, etc.)

If you look at them, you can tell the ones who have been out not that long.

The easy livin' and fried chicken has not caught up with them yet. :blackface:
Blacks are more manly and strong from you. Take it like man!:negro:

[numba_one]

I know full well what they thought of them, they subjugated them and made racial laws to stop their people from interbreeding with them. As for genocide, I never advocated it. Do not put words in my mouth.


Yes, but the way you talked about breeding superior horses by wiping out the slow ones while alluding to race does give that impression.

Do you know where the word 'Barbarian' comes from?

It comes from the Ancient Greeks and other Europeans not understanding the languages of foreign peoples. To them it all sounded like "babble". So, they got labeled as barbarians. That doesn't change that the Northern Europeans were practically barbarians or primitive when compared to the Ancient Greeks and Ancient Romans. Not saying that they were stupid, but rather they lacked the culture and knowledge that the Ancient Greeks and Romans had possessed.

So? You supported it.


Supporting it is not the same as saying it. You put my name above the quote as if I was the one who said it.

[WillieBrennan]

American football is a manly sport because guys get hit hard all the time and injuries happen all the time. You won't see these kinds of hits in soccer:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyhSPd-TK1o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1BhQMkPEc


And how many Somalis are in the NFL, NBA or MLB?

For that matter, how many Africans are there?

Last I checked there are mostly American negros in those sports.

The NFL, NBA and MLB should thank the slave masters for that.:whip:

[numba_one]

And how many Somalis are in the NFL, NBA or MLB?

For that matter, how many Africans are there?

Last I checked there are mostly American negros in those sports.

The NFL, NBA and MLB should thank the slave masters for that.:whip:


There are a few Africans in those sports but of course there won't be that many because it's mainly Americans who get recruited. In order for an African to make it into the NFL or NBA, they would have to go to college here in the USA and then get drafted. Not many Africans are on college teams so of course there will be very few of them drafted. It's like asking why there aren't many Chinese people playing for Japanese sports teams; doesn't make much sense really to ask a question like that since the answer is so obvious.

[WillieBrennan]

There are a few Africans in those sports but of course there won't be that many because it's mainly Americans who get recruited. In order for an African to make it into the NFL or NBA, they would have to go to college here in the USA and then get drafted. Not many Africans are on college teams so of course there will be very few of them drafted. It's like asking why there aren't many Chinese people playing for Japanese sports teams; doesn't make much sense really to ask a question like that since the answer is so obvious.

The NHL seems to recruit plenty of "non Americans".

[Julian Curtis Lee]

But Mentious, humans are animals.
That's dumb. But go ahead and view yourself as an animal, speak of yourself in animal terms, and relinquish all human culture and aspiration if you like. But form your own cadre of animal men and indulge in animal language with them. Don't subject us to it.

And please note that animals do not make issues over subtle nuances of words, history, culture, etc. Or even have words. But don't let that confuse you.

[numba_one]

The NHL seems to recruit plenty of "non Americans".


The MLB also recruits a lot of Dominicans and Cubans but that doesn't mean that only they are gifted in baseball. It's just that those nations are in close proximity to the U.S. and the sport is very popular there so they can find people who are well trained in it. However, it's hard to find very many Somalis or other types of Africans who have been trained to play American football. Also, the percentage of Somalis and other types of Africans is way below the percentage of African Americans, so of course there will be far more African Americans recruited to the NFL or NBA than there will be African immigrants, just as there are far more White Americans recruited to those and other American sports than White Europeans.

[numba_one]

That's stupid. But go ahead and view yourself as an animal, speak of yourself in animal terms, and relinquish all human culture and aspiration if you like. But form your own cadre of animal men and indulge in animal language with them.


Technically he's correct though. We are the most intelligent animals on this planet, but we are still animals. Our species is homo sapien or human but we are also related to all the other species on this planet, so how can we not be animals?

[WillieBrennan]

If there were loads of Africans who exhibited great athletic potential you can bet your bottom dollar that the Jews running the American sporting industry would be finding a way to import them.

You tend to overstate the dominance of black athletes.

The US is not the world.

[harjit]

Weird, so I did, I don't know how that happened. Oh well, you still agreed with the premise. I personally only offense to the homosexual part, the rest is probably quite accurate.
'Twas my quote, the gay part was obviously a joke. Don't know of any openly homosexual posters, or many farmers here here either for that matter.

Actually, I just realized something... MSF's own Y_I_Otter is literally a homosexual farmer! I honestly didn't have him in mind when I made that post. He's certainly not eugenics-obsessed though.

[harjit]

I know of one poster on here who is openly homosexual. I also grew up in a farming town, we bred horses, dogs, sheep, and albino rats when I was younger.
Albino rats sold as pets? I can't imagine other uses... except maybe pet food for snake-owners.

When I get older I'll probably buy a farm somewhere in a nice valley and do this again.
It sounds like a great way to live, especially in a place like New Zealand.

[numba_one]

I said if we were talking about animals this is what is done, I never suggested that we do this with humans. Do you have a guilty conscience?


If that's the case then I apologize for my response to you. I'm still relatively new here so I don't know the positions of most of the posters here regarding race.



Yes, the Greeks said the people made Bar Bar noises and so they called them Bar-bar-ians. Even Ancient Greeks liked their racial slurs.


Yes. Which was my point; if the Greeks wanted to practice eugenics they'd wipe out all non-Greek Whites. The Greeks even looked down upon the Ancient Romans, probably due to jealousy that the Romans took over as the most powerful people in Europe, sort of how British people look down on Americans today, out of jealousy of the powerful status that America has today.

The Franks knew a lot more about animal husbandry and fighting with a bow than the Romans. Their War Dogs (we now call them Alsatians, Doberman, and Rottweiler breeds, which are traditionally pure bred) were unparalleled on the battlefield. The Romans had never fought a defensive war in their history and this was their downfall while on the other hand Germania Magna never fell to Roman hands because the Romans couldn't penetrate the forests with their Legion's column tactics.


Are you forgetting the Second Punic War? They were forced to try to defend their territories then from Hannibal who decimated their armies and pretty much did whatever he wanted on Roman soil for years before he finally left back to Africa to defend Carthage. It's not that the Romans had difficulty penetrating into the forests of Northern Europe; they had no such difficulty when Cesar conquered Gaul and later generations of Romans conquered Britain. Rather, the reason why the Ancient Romans never penetrated that deep into Northern Europe is because there was nothing there that interested them. They wanted to conquer lands that possessed wealth and would add to the economic prosperity of Rome like Egypt or Greece. The only thing of value in Northern Europe was the people there, since they could use them as slaves and soldiers, and even those weren't that great since the ones from Northern Europe often rebelled against Rome.


BTW, you'll love this part, it was a Jewish revolt which started the downwards spiral for the Roman Empire under Emperor Trajan. After that the Roman Empire had five Emperors which were all on the defensive, building massive walls and fortifications but having no ambition to expand the Empire which allowed their enemies to regroup and make deals with their other enemies. The Barbarian tribes ended up sacking Rome and taking the secrets of Metal Working, specifically Iron Working, as a spoil of war. They then formed the Holy Roman Empire, which ironically was not Holy, Roman, nor truly an Empire.


Yes, it was the fact that they stopped conquering new territories that the empire collapsed. Rome's economy was kept strong due to their conquering new lands and acquiring more wealth and slaves from those lands. Without those new slaves coming in, and with the old slaves becoming citizens, Rome lost it's cheap workforce. And, since they were so concerned with internal politics, they failed to realize the growing threat from their old enemies, who had regrouped and become stronger throughout the years. Of course, even when they were declining, Roman soldiers were better trained and equipped than the barbarian soldiers from the North; they were just outnumbered most of the time and the empire was fractured and had bad leadership towards the end as well.



Weird, so I did, I don't know how that happened. Oh well, you still agreed with the premise. Personally I only took offense to the homosexual part, the rest is probably quite accurate.


Well, the homosexual part is kind of childish; I wasn't really agreeing with that part. I was more in agreement with the "eugenics" or race obsessed nerds part. It seems to me like the type of White guys who are interested in eugenics or preserving the White race tend to be nerdy or ugly types who are pissed that they can't get good looking White women to date them and they partially blame it on Blacks and other minorities stealing their women. A handsome White guy would have no problems getting White women which is why you usually don't see those types becoming White supremacists; instead of talking about how superior White people are, those type of guys are usually out enjoying their lives.

[numba_one]

If there were loads of Africans who exhibited great athletic potential you can bet your bottom dollar that the Jews running the American sporting industry would be finding a way to import them.

You tend to overstate the dominance of black athletes.

The US is not the world.


What about all the Ethiopians and Kenyans who keep dominating in long distance running here? Also, many Africans have won in 100m dash, 200m dash, and other types of track and field sports. It's not just American Blacks who dominate. In fact, during this Olympics, it was the Jamaicans who won the most medals in track, and the Jamaican, Usain Bolt is currently the world record holder in the 100m dash and he took home gold medals during the China Olympics in the 100m dash and 200m dash. I realize he's not African, but he's not an American either.

[Draconian]

That's dumb. But go ahead and view yourself as an animal, speak of yourself in animal terms, and relinquish all human culture and aspiration if you like. But form your own cadre of animal men and indulge in animal language with them. Don't subject us to it.

And please note that animals do not make issues over subtle nuances of words, history, culture, etc. Or even have words. But don't let that confuse you.
If humans are not animals, what are we then? Octopuses have abilities to solve hard puzzles, like Rubik's Cube, did you not know that? Humans have Only One thing for advantage - intelligence and cowardly nature, thats why we use PC, internet, watch TV, meet other peoples in controlled places (cities). Most horses which are racial pure have perfect bodies, unlike most humans (male or female: beauty standarts are the same: more gentle and symmetrical faces are finded beautifull, but how much natural females/males did you see in the streets have such features: few).

[Schizo]

There are plenty of quite athletical sports where "whites" excel and blacks have virtually none success. Swiming for example.
And numba one your theory on inbreeding makes no sense. Arabs for example are scarcely inbred population while they are in the middle of the Old World and have been exposed to strong foreign genetic influence. Yet, they are cripples, sports invalids and have none successes in whatever sports.

[Schizo]

There are many inbred breeds of dogs that are physicaly and athletically superior to the average geneticaly diverse street dog.

[Ahknaton]

What about all the Ethiopians and Kenyans who keep dominating in long distance running here? Also, many Africans have won in 100m dash, 200m dash, and other types of track and field sports. It's not just American Blacks who dominate. In fact, during this Olympics, it was the Jamaicans who won the most medals in track, and the Jamaican, Usain Bolt is currently the world record holder in the 100m dash and he took home gold medals during the China Olympics in the 100m dash and 200m dash. I realize he's not African, but he's not an American either.
I saw a documentary about Kenyan long-distance runners a while ago and the head Kenyan coach insisted that it was all down to their training technique plus cultural fixation with running and not their genetics. However personally I think that is nonsense and genetics is the deciding factor.

[numba_one]

I saw a documentary about Kenyan long-distance runners a while ago and the head Kenyan coach insisted that it was all down to their training technique plus cultural fixation with running and not their genetics. However personally I think that is nonsense and genetics is the deciding factor.


I read an article which said the reason why Kenyans and Ethiopians dominate in long distance running is because their lungs are larger on average than any other people in the world, due to having adapted to the high altitude where they and their ancestors lived. So, because their lungs are bigger on average, they are able to store more oxygen, which helps them last longer when running marathons. Lance Armstrong has also been shown to have lungs that are 1/3rd larger than the average male, which is why he's able to last long in cycling. Lung capacity is more important for endurance sports, whereas fast twitch muscles are more important for short distance speed type of sports like the 100m dash.

[dementia]

Note the distinct lack of diversity. No non white has ever won this that I know of. Whites consitantly outperform blacks in raw brute strength.

http://www.theworldsstrongestman.com/wsm/index.html.

To the OP, blacks have more fast twitch muscle fibres if you want to breed for sport that involves alot of running you'd be better off sticking with just black genetics. There has been university studies that confirm this genetic link, that I cannot find.

[numba_one]

Note the distinct lack of diversity. No non white has ever won this that I know of. Whites consitantly outperform blacks in raw brute strength.

http://www.theworldsstrongestman.com/wsm/index.html.


I doubt many Black people are very interested in that sport to begin with, so it's kind of like saying that Whites are naturally better at hockey because almost all hockey players are White. It doesn't take into account that Black kids don't tend to be interested in hockey and even if they were, it takes money to buy the equipment to play hockey and many Black people can't afford it. But, let's assume that White people are physically stronger than Black people; this would probably have to do with their greater robustness on average than Black people. Samoans are probably the strongest people on Earth and they are very robust. Blacks tend to be more lean in terms of their bone structure.

[numba_one]

There are plenty of quite athletical sports where "whites" excel and blacks have virtually none success. Swiming for example.
And numba one your theory on inbreeding makes no sense. Arabs for example are scarcely inbred population while they are in the middle of the Old World and have been exposed to strong foreign genetic influence. Yet, they are cripples, sports invalids and have none successes in whatever sports.


Not true. Arabs are actually more inbred than Europeans. It's quite common for Arabs to marry their first or second cousins, which is probably what's dragging down their IQ scores and hurting their physical ability. It also leads to them having genetic diseases at a much higher rate than other populations around the world:



Saudi Arabia's cousin-marriage epidemic


Saudi Arabian men's habit of marrying their first cousins is creating a health and cultural crisis in the kingdom, says an analyst of international affairs who has studied demographic issues in the Muslim state.

Writing in Jack Wheeler's intelligence website, To the Point, Neal Asbury notes the practice of marrying blood relatives is beginning to reap dire consequences.

"The people of the Arabian Peninsula for centuries have scratched a life from the hostile desert and followed a simple rule when choosing a marriage partner: Keep it in the family," Ashbury explains. "Many marry their first cousins in arranged marriages to this day. In the past, this was done to help conserve resources and contribute to the clan's support and defense. Consanguinity (marriage between people that are blood relatives) has been practiced in the Middle East for over 100 generations, even before the introduction of Islam in the seventh century.

"This is an ultra sensitive issue for the government and Islamic religious establishment. It has been compounded by the Prophet Muhammad's own family. His daughter, Fatimah, was married to her cousin Ali, who was a revered Imam. Several other members of the Prophet's family and inner circle were married to close blood relatives."

Ashbury then explains the health consequences of continuing to practice blood-relative marriage.

Writes Ashbury: "Research shows the Saudi rate for some diseases is 20 times higher than in populations where consanguinity is not practiced. This has lead recently to Wahhabi clerics gingerly counseling young men to 'choose a wife carefully with an eye to health.'

"It is estimated that over 60 percent of Saudis marry first or second cousins, which is the highest in the world. However, the numbers are still staggering in Iraq (58 percent), Kuwait (55 percent), Jordan (50 percent) and the UAE (48 percent)."

Ashbury claims the conservative form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia makes any change in cousin-marriage a hard sell, saying consanguinity "literally threatens the gene pool of [the Gulf nations'] societies, making each generation physically weaker."

The analyst points out that the unusually high percentage of residents of the Gulf being foreigners threatens the identity of the nations and raises the specter of a "slave revolt."

Writes Ashbury: "Will conservative Islam continue to be blind in the Arabian Peninsula? Or will it recognize that to be secure and to thrive, it requires the diversity it has already created but continues to neglect and abuse? Sooner or later, a Spartacus will arise from these enslaved foreign masses, and a slave revolt will overrun Arabia if it is the former.

"Yet how can advocates of fundamentalist Islam recognize the latter with their brain cells so damaged by centuries of cousin marriage?"


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44204

[dementia]

I doubt many Black people are very interested in that sport to begin with, so it's kind of like saying that Whites are naturally better at hockey because almost all hockey players are White.

Blacks have taken part before, one that I know of got to the top five, that's it.

It doesn't take into account that Black kids don't tend to be interested in hockey and even if they were, it takes money to buy the equipment to play hockey and many Black people can't afford it.

I wouldn't know but I doubt it costs much more than basketball, clubs supply alot of gear etc.

But, let's assume that White people are physically stronger than Black people; this would probably have to do with their greater robustness on average than Black people.

All evidence points that way. I have seen this first hand aswell at my gym. I don't know why exactly but more than likely it's genetic.

Samoans are probably the strongest people on Earth and they are very robust. Blacks tend to be more lean in terms of their bone structure

Whites are the strongest in the world. A Islander entered WSM comp and did far worse than the black guy. Islanders aren't that strong it's a common misconception just because they're large and agressive.

[harjit]

Note the distinct lack of diversity. No non white has ever won this that I know of. Whites consitantly outperform blacks in raw brute strength.

http://www.theworldsstrongestman.com/wsm/index.html.

To the OP, blacks have more fast twitch muscle fibres if you want to breed for sport that involves alot of running you'd be better off sticking with just black genetics. There has been university studies that confirm this genetic link, that I cannot find.
This guy is beating the shit out of Africa, tossing it around and shouting RAHOWA, to symbolize the superior upper-body strength of the white man.
http://www.theworldsstrongestman.com/photos/07/02/6ca5de65489d423987e2ecc831c86f05.jpg

[numba_one]

Blacks have taken part before, one that I know of got to the top five, that's it.


Yea, but not many have tried. It's the same with swimming, tennis or golf; many Black people just don't get into those types of fringe sports but every once in a while you get one that excels in those types of sports like for instance Tiger Woods or Venus and Serena Williams and then people who said that Black people can't play those sports look foolish.



I wouldn't know but I doubt it costs much more than basketball, clubs supply alot of gear etc.


Well basketball is pretty much free; you just go down to the courts and get in on a game that's going on, doesn't require you to buy anything but shorts and sneakers. Football and baseball are also not that expensive to get into for kids playing on playgrounds. Hockey on the other hand isn't a sport you can just play with neighborhood kids; especially in the ghetto where there likely aren't many skating facilities available and not much interest in the sport to begin with by Black people. I believe that if Black people were more interested in hockey or swimming that they'd do just about as well as White people in those sports.



All evidence points that way. I have seen this first hand aswell at my gym. I don't know why exactly but more than likely it's genetic.


Well their robustness comes from the colder environment in Europe where having larger bodies meant greater warmth. On the other hand, Africans have thinner frames because having a larger body is counterproductive in the hot African climate where the key to survival is preserving your body's water and keeping out of the sunlight; a huge body that uses up a lot of water and has lots of parts exposed to the sunlight isn't very efficient in hot African climates.



Whites are the strongest in the world. A Islander entered WSM comp and did far worse than the black guy. Islanders aren't that strong it's a common misconception just because they're large and agressive.


Maybe. It's just that they look so big that I have the impression that they are strong. Maybe they just have big frames but are inefficient in using them. Who knows.

[dementia]

Yea, but not many have tried. It's the same with swimming, tennis or golf; many Black people just don't get into those types of fringe sports but every once in a while you get one that excels in those types of sports like for instance Tiger Woods or Venus and Serena Williams and then people who said that Black people can't play those sports look foolish.

Well until they do then the facts stand. I don't have any problem saying blacks are better runners than whites, i'd look foolish arguing otherwise.


Well basketball is pretty much free; you just go down to the courts and get in on a game that's going on, doesn't require you to buy anything but shorts and sneakers. Football and baseball are also not that expensive to get into for kids playing on playgrounds. Hockey on the other hand isn't a sport you can just play with neighborhood kids; especially in the ghetto where there likely aren't many skating facilities available and not much interest in the sport to begin with by Black people. I believe that if Black people were more interested in hockey or swimming that they'd do just about as well as White people in those sports.
Well I doubt that, the lack of interest that is. If there is a talent any club is more than happy to help out.


Well their robustness comes from the colder environment in Europe where having larger bodies meant greater warmth. On the other hand, Africans have thinner frames because having a larger body is counterproductive in the hot African climate where the key to survival is preserving your body's water and keeping out of the sunlight; a huge body that uses up a lot of water and has lots of parts exposed to the sunlight isn't very efficient in hot African climates.

Yes, maybe it's some sort of genetic adaptation.

Maybe. It's just that they look so big that I have the impression that they are strong. Maybe they just have big frames but are inefficient in using them. Who knows.

Having spent some time around them they're just my observations. I haven't seen any difference in their workout routines. They do very well in rugby, another running sport.

[Schizo]

Whites are the strongest in the world. A Islander entered WSM comp and did far worse than the black guy. Islanders aren't that strong it's a common misconception just because they're large and agressive.
Indeed. All good wrestlers are white (caucasians, balkanoids, russians, scandinavians). And that isn't a sport that requires money or some special equipment so that blacks have no excuse for being inferior in that discipline.
On the whole all heavy athletics disciplines are dominated by whites (caucasoids).
Hence the idea that blacks are more athletic is preposterous.

[Draconian]

Not true. Arabs are actually more inbred than Europeans. It's quite common for Arabs to marry their first or second cousins, which is probably what's dragging down their IQ scores and hurting their physical ability. It also leads to them having genetic diseases at a much higher rate than other populations around the world:
You probably dont know history of the arabs. Arabs are mixed with Turks, Mongols, Tatars, Indians, not to mention europeans or niggers.

[Draconian]

Indeed. All good wrestlers are white (caucasians, balkanoids, russians, scandinavians). And that isn't a sport that requires money or some special equipment so that blacks have no excuse for being inferior in that discipline.
On the whole all heavy athletics disciplines are dominated by whites (caucasoids).
Hence the idea that blacks are more athletic is preposterous.
Niggers are good only with running, because their habitat is full with danger thats why evolution make them run faster. Habitat of europeans make us strongest and we have much stamina than blacks.

[President Barbicane]

My guess is President Barbicane throws a ball like a girl.


LOL! Guilty as charged.

[Amerika-jin]

My guess is President Barbicane throws a ball like a girl.

LOL! Guilty as charged.

Have a good day.

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

[President Barbicane]

Indeed. All good wrestlers are white (caucasians, balkanoids, russians, scandinavians). And that isn't a sport that requires money or some special equipment so that blacks have no excuse for being inferior in that discipline.
On the whole all heavy athletics disciplines are dominated by whites (caucasoids).
Hence the idea that blacks are more athletic is preposterous.

I have thought about this as well. It does seem that whites are superior at sports which involve strength, but that blacks are better at sports that require speed. It could be that there are some alleles present in the white population but not in the black population that confer athletic ability. In other words, there could be two sets of alleles which confer greater athletic ability: One in the black population, which confers a greater degree of speed, and one in the white population, which confers a greater amount of strength. If this is the case a hybrid population (which is selected for athletic ability) would have more athletic ability than either of the two original populations.


Yea, but not many have tried. It's the same with swimming, tennis or golf; many Black people just don't get into those types of fringe sports but every once in a while you get one that excels in those types of sports like for instance Tiger Woods or Venus and Serena Williams and then people who said that Black people can't play those sports look foolish.

Hmm. I am using the term 'black' in a genetic sense -- not in a cultural sense. Tiger Woods is not black genetically. Genetically he is Asian. He does have a few African ancestors, though, so in the US (under the one drop rule) he is considered black. Tiger Woods is really an example of the Asian superiority in golf. It looks like Anthony Kim (of Korean descent but born in the USA) is the next Tiger Woods. Asian people are notably absent in other sports in the US, like basketball or football, but Asian people excel at golf. Dean Wilson is another example of a pro golfer with some Asian background.

[Geist]

American football is a manly sport because guys get hit hard all the time and injuries happen all the time. You won't see these kinds of hits in soccer:


Until the Americans start playing American football sans helmets and protection a la rugby players they have no claim to it being a manly sport.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Why would anyone engage in a eugenics program for sports? European basketball teams have already proven the mythical superiority of black American basketball players.

Sports in the US is so heavily black because far more blacks than whites see professional sports a ticket out of poverty.

[Allegheny]

While I don't believe that there are any differences between the intelligence of different racial groups, I do believe there are differences in athletic ability.

Why? Considering everything we know about evolution, it is incumbent on you to prove that there AREN'T differences in intelligence.

[Allegheny]

The most genetically inbred are Native Americans and Melanesian/Aboriginal types, since they were stuck on their respective islands or continents for tens of thousands of years without mixing with outside

Yes, well, what about the poor, inbred Samoans? After all, it's not like 15% of boys from American Samoa's six high schools in the past five years have gone on to play for American universities, or that 41 players of Samoan descent are in the NFL, despite there being only half-a-million Samoans in the world.

See here:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/why-we-compete/2007/08/opportunity.html


Africans are the most diverse genetically and it shows; Africans tend to look very muscular and they are faster on average than the other races.


Yes, what musclemen those Ethiopians, Sudanese, and Kenyans are -- except they tend to suck at every athletic event that doesn't involve running in a straight line for more than 800 m.

Studies have shown that on average Blacks have more fast twitch muscle fibers and more testosterone than Whites and on average Whites have more fast twitch muscle fibers and testosterone than Asians.


Studies have also shown that salivary testosterone levels (which correlate well with serum testosterone levels) are much lower among African populations than Western ones.

See the following studies:

1) Hum Reprod. 2002 Dec;17(12):3251-3. Population variation in age-related decline in male salivary testosterone. Ellison PT, Bribiescas RG, Bentley GR, Campbell BC, Lipson SF, Panter-Brick C, Hill K.

2) Aging Clin Exp Res. 2006 Dec;18(6):470-6. Age-related patterns of body composition and salivary testosterone among Ariaal men of Northern Kenya. Campbell BC, Gray PB, Ellison PT.

3) Am J Hum Biol. 2003 Sep-Oct;15(5):697-708. Salivary testosterone and body composition among Ariaal males. Campbell B, O'Rourke MT, Lipson SF.

Further, the following study

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Jul;92(7):2519-25. Epub 2007 Apr 24. Serum estrogen, but not testosterone, levels differ between black and white men in a nationally representative sample of Americans

(note the title) found that


Only among younger veterans with little education do we find T in blacks to be unusually high, significantly higher than in whites. These younger black men, poorly educated, most of them urban residents, are most likely to participate in the honor subculture, and that may be the reason for their elevated T.


The study posits that the need to 'keep it real' among urban black males is the explanation for elevated T levels. Also, I am looking for a recent study which found that urban Hispanic males had the highest T levels (further support for this hypothesis).

There has never been a non-Black athlete who has run under 10 seconds for the 100m dash. However, there have been athletes who are either 1/2 or 1/4 Black or less who have run under 10 seconds, which shows that the athletic ability of Blacks can be transferred when they mix outside of their race.


No, it doesn't. It shows that you have an anecdote about mixed athletes running the 100 m in under 10 seconds.

Both Whites and Asians would benefit by being less inbred.

You never answered the questions about outbreeding depression that I posed last time, so I doubt you'll be able to show 'how' Whites and Asians (an interesting racial categorization scheme you've developed) would benefit from being less inbred.


Even mixing with other White ethnic groups would make White Europeans less inbred, which is why White Americans are on average more athletic than White Europeans(due to all the ethnicity mixing that's been going on between different White ethnic groups in America.)


Evidence?


For instance, you won't find many examples of freakishly talented athletes like Michael Phelps or Lance Armstrong among Europeans.


Sure, ignoring Eddy Merckx, Roger Federer, Fabio Cannavaro, Paavo Nurmi....all inbred, unathletic Europeans.

[President Barbicane]

Why would anyone engage in a eugenics program for sports? European basketball teams have already proven the mythical superiority of black American basketball players.

Sports in the US is so heavily black because far more blacks than whites see professional sports a ticket out of poverty.

There are many European players in the NBA, but even so the NBA is almost 80% black.

Interestingly, your comment about blacks seeing sports as the ticket out of poverty is almost identical to one my (black) high school gym teacher said about why black kids dominate sports. It is certainly the politically correct view of black sports ability, but I don't think it's true.

Hispanics, who are even more poor than blacks according to government figures, do not dominate sports in any way. The only hispanic basketball player I can think of at the moment is Manu Ginobili, and he's an Argentinean of Italian (Jewish?) descent. Also, I've heard that Michael Jordan comes from a very middle-class family.

I really do hope that the hypothesis of black athletic superiority is tested more rigorously. Numba_one said that he thinks that black athletic superiority is genetic (because of genetic diversity), but that white intellectual superiority is not genetic. It's certainly possible, but the intelligence hypothesis has been much more rigorously tested. As far as I'm aware, there's been nothing like the Minnesota transracial adoption study looking at athletic ability. So it's more likely that the converse is true; that black athleticism is not genetic, but white intelligence is genetic. But, I don't think thats the way it is. Occam's razor -- both white intelligence and black athleticism are genetic.

[numba_one]

You probably dont know history of the arabs. Arabs are mixed with Turks, Mongols, Tatars, Indians, not to mention europeans or niggers.


Yes, I know about how they've had mixing with outside groups. However, all of the benefits from that mixing have been undone through thousands of years of first and second cousin marriages being so rampant in Arab societies. A man who has a Black and White parent but ends up marrying his own sister will have kids that are more inbred than the offspring of same race marriages. What causes inbreeding is marrying someone that is closely related to you. The reason why race mixing is the opposite of inbreeding is because you're having offspring with someone who is far removed from you genetically(your last common ancestor with them is thousands or tens of thousands of years back in time). So, Arabs would have been more genetically diverse than Europeans if they hadn't kept marrying into their families.

[numba_one]

Hmm. I am using the term 'black' in a genetic sense -- not in a cultural sense. Tiger Woods is not black genetically. Genetically he is Asian. He does have a few African ancestors, though, so in the US (under the one drop rule) he is considered black. Tiger Woods is really an example of the Asian superiority in golf. It looks like Anthony Kim (of Korean descent but born in the USA) is the next Tiger Woods. Asian people are notably absent in other sports in the US, like basketball or football, but Asian people excel at golf. Dean Wilson is another example of a pro golfer with some Asian background.


Tiger Woods' dad is Black. His mom is Asian, so he's half Black and half Asian. So, you can't attribute his golf abilities just to his Asian side. Here's a picture of him standing next to his dad:


http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2006/golf/05/03/earl.woods/p1_earl.jpg

[numba_one]

Why would anyone engage in a eugenics program for sports? European basketball teams have already proven the mythical superiority of black American basketball players.

Sports in the US is so heavily black because far more blacks than whites see professional sports a ticket out of poverty.



LOL. How did they prove that? Just because Argentina won gold in the 2004 Olympics? Even though the United States won in 2008, 2000, 1996, and 1992 with all Black men playing on their rosters? Since basketball became an official Olympic sport in 1936, the U.S. hasn't gotten the gold medal only 4 times. Also, the only reason why Argentina won the gold in 2004 was because many of the best players in America decided not to play in order to enjoy their summers off from the grueling NBA season, including the best player in the NBA, Kobe Bryant. However, Kobe did play this year and the U.S. won gold.

[numba_one]

Yes, well, what about the poor, inbred Samoans? After all, it's not like 15% of boys from American Samoa's six high schools in the past five years have gone on to play for American universities, or that 41 players of Samoan descent are in the NFL, despite there being only half-a-million Samoans in the world.

See here:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/why-we-compete/2007/08/opportunity.html


Yea, Samoans are likely strong; they look it anyways. However, in terms of speed or endurance, they aren't very athletic. The ones who get recruited to the NFL are mainly sought after for their strength; which is why they're usually put in as linemen or linebackers. One of my friends who played on a football team with lots of Samoans said that they're strong but they get tired quickly and they aren't very fast; and that's coming from a White guy.




Yes, what musclemen those Ethiopians, Sudanese, and Kenyans are -- except they tend to suck at every athletic event that doesn't involve running in a straight line for more than 800 m.


East Africans tend to be good at long distance running whereas West Africans tend to be good at short distance running. That's why West African types tend to appear more muscular, as opposed to the thin East Africans. But, that's part of the genetic diversity of Africa; you have such radically different types of athletic abilities in peoples who are both Black. The greatest amount of genetic and physical diversity among all continents is Africa. Europeans are very similar to each other with only minor differences between North/South regions, and Asians are even more similar to each other than Europeans are. In Africa, you get radically different types of people; from the tall and thin Sudanese to the tiny pigmies to the muscular West African Congoid types to the Caucasoid skulled Ethiopians and Somalis to the Capoid types who resemble Asians, etc. There's no other continent where there's such a diversity in appearance and athletic ability.




You never answered the questions about outbreeding depression that I posed last time, so I doubt you'll be able to show 'how' Whites and Asians (an interesting racial categorization scheme you've developed) would benefit from being less inbred.


What was the question again? Refresh my memory.




Sure, ignoring Eddy Merckx, Roger Federer, Fabio Cannavaro, Paavo Nurmi....all inbred, unathletic Europeans.


Federer and Cannavaro don't count because they play sports that don't really test for athletic ability. How can you measure athletic ability from watching soccer? A pure athletic type of sport such as running, swimming, bicycling, etc. counts, so I give you Merckx and Nurmi as examples to use out of that list, but in a way Nurmi doesn't count because most of the ethnicity mixing between White Americans has gone on in the past 60-90 years so there wasn't that much difference in athletic ability between White Americans and White Europeans yet at that time. However, it's clear from the Olympics that White Americans are superior athletes to White Europeans since they've won more olympic medals than any other nation in the past 50 years. This year, the U.S. won the most as well.

[numba_one]

Why? Considering everything we know about evolution, it is incumbent on you to prove that there AREN'T differences in intelligence.


I can't prove my point just as you can't prove yours. Studies which show differences between national IQ average scores don't really prove anything other than differences in environment in my opinion.

[Allegheny]

I can't prove my point just as you can't prove yours. Studies which show differences between national IQ average scores don't really prove anything other than differences in environment in my opinion.

Yes, well, let us know when you've discovered the X factor that depresses all Africans in every environment but does not affect Europeans and has seemingly evaded detection ever since psychometric testing began.

[Allegheny]

Yea, Samoans are likely strong; they look it anyways. However, in terms of speed or endurance, they aren't very athletic. The ones who get recruited to the NFL are mainly sought after for their strength; which is why they're usually put in as linemen or linebackers. One of my friends who played on a football team with lots of Samoans said that they're strong but they get tired quickly and they aren't very fast; and that's coming from a White guy.

And? 'Strength' doesn't factor into athleticism? You know, Europeans far surpass West Africans in endurance. Are you restricting the definition of athleticism to quick, explosive speed AND long distance running? Yes, then Africans are better at those two things than other populations.


East Africans tend to be good at long distance running whereas West Africans tend to be good at short distance running. That's why West African types tend to appear more muscular, as opposed to the thin East Africans.


And outside of long distance running, East Africans are not terribly athletic: East African nations field weak soccer teams, weak basketball teams, and haven't produced any competitive cyclists, despite their much-vaunted 'endurance' -- an endurance that tops out at 50km. At distances above 50km, the 'inbred' Tarahumara are among the best in the world. It's a pity that most of them spend their time drinking or recovering from drinking.

Europeans are very similar to each other with only minor differences between North/South regions, and Asians are even more similar to each other than Europeans are.


There is also an East-to-West gradient in Europe, although it is not as large as the South-to-North gradient. As for 'Asians' being more similar to each other than Europeans are, you mean East Asians, I assume?

In Africa, you get radically different types of people; from the tall and thin Sudanese to the tiny pigmies to the muscular West African Congoid types to the Caucasoid skulled Ethiopians and Somalis to the Capoid types who resemble Asians, etc. There's no other continent where there's such a diversity in appearance and athletic ability.


Remarkably homogeneous in intellectual ability, though.



What was the question again? Refresh my memory.


It was not really a question, rather I said that outbreeding depression is real, and it increases in later generations as co-adapted gene complexes are destroyed.


Federer and Cannavaro don't count because they play sports that don't really test for athletic ability.


Yes, everyone knows that tennis and soccer don't test for athletic ability...they're more like tiddlywinks or checkers.


How can you measure athletic ability from watching soccer?


Have you watched soccer?


A pure athletic type of sport such as running, swimming, bicycling, etc. counts, so I give you Merckx and Nurmi as examples to use out of that list, but in a way Nurmi doesn't count because most of the ethnicity mixing between White Americans has gone on in the past 60-90 years so there wasn't that much difference in athletic ability between White Americans and White Europeans yet at that time.


You just said that intra-European differences are small. Are they now large enough to account for the supposed athletic superiority of Americans? A superiority which, by the way, we are just taking your word for. Do you have any evidence for this supposed superiority?

However, it's clear from the Olympics that White Americans are superior athletes to White Europeans since they've won more olympic medals than any other nation in the past 50 years. This year, the U.S. won the most as well.


Could it be that America has 300 million people, while the most populous nation in continental Europe, Germany, has only 82 million?

A more sensible metric would be 'medals per capita', which is dominated by European nations:

Lichtenstein, the former East Germany, Norway, Finland, Hungary, and Sweden make up the top five, while the United States comes in 45th.

See here:
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/olymp/reloly.html

[Mark Janssens]

Whites are athletic enough, what a lot of them lack is intelligence. Far too many rural and small town White folks don't read at all, their view of the world comes from listening to Sean Hannity or Michael Savage.

:ameritard:

[Jesterian666]

People can try laying off of the high fructose corn syrup, for starters...


We need a healthy populace. Athletic exploits are fine as a diversion, but they are of no real consequence. The problem is that we're a society of people who will drive around a parking lot for ten minutes in order to avoid having to walk what they imagine is "a long ways," not that we're not setting athletic records. And I'm not sure that problem is genetic, but rather cultural.


http://nsbm.org/

http://www.hermetic.com





http://earth-liberation-front.org/

[Thermonuclear_Warrior]

White people do not need greater athletic potential generally, or even for the reason of becoming more competitive in select mainstream American sports. For one, I'm not convinced that the disparity between whites and blacks in the NFL can be fully attributed to a difference in skill, be it genetically originated or otherwise, between the races. There's just as much affirmative action in the NFL, if not more, as you would find in your average Ivy League University (see, e.g., the recent dramatic increase in black head-coaches and black quarterbacks; can this be attributed to whites becoming less effective in these positions? Yeah right). More can be found on this at castefootball.us.

I also doubt that the disparity between American whites and blacks in the NBA today has everything to do with a difference in genetically-derived ability, although I think blacks possess certain advantages per certain characteristics. Blacks, vis-a-vis whites and other races, dominate basketball primarily because of their socio-economic status and their cultural affinity to the sport. Suburban white kids who actually play are not going to practice playing hoops as extensively as inner-city black kids--actually, it's going to be almost impossible for the average suburban white kid athlete to make such a time-investment. Moreover, to the extent that American whites actually succeed in the sport at the H.S. level, college recruiters will not select them over poorer blacks of similar ability. American whites realize this, and I think they increasingly tune-out from basketball as a result. In Philadelphia at least, the average white sports-fan no longer gives a shit about the NBA, and the same can be said for the Philly suburbs.

[Count Sudoku]

Yea, that explains why the ones in Africa are also athletically gifted. http://www.the-boondocks.org/forum/images/smiley_icons/rolleyes.gif

http://signalsfromthebrink.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-11-25T07%3A54%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7

Let's start with the biological differences in sports, which is something almost everyone observes. Jon Entine's recent book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, addresses the old cliché that "White men can't jump" (and the new one that Oriental men jump even less well). Entine shows that in sports, it is Black men and women who can sky! And yet, as the data also show, it is mainly Blacks of West African descent who excel at running over short distances, while Blacks of East African descent – from Kenya and Ethiopia – excel at marathon running over long distances. These differences between East and West Africans show that taking an average can sometimes gloss over important distinctions. Still, Blacks from both East and West Africa excel at one or another kind of running. In sports, Blacks as a group, have a genetic advantage.

It is interesting to know that race differences show up early in life. Black babies are born a week earlier than White babies, yet they mature faster as measured by bone development. By age five or six, Black children excel in the dash, the long jump, and the high jump, all of which require a short burst of power. By the teenage years, Blacks have faster reflexes, as in the famous knee-jerk response.

Blacks also have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or Orientals. This means more explosive energy, which gives Blacks the edge in sports like boxing, basketball, football, and sprinting.

Why is it taboo to say that Blacks are on average better at sports? Because the hormones that give Blacks the edge in sports also make them more masculine in general. They are physically more active in school, and this can sometimes get them into trouble or even lead to their being diagnosed as hyperactive.

So the next question is, “Why do East Asians and Whites and have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners?” The answer is that they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, as the head size of newborns increased, women had to have a wider pelvis. Orientals average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites, and Whites average a very large 5 cubic inches more cranial capacity than Blacks.

Some people are surprised to hear that the races differ in brain size. And they wonder how convincing the evidence is that brain size is related to intelligence. In fact, dozens of studies, including those based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging, have demonstrated the relation between brain size and intelligence.

Race differences in brain size have been demonstrated using four different methods: (1) magnetic resonance imaging, (2) brain weight at autopsy, (3) endocranial volume, and (4) external head measurements. These data are summarized in Chart 2 which presents the brain size averages across the four measurement techniques and also, where possible, corrected for body size. Orientals averaged 1,364 cm3, Whites averaged 1,347 cm3, and Blacks averaged 1,267 cm3. Naturally the averages vary between samples and the races do overlap. But the results from different methods on different samples, measured from the 1840s to the 1990s, show the same strong pattern.

[President Barbicane]

Tiger Woods' dad is Black. His mom is Asian, so he's half Black and half Asian. So, you can't attribute his golf abilities just to his Asian side. Here's a picture of him standing next to his dad:

I heard his dad was half black/half white. That would make him 1/4 black, 1/4 white, and 1/2 Asian. Asian is the largest percentage, so genetically he is mostly Asian in that he shares more genes with Asians than he does with whites or blacks. Furthermore he is the *only* person on the PGA tour with any black ancestry. Yet there are several with some Asian ancestry.

[President Barbicane]

Blacks also have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or Orientals.

Is there a source for this claim? I thought that Orientals had higher testosterone than whites or blacks.

[Count Sudoku]

Is there a source for this claim? I thought that Orientals had higher testosterone than whites or blacks.

I'm sure there's other sources for this claim. I've seen it often enough.

Blacks are better runners because their hips are narrower which is a result of smaller heads and smaller brains.

I was arguing with some liberal who wouldn't accept that blacks were better speed runners and constantly win all the medals in dash running because of racial physical differences. I asked her if she thought there wasn't any white or Asian athletes interested in winning the 100 m dash.

[numba_one]

Yes, well, let us know when you've discovered the X factor that depresses all Africans in every environment but does not affect Europeans and has seemingly evaded detection ever since psychometric testing began.

Does the fact that Africans live in poorer conditions than Whites everywhere they live not count? If Blacks and Whites in America or any other country had an equal environment and attended schools of equal academic standing, then you could make a case that Blacks are less intelligent on average if they still scored much lower on their IQ tests. Keep in mind also that an equal environment means having equally intelligent parents. It does no good to give some poor Blacks money and send their kids to a private school if their parents are stupid; the main reason why White kids perform better is because their parents tend to have been well educated and therefore they are better able to teach and raise their kids than Blacks are(especially when it comes to learning language). In this sense, it's the mother that's the most important since they spend the most time with their kids, especially in those crucial first 5 years when they're first learning language and getting the right nutrition is crucial or else they can lose as much as 15 or more points off their IQ scores later on in life.

One such crucial nutrient that is necessary in the first few years of life for higher intelligence is iodine; if kids don't get enough of it early on they can lose as much as 10-15 points off their IQ scores later on. There are other such nutrients that are important for brain development as well, which White children are more likely to get because their parents tend to give them more nutritious food on average than Black parents give their kids. There was a study conducted on the kids of Black and White American GIs during WWII with German women. It turned out that the fully White kids and the half Black/half White kids had the same average IQ scores, which demonstrated that as long as the mother was the German the IQ scores would remain the same, which goes to my point about how it's important that the mother feeds their kids properly and also educates them well early on in life in order for them to meet their full intellectual potential.

[numba_one]

I'm sure there's other sources for this claim. I've seen it often enough.

Blacks are better runners because their hips are narrower which is a result of smaller heads and smaller brains.

I was arguing with some liberal who wouldn't accept that blacks were better speed runners and constantly win all the medals in dash running because of racial physical differences. I asked her if she thought there wasn't any white or Asian athletes interested in winning the 100 m dash.


Smaller brains do not imply less intelligence. Women have smaller brains than men do and yet they have the same average IQs. In my life, I've come across many people with big heads who are stupid and many people with small heads who are smart; it seems that how the brain is wired determines intelligence rather than the size of the brain itself.

[Count Sudoku]

Smaller brains do not imply less intelligence. Women have smaller brains than men do and yet they have the same average IQs. In my life, I've come across many people with big heads who are stupid and many people with small heads who are smart; it seems that how the brain is wired determines intelligence rather than the size of the brain itself.

Size of the brain takes into consideration size of the body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#Brain_size

Brain size

See also: Craniometry

When comparing different species the ratio of brain weight to body weight does present a correlation with intelligence, though the actual brain weight has little or no effect. For example, the ratio of brain weight to body weight for fish is 1:5000; for reptiles it is about 1:1500; for birds, 1:220; for most mammals, 1:180, and for humans, 1:50. However within the human species modern studies using MRI have shown that brain size shows substantial and consistent correlation (r = .35 to .43 in various studies) with IQ among adults of the same sex [1] Some scientists prefer to look at more qualitative variables such to relate the size of measurable regions of known function. For example relating the size of the primary visual cortex to its corresponding functions, that of visual performance.[1][2].

[Count Sudoku]

Does the fact that Africans live in poorer conditions than Whites everywhere they live not count? If Blacks and Whites in America or any other country had an equal environment and attended schools of equal academic standing, then you could make a case that Blacks are less intelligent on average if they still scored much lower on their IQ tests.

Blacks that are adopted by middle class and rich whites do just as badly as blacks who aren't. In fact, adopted children have zero correlation in IQ with their adopted parents and a high correlation with their biological parents when tested for their IQ as adults.

[numba_one]

And? 'Strength' doesn't factor into athleticism? You know, Europeans far surpass West Africans in endurance. Are you restricting the definition of athleticism to quick, explosive speed AND long distance running? Yes, then Africans are better at those two things than other populations.


Obviously, I count strength in as well. Whites probably are the strongest on average but in terms of that translating into sports, it doesn't seem to help much. For instance, how does raw physical strength help in a sport like basketball? For basketball, speed and height matter more. I've noticed that White basketball players seem to be slower than Black players, which definitely puts them at a disadvantage in the sport. That's probably why Black players dominate in the NBA.


And outside of long distance running, East Africans are not terribly athletic: East African nations field weak soccer teams, weak basketball teams, and haven't produced any competitive cyclists, despite their much-vaunted 'endurance' -- an endurance that tops out at 50km. At distances above 50km, the 'inbred' Tarahumara are among the best in the world. It's a pity that most of them spend their time drinking or recovering from drinking.


I think East Africans haven't produced any cyclists because it's not a sport that is well known to them. I doubt many Ethiopians or Kenyans grow up racing each other on bicycles. Running comes natural to them because it's free and they have to run to get to where they need to go like school or another village. I bet if more East Africans actually tried, they would dominate in cycling, since the sport relies heavily on endurance, which is something that East Africans naturally possess since their lung capacity is larger on average than any other people on Earth, giving them the ability to store more oxygen with each breath they take.


There is also an East-to-West gradient in Europe, although it is not as large as the South-to-North gradient. As for 'Asians' being more similar to each other than Europeans are, you mean East Asians, I assume?


Yes, I mean Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, etc. But, even if you count in Indians and other Southeast Asians, they're still much more similar to each other than different types of Africans are.



Remarkably homogeneous in intellectual ability, though.


Do you expect people who live in third world countries to score as high on IQ tests as people from wealthy countries like those in the West? Also, I highly suspect the IQ averages for African countries are even correct considering that there are many of them which fall below 70, which is mentally retarded in Western countries. So, we're to believe that about half of Africans are mentally retarded? Doesn't make any sense if you think about it considering that mentally retarded people shouldn't be able to provide for themselves and their families, drive cars, shop, etc., and yet most Africans do just that.




It was not really a question, rather I said that outbreeding depression is real, and it increases in later generations as co-adapted gene complexes are destroyed.


I've seen no such proof for such a claim. I have seen evidence for the benefits of outbreeding but never any such thing as "outbreeding depression".



Yes, everyone knows that tennis and soccer don't test for athletic ability...they're more like tiddlywinks or checkers.


How can you test the athletic ability of tennis or soccer players just from watching them play? Can you say from watching a certain soccer player or tennis player that they're the most athletic person playing their sport? And, if so, by what criteria do you determine that?




You just said that intra-European differences are small. Are they now large enough to account for the supposed athletic superiority of Americans? A superiority which, by the way, we are just taking your word for. Do you have any evidence for this supposed superiority?


The benefits of ethnicity mixing that's been going on between Whites in America is apparent but it's not as great as the benefits of race mixing would be. I believe White Americans are on average more athletic than White Europeans, but the difference is not huge.




Could it be that America has 300 million people, while the most populous nation in continental Europe, Germany, has only 82 million?

A more sensible metric would be 'medals per capita', which is dominated by European nations:

Lichtenstein, the former East Germany, Norway, Finland, Hungary, and Sweden make up the top five, while the United States comes in 45th.

See here:
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/olymp/reloly.html



Even though it's true that America is more populace than any European nation by a wide margin, Americans are well represented in a wide variety of sports whereas European countries who tend to have higher medals per capita tend to excel at specific sports like for instance the winter related sports in Northern Europe. It's easy to dominate in a sport like skiing if your country is snowy most of the year and it's all anyone does there; more people who play a sport means more athletes for a nation to choose from to represent them in world sporting competitions like the summer or winter olympics.

[numba_one]

Blacks that are adopted by middle class and rich whites do just as badly as blacks who aren't.


Several factors play into that though. For instance, how early were the kids adopted? If they weren't adopted when they were babies, then there wouldn't be enough time for their parents to give them the proper nutrients that they need for their brain to properly develop, not to mention also teach them language and give them intellectual stimulation through various means. If White parents adopt a Black kid who is 6 years old, then it's already too late in my opinion for them to reach their full potential if their previous parents were uneducated Blacks who didn't know how to properly take care of them.

Another factor would be how well the parents treat the Black kids as opposed to the White kids. It's natural to assume that White parents who adopt Black kids wouldn't treat them as well as White parents who adopt White kids, since the White parents who adopt White kids would be more likely to look upon their adopted child as their own whereas the White parents who adopt Black kids would naturally feel distant from their adopted child due to their difference in appearance. They could never lie to the child and pretend that they're the biological parent because it would be apparent to the whole world that they're adopted, and the child would know it as soon as they were able to look in a mirror and see the difference. The child's self esteem might also suffer due to this and it's been shown by numerous studies that self esteem effects test performance for all people.


In fact, adopted children have zero correlation in IQ with their adopted parents and a high correlation with their biological parents when tested for their IQ as adults.


That's wrong. The IQs of their biological parents do play a role, but so do the IQs of their adopted parents:


Regardless of whether the adopting families were rich or poor, Capron and Duyme learned, children whose biological parents were well-off had I.Q. scores averaging 16 points higher than those from working-class parents. Yet what is really remarkable is how big a difference the adopting families’ backgrounds made all the same. The average I.Q. of children from well-to-do parents who were placed with families from the same social stratum was 119.6. But when such infants were adopted by poor families, their average I.Q. was 107.5 — 12 points lower. The same holds true for children born into impoverished families: youngsters adopted by parents of similarly modest means had average I.Q.’s of 92.4, while the I.Q.’s of those placed with well-off parents averaged 103.6. These studies confirm that environment matters — the only, and crucial, difference between these children is the lives they have led.

A later study of French youngsters adopted between the ages of 4 and 6 shows the continuing interplay of nature and nurture. Those children had little going for them. Their I.Q.’s averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next.

Nine years later, they retook the I.Q. tests, and contrary to the conventional belief that I.Q. is essentially stable, all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family’s status. Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average I.Q. scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average I.Q. scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98 — a jump from borderline retardation to a whisker below average. That is a huge difference — a person with an I.Q. of 77 couldn’t explain the rules of baseball, while an individual with a 98 I.Q. could actually manage a baseball team — and it can only be explained by pointing to variations in family circumstances.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23wwln_idealab.html?ei=5090&en=2c93740d624fe47f&ex=1311307200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[Warka]

Smaller brains do not imply less intelligence. Women have smaller brains than men do and yet they have the same average IQs. In my life, I've come across many people with big heads who are stupid and many people with small heads who are smart; it seems that how the brain is wired determines intelligence rather than the size of the brain itself.

Chris Langan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Langan), a guy who knows a thing or two about IQ, disagrees:

6mfbUhs2PVY

[Allegheny]

Outbreeding depression:

http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch49.pdf

Will respond later.

[numba_one]

Chris Langan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Langan), a guy who knows a thing or two about IQ, disagrees:

6mfbUhs2PVY



Chris Langan is biased because he has a large head and a very high IQ. So, he makes the correlation that larger heads mean higher IQs. I don't blame him for making that conclusion, but it's not scientific. He's never done any research in the field so what he has to say doesn't count.

[Count Sudoku]

Several factors play into that though. For instance, how early were the kids adopted? If they weren't adopted when they were babies, then there wouldn't be enough time for their parents to give them the proper nutrients that they need for their brain to properly develop, not to mention also teach them language and give them intellectual stimulation through various means. If White parents adopt a Black kid who is 6 years old, then it's already too late in my opinion for them to reach their full potential if their previous parents were uneducated Blacks who didn't know how to properly take care of them.

I'm sure the adoptions covered almost all ages from birth to teen years. The idea that all these adoptees were nutrionally malnourished is ridiculous.

Another factor would be how well the parents treat the Black kids as opposed to the White kids.

Oh Jebus, these weren't KKK members adopting blacks with an agenda of screwing them up.

It's natural to assume that White parents who adopt Black kids wouldn't treat them as well as White parents who adopt White kids, since the White parents who adopt White kids would be more likely to look upon their adopted child as their own whereas the White parents who adopt Black kids would naturally feel distant from their adopted child due to their difference in appearance.

Well go ask Angelina Jolie who considers her own biological kids to be outcasts in her own family.

They could never lie to the child and pretend that they're the biological parent because it would be apparent to the whole world that they're adopted, and the child would know it as soon as they were able to look in a mirror and see the difference. The child's self esteem might also suffer due to this and it's been shown by numerous studies that self esteem effects test performance for all people.

This is why arguing with liberals is often pointless. They can always come up with a million environmental excuses.

I'm sure the most adopted kids know and are told they're adopted my their parents whether they are the same race or not. At least based on my experience. Remember, if the kid up for adoption has smarter biological parents than the adoptee parents, he'll likely end up with an IQ higher than the parents who adopt him.

That's wrong. The IQs of their biological parents do play a role, but so do the IQs of their adopted parents:

During childhood, environment does play a role. By adulthood, it doesn't.

[Warka]

Chris Langan is biased because he has a large head and a very high IQ. So, he makes the correlation that larger heads mean higher IQs. I don't blame him for making that conclusion, but it's not scientific. He's never done any research in the field so what he has to say doesn't count.

He's not biased, he simply makes a legitimate observation and correlation.

As for it being scientific or not, your observations are? Your credentials compared to Langan's consist of...? :rofl:

[Count Sudoku]

Chris Langan is biased because he has a large head and a very high IQ. So, he makes the correlation that larger heads mean higher IQs. I don't blame him for making that conclusion, but it's not scientific. He's never done any research in the field so what he has to say doesn't count.

He may be biased but research has shown a correlation between brain size vis a vis body and IQ.

[Death]

You need to explain why when Europeans first entered Africa that they didn’t encounter Civilization roughly equal to their own. If ‘they’ had been roughly equal no slaves could have been taken, sold maybe, but not taken by force.
You need to explain how Germany and Japan rebuilt so quickly after being devastated after WWII and Africa remains a basket case even after four or more times total money spent on Marshall Plan has been dumped into Africa.

[Remote]

Clearly it's about fast-twitch muscle fiber, higher testosterone and adrenaline by way of African DNA.

It's also about African-Americans; I would suspect pure Africans would not make great football players or heavyweight boxers. Ali comes to mind-- however, so does Tyson.

Still I wonder about the physical bulk some African-Americans can achieve as being directly correlative with whatever small dose of European genes they carry, as well as what affect the Middle Passage (and perhaps the controlled reproduction environment under slavery?) had on selection for certain traits.

And yeah, no one can talk about it, really. Unless, of course, one is willing (as are many proponents of equality) that we are all the same intellectually, but blacks are superior, physically.

We have anywhere from 50-100k years separating us, depending on how you choose to look at it; and I kind of like to think that the selection that happened in the last 50k years in a glaciated Eurasia was the most important.

[numba_one]

You need to explain why when Europeans first entered Africa that they didn’t encounter Civilization roughly equal to their own. If ‘they’ had been roughly equal no slaves could have been taken, sold maybe, but not taken by force.


That's because Africans didn't possess the technology that Europeans had. Not all human societies progress at the same rate. That same argument can be made about Europeans being not on the same level as the Ancient Egyptians for thousands of years, or Babylonians, Chinese, Carthaginians, etc.


You need to explain how Germany and Japan rebuilt so quickly after being devastated after WWII and Africa remains a basket case even after four or more times total money spent on Marshall Plan has been dumped into Africa.


Several reasons. For one thing, the European countries who were devastated by WWII and Japan were already industrialized nations so they had the technological capability and the work force to make use of the money given to them in the Marshall Plan right away, whereas African countries aren't industrialized so the money that's thrown their way just goes into the pockets of dictators. Another reason why African countries haven't benefited from the aid given to them is because of corruption; the vast majority of money given to African countries is stolen by the leaders of those countries and the small amount of money that is actually spent is usually spent on construction projects that serve no purpose other than to further enrich the Western contracting companions that work on them. Also, most of the money that's given to African countries was never intended to be used wisely. The scam goes like this:


1 - The U.S. or another Western nation overthrows a government in Africa and installs a dictator that is loyal to them.

2 - The IMF or the World Bank make massive loans to that the new government of that African nation and make it so that the rights to the resources of that nation are signed over to the IMF or World Bank if that African nation cannot afford to pay back their loans. This is the main part of the scam.

3 - As they intended, the dictator that they put in power steals most of the money and wastes the rest of it on useless construction projects which he employs Western contracting companies for.

4 - It becomes clear that the dictator cannot pay back the loans so the IMF or World Bank become the owners of the resources in that nation including gold, oil, diamonds, etc., as compensation for their unpaid loans. They then rape the resources of that nation and force the people living there to work under slave like conditions to acquire the resources. Of course, the resources end up being far more valuable than the original loan so the IMF and World Bank end up making massive profits.

5 - Once they're done stealing the resources, they then turn on the dictator that they put in power and blame him for everything that's gone wrong in his country and for squandering his nations wealth. This step is currently being employed against Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe; the U.S. government is calling for him to be overthrown even though they are the ones who put him in power in the first place.

[numba_one]

Size of the brain takes into consideration size of the body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#Brain_size

Brain size

See also: Craniometry

When comparing different species the ratio of brain weight to body weight does present a correlation with intelligence, though the actual brain weight has little or no effect. For example, the ratio of brain weight to body weight for fish is 1:5000; for reptiles it is about 1:1500; for birds, 1:220; for most mammals, 1:180, and for humans, 1:50. However within the human species modern studies using MRI have shown that brain size shows substantial and consistent correlation (r = .35 to .43 in various studies) with IQ among adults of the same sex [1] Some scientists prefer to look at more qualitative variables such to relate the size of measurable regions of known function. For example relating the size of the primary visual cortex to its corresponding functions, that of visual performance.[1][2].



Women have smaller heads than men even when you take into account their body sizes and yet they still have the same average IQs as men. All of the women that I've met in my life who are bigger than I am have always had smaller heads than me. I'm 6'1" and I wear a size 8 baseball cap when my hair is shaven. I've never met a woman who comes even close to that baseball cap size and I've come across many that are over 6 feet tall.

[President Barbicane]

Women have smaller heads than men even when you take into account their body sizes and yet they still have the same average IQs as men. All of the women that I've met in my life who are bigger than I am have always had smaller heads than me. I'm 6'1" and I wear a size 8 baseball cap when my hair is shaven. I've never met a woman who comes even close to that baseball cap size and I've come across many that are over 6 feet tall.

The brain includes many glands. The endocrine systems of men and women differ in some ways. Perhaps the difference in brain size between men and women is caused by differences in the sizes of glands, which would explain why there is no difference in average IQ between men and women.

There is, however, a difference in average IQ between blacks and whites. This suggests that the difference in brain size between blacks and whites is caused by black people having less brain matter, not smaller glands.

Ultimately, though, empirical evidence is what matters. When black children are adopted by white parents, they have the same average IQ as blacks raised by blacks. This is evidence that the difference in average IQ between blacks and whites is genetic. It is not perfect evidence, and as you point out there may be alternative explanations for it. But there is no such thing as perfect evidence, so this is the best evidence we have.

It doesn't matter, though. Some people will never admit that blacks are less intelligent than whites.

[Józef Piłsudski]

Speaking purely from experience as a football player who played at a competitive level, I have to disagree with your assumption. It's all about training, whoever puts in the most effort into training and nutrition will come out as the more dominant player. I've played on an all white championship team from suburbia, who devastated the darker teams of the inner city. The reason we were so successful was because our team had access to a top notch trainer, and living in a more affluent neighborhood, we could afford his services.

I also played at a university which was much more academically inclined, requiring at least an 83 average to enter (a high standard for us football goons). The result was a poorly trained team that was more concerned with our marks and post-graduate opportunities, rather then our season record. Football requires a lot of dedication, and you cannot give that dedication if you're spending all your time in the library instead of the track/gym/kitchen.

Another reason why minorities do better at sports, they spend more time playing sports then us fat white kids who have the money to sit at home and play our xboxs. That money also gives us the opportunity to seek a post-high school education, and so naturally we are much more concerned with marks rather then sports. My academically inclined school had only 4 black players, our cross-city rival who had a much lower academic standing was about half black.

At the end of the day, to be a successful football player you need to treat it like a part-time job, with at least 20 hours of training a week. If you're broke, sitting around home doing nothing, then you have that time. Not to mention that training wipes you out physically for the rest of the day, and so you're going to be lazy the rest of the day and you'll find yourself sleeping a lot. Also, by not having the monetary means to go to university, you are going to be more inclined to work hard and get that scholarship.

Just look to hockey, white people can afford to play hockey and so we dominate the sport. We can afford the training and the equipment. It's the exact same wtih football, whoever can afford the time and effort will be the better player. Minorities in general tend to be in a position which gives them both the motivation, and time to pursue sports at a competitive level.

[calvin]

Another reason why minorities do better at sports, they spend more time playing sports then us fat white kids who have the money to sit at home and play our xboxs

My, my, what have we here? If it ain't a Tim, I'm not a middle-class Jew, Wise clone. Take the case of sprinting, the coaches go where the talent is and the athletes go where the opportunities are. In the absence of natural predisposition there is no more reason for Blacks to dominate sprinting than there is for Whites to dominate cycling and swimming, but blacks struggle with swimming and cycling, and excel at sprinting. The law of scientific parsimony says that race is real.

BTW, I'm white and I'm not fat, you may be fat, but the fattest people I see in America are Blacks, but there is a subtle racism that holds that it is impolite to point the finger of fatness at Blacks and almost obligatory to point it at Whites.

[Józef Piłsudski]

My, my, what have we here? If it ain't a Tim, I'm not a middle-class Jew, Wise clone. ???

Take the case of sprinting, the coaches go where the talent is and the athletes go where the opportunities are. In the absence of natural predisposition there is no more reason for Blacks to dominate sprinting than there is for Whites to dominate cycling and swimming, but blacks struggle with swimming and cycling, and excel at sprinting. The law of scientific parsimony says that race is real.
Interesting point. I still don't buy that this has anything to do with race, and everything to do with training. In my experience, athleticism is about pure will.

BTW, I'm white and I'm not fat, you may be fat, but the fattest people I see in America are Blacks, but there is a subtle racism that holds that it is impolite to point the finger of fatness at Blacks and almost obligatory to point it at Whites.
Perhaps a little too subtle.

[Insert witty user name here]

I still don't buy that this has anything to do with race, and everything to do with training. In my experience, athleticism is about pure will.

It's about motivation and ability. Lets take a look at hockey in Canada. The junior leagues are full of motivated youths. You have to make sacrifices (being away from family, for example) to play in the OHL, WHL, etc. and so you know these guys aren't just doing it just for the fun of it. They want to be pro hockey players. But they all can't. So you pick the those who have the best potential. So as motivated as they are most of them will not be in the big leagues. Many of them will be lucky if they play in one of the respectable minor leagues (AHL, or IHL).

Now we come to race: As pointed out Blacks are more likely to be fat, and they certainly waste as much time, or more, playing video games and watching television. So there is no edge there for the collective group. However, despite the numbers Blacks in the USA they dominate the NBA, and are highly represented in football. This looks odd on the surface because there certainly are much more Whites than Blacks walking about on our streets. Whites certainly enjoy football and basketball. Go to any high school with mostly White students and you'll see many White players. Go to a basketball game and pretty much everyone is white off the court. So Whites do enjoy the game and I'm sure those that play the sports in high school would jump at the chance of playing college ball and then move on to the pros but, unfortunately for them, they're out competed by Blacks. So it's apparent that race plays a role.

Also think of Brazil's dominance over the years in soccer. Brazil has a large White population but the whole team is mixed, or Black. The only time I saw a White player on a Brazilian national team was a goalie. That doesn't say much since they don't have to run up and down the field.

[Józef Piłsudski]

It's about motivation and ability. Lets take a look at hockey in Canada. The junior leagues are full of motivated youths. You have to make sacrifices (being away from family, for example) to play in the OHL, WHL, etc. and so you know these guys aren't just doing it just for the fun of it. They want to be pro hockey players. But they all can't. So you pick the those who have the best potential. So as motivated as they are most of them will not be in the big leagues. Many of them will be lucky if they play in one of the respectable minor leagues (AHL, or IHL).
I'd still argue that it's mainly a question of will. Certainly physical stature and other genetic traits will play a role, but at the end of the day I still believe it's about whose put the most time into training. Talent is another major factor, but I think it's mainly influenced by how young the athelete was when they began their sport. Most of the great athletes began their sport as toddlers. I think talent, more so then physical abillity is important at the professional level, and talent is especially important in the more technical sports/positions.

Now we come to race: As pointed out Blacks are more likely to be fat, and they certainly waste as much time, or more, playing video games and watching television. So there is no edge there for the collective group. However, despite the numbers Blacks in the USA they dominate the NBA, and are highly represented in football. This looks odd on the surface because there certainly are much more Whites than Blacks walking about on our streets. Whites certainly enjoy football and basketball. Go to any high school with mostly White students and you'll see many White players. Go to a basketball game and pretty much everyone is white off the court. So Whites do enjoy the game and I'm sure those that play the sports in high school would jump at the chance of playing college ball and then move on to the pros but, unfortunately for them, they're out competed by Blacks. So it's apparent that race plays a role.
There is a huge difference between simply enjoying a game and being driven to hone your abilities to such a height as to be able to play at a professional level. So again, I argue that it's a question of will and also time. I draw this mainly from my experience in the gym and on the field. Train just as hard and long as the black standing across the line of scrimmage, and you'll find that genetics means very little. That was my experience and I'm absolutely convinced of it. If anything explains the high percentage of blacks in various sports it has to be sociological factors.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

There is a huge difference between simply enjoying a game and being driven to hone your abilities to such a height as to be able to play at a professional level. So again, I argue that it's a question of will and also time. I draw this mainly from my experience in the gym and on the field. Train just as hard and long as the black standing across the line of scrimmage, and you'll find that genetics means very little. That was my experience and I'm absolutely convinced of it. If anything explains the high percentage of blacks in various sports it has to be sociological factors.

Huh? Let me get this straight.... you think the difference between a white dude who rides pine at his home state school as a walk-on and a kid like Taylor Mays is that Taylor Mays works harder? Please lmk about the workout regimen that can drop anyone's 40 time by a half-second. Or why it isn't important for your cornerback to be able to run as fast as their WR. I know people who have gone as far as is possible in the football world without elite level physical tools. One of them was an undrafted free agent, and I salute him for it, but all kinds of people who didn't work a lick harder than he did are doing a lot better in the league.

[dewanand]

Black are better in mindless sports. But when intelligence is needed you see no negroes at all or only a few. Why are there no black in athletics. Chinese dominate this sport now.

One of the physically weakest races are the Indian races. They never do something interesting on sports. India does not get as much gold medals as china.

Mixing races must be the future of mankind's struggle for survival. If you mix all races of all worlds than the new generations will be brown and not white. They will look like indians and Hindus.

I am a mix of a hindu family and a muslim mother. I was different and more intelligent than other purebred hindus. Maybe all white girls must marry non white men, to upgrade the white race within one generation.

Finally the white race will be wiped out of earth's surface, by mixing with other darker races.

The future of mankind is a brown skincolor, just like me. So I am the future and I call myself a Hindu lander, made in Holland, but with a brown skincolor and Indian look. I am more advanced than white Dutch's.

dewanand

[Jake Featherston]

I don't really see the point in genetically engineering great athletic potential among Whites would be. White athletic potential is entirely adequate; it only looks inferior (in some sports) when compared to Blacks. We shouldn't be making that comparison, except perhaps at the Olympics, and other such international events. Athletic teams in the USA, like American society as a whole, should be wholly White, or very nearly so.

[Petyr Baelish]

I saw a documentary about Kenyan long-distance runners a while ago and the head Kenyan coach insisted that it was all down to their training technique plus cultural fixation with running and not their genetics. However personally I think that is nonsense and genetics is the deciding factor.

If you hang out with track-and-field fans, you'll notice that a small number of the whites with conspiractional-tendencies subscribe to the theory of "universal east african doping" to explain the success of east african athletes in long-distance running.

[Petyr Baelish]

I am a mix of a hindu family and a muslim mother.[...] I was different and more intelligent than other purebred hindus. [...]

If you are intellectually superior to the average Hindu, the context of India's overwhelming socioeconomic problems becomes very easy to understand.


The future of mankind is a brown skincolor, just like me. So I am the future and I call myself a Hindu lander, made in Holland, but with a brown skincolor and Indian look. I am more advanced than white Dutch's.

dewanand

Yes, you patent superiority to "white Dutch's" is self-evident and clear for all to see. It manifests itself most obviously in your impeccable knowledge of English grammar.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Animals are "bred." Human populations are procreated, created, developed, etc. I don't know how young people developed the concept of themselves, fixed so well in mind, as barnyard animals. Actually, I do know. For one thing, the gay-lesbian contribution to the culture has been to speak of human procreation in the most demeaning possible terms. Thus, idiots lacking mind-stuff absorb this unquestioningly.

[Contra Mundum]

Black are better in mindless sports. But when intelligence is needed you see no negroes at all or only a few. Why are there no black in athletics. Chinese dominate this sport now.

One of the physically weakest races are the Indian races. They never do something interesting on sports. India does not get as much gold medals as china.

Mixing races must be the future of mankind's struggle for survival. If you mix all races of all worlds than the new generations will be brown and not white. They will look like indians and Hindus.

I am a mix of a hindu family and a muslim mother. I was different and more intelligent than other purebred hindus. Maybe all white girls must marry non white men, to upgrade the white race within one generation.

Finally the white race will be wiped out of earth's surface, by mixing with other darker races.

The future of mankind is a brown skincolor, just like me. So I am the future and I call myself a Hindu lander, made in Holland, but with a brown skincolor and Indian look. I am more advanced than white Dutch's.

dewanand

Without people with white skin there would have been little human advancement. You can make a strong argument if whites are bred out of existence over time, progress will slow then eventually cease all together.

Would there be automobiles in China or India without whites? How about computers, phones, movies, etc.?