Is a New World Order Emerging?

[blaise]

M. said:

God permits human beings to choose the manner in which they behave through the exercise of their free will.


You have put the creation before the creator.

The question should rather be, "What use is it for God to have human beings?"


I would put mankind on trial for indifference to God. Wait, unfortunately that isn't necessary.

*

I now borrow a phrase from Groucho Marx: "Hello, I must be going." Catch you all on the flip side.

Excellent question, of what use is it for God to have human beings? I can't see any. Can anyone else answer that question? If I were God I'd be embarrassed to have such dysfunctional playthings underfoot.

One interesting inference from the obvious imperfection of humans in contrast to the purported perfection of God is that some ambitious blokes invented an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient supreme being to suit their own designs and that God does not really exist. Isn't it useful to rulers to invoke God 1) to justify their own sovereignty and 2) to scare those who dispute their authority? And isn't the overblown depiction of hell merely a propaganda tool to frighten gullible people into conformity?

[HabbaDasher]

We're assuming God is sentient and deliberate.
What if 'the plan' is a random roll of the dice?
A collection of matter gathering momentum.
A cosmic avalanche.
What if there is no plan, only converging tendencies?

But ultimately it begs the question, how and why did anything come to exist in the first place?
What came before our universe?
And before that?
And before that?
Why isn't there nothing?
Why are the Laws of Physics what they are?

Again, looking at nature, the design is cold and logical: long term survival.
But mankind may have become too successful too fast.
We're a plague upon the earth, killing it.
Yet our fate may the same as the dinosaur.
Farther along the cosmic timeline, an alien rover may sniff about our dead planet (if the sun hasn't exploded by then) searching for evidence of life.

We may not be able to comprehend the big picture.
Why should we?
That is vanity compared to our cosmic insignificance.
Our minds are limited.
We are Stardust.
Ants crawling across an antheap.

[blaise]

HabbaDasher said:

We're assuming God is sentient and deliberate.
What if 'the plan' is a random roll of the dice?
A collection of matter gathering momentum.
A cosmic avalanche.
What if there is no plan, only converging tendencies?

But ultimately it begs the question, how and why did anything come to exist in the first place?
What came before our universe?
And before that?
And before that?
Why isn't there nothing?
Why are the Laws of Physics what they are?

Again, looking at nature, the design is cold and logical: long term survival.
But mankind may have become too successful too fast.
We're a plague upon the earth, killing it.
Yet our fate may the same as the dinosaur.
Farther along the cosmic timeline, an alien rover may sniff about our dead planet (if the sun hasn't exploded by then) searching for evidence of life.

We may not be able to comprehend the big picture.
Why should we?
That is vanity compared to our cosmic insignificance.
Our minds are limited.
We are Stardust.
Ants crawling across an antheap.

I think Franko is the only poster on HabsRus who firmly believes god is sentient and deliberate.

[HabbaDasher]

MC said:

Good post HabbaDasher. I agree that religion has a useful function and that belonging to a religious community can be beneficial.

I'm not religious, but geez you gotta wonder what it all means.....

[HabbaDasher]

Blaise said:

I think Franko is the only poster on HabsRus who firmly believes god is sentient and deliberate.

I don't discount the possibility.
Our Creator may be some advanced life form who seeded a fertile planet, for all we know.
A hobbyist gardener.

One could argue we play God with DNA and embryos and such.
Agriculture, genetically modified food, cloning.
Maybe its a matter of scale.
We could be an experiment in someone's test tube.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

HabbaDasher said:

I don't discount the possibility.
Our Creator may be some advanced life form who seeded a fertile planet, for all we know.
A hobbyist gardener.

One could argue we play God with DNA and embryos and such.
Agriculture, genetically modified food, cloning.
Maybe its a matter of scale.
We could be an experiment in someone's test tube.

A possibility I've also entertained. What if we indeed are some sort of bio-social experiment and UFOs are field trips by the experiment controllers and classes of eager students?

Brings to mind the classic joke:
Q - If there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe why have they not contacted us?
A - If you observed a species and one of their main activities was genocide, would you bother?

*

Skin Colour

Probably the most visible characteristic is skin colour. Historically long standing division into white, yellow and black. This is probably due originally to mutation: the classic story says that a darker pigment will give more protection against the sun. Probably more likely, if we believe an out of Africa scenario is that mutation giving a less pigmented skin allowed greater synthesis of vitamin D from the rather reduced sunshine of northern areas. Anyway, there was presumably a selective advantage. Skin colour is therefore a good racial classifier, highly visible, not terribly accurate (some Caucasoid races are darker than some Negroids and there is a huge range of variation).

Eye colour

All non-Caucasoid populations have a dark brown or a black iris: Caucasoids have a range from light blue to brown. Many Asiatics have an epicanthic fold over the inner cornea of the eye which gives there appearance of a slant

Hair colour and texture

Hair is dark and woolly in Negroids, straighter and lighter coloured in most Caucasoids, black and flat in cross section in Chinese.

Other indices

Cephalic index has also been used i.e. relative broadness of the head. This is not really useful because of inter-group variability. Stature, nose shape, lips, ears and body hair have also been used. Blood groups are useful - Caucasians and Asiatics have a very similar distribution, American Indians are largely O

Overlaps

Of course these are generalisations and there is much variation: Swedes are tall, fair haired and blue eyed aren't they? Well 11% of them are according to the Swedish army recruiting figures.

But even allowing for overlaps and generalisations and mixtures we can classify three broad racial types in the modern world.

Caucasoids: 1,000 million people with variable skin colour; white-dark brown. Hair variable, never woolly, body hair often thick. Lips tend to be thin. Three subdivisions exist, the Nordic, the Mediterranean and the Alpine.

The Nordic group are often tall, blonde and narrow headed - Scandinavia, Baltic, Germany, France, Britain The Mediterranean group (Southern France, Spain, Italy and oddly, Wales Egyptians, Semites, Persians, Afghans and some Indians. Lighter in body build, dark and narrow headed. The Alpine group extends from the Mediterranean to Asia. Broad headed, square jaws, olive skin, brown hair.

Mongoloids: Most numerous of the present day populations, split into three groups

The Eastern Siberians, Eskimos and the Northern American Indians
The Japanese, Koreans, Chinese
The Indonesians and Malays

Negroids: 100 million from Africa south of the Sahara and Melanesians of the S Pacific.
Others. We also have to fit in somewhere the Central African pigmies, the Bushmen and the Australoids.

- tinyurl.com/47vda

*

I thought I was gone, but tomorrow is a travel day and I'm always restless and excited before one.

[MC Habber]

Blaise said:

I think Franko is the only poster on HabsRus who firmly believes god is sentient and deliberate.

I very much doubt that. There are over 700 registered posters. I'm sure many are religious.

[blaise]

MC said:

I very much doubt that. There are over 700 registered posters. I'm sure many are religious.

One can be religious without thinking of god as sentient and deliberate.

[BadCompany]

Blaise said:

Excellent question, of what use is it for God to have human beings? I can't see any. Can anyone else answer that question?

Why do people have dogs? Or fish? Or even children? They serve no useful purpose, they cost a lot and they provide no material or physical benefits whatsoever.

Biology? Incessant need to propogate the species? Perhaps, but if God did indeed make man in his own image, then perhaps God feels this exact same need. God, the original Darwinian species.

But that doesn't answer mankinds seemingly innate and universal need for pets, or trinkets, or art. Why buy goldfish? Or Fluffy the wonder dog? Or a Monet? They do nothing for us. We just happen to love them. So is that the answer? Love? God made man because he happens to love us?

That's what religion says...

[blaise]

Intelligent life contacting humans? I can conceive of missionaries from earth whisked into space by whatever means of teletransportation becomes feasible. They encounter beings with an unfamiliar morphology but nevertheless superintelligent enough to understand their visitors. These beings live in harmony and have developed fabulous life support systems.

The missionaries say, "We bring you the word of the gospel." The residents communicate with each other silently so as not to embarrass their visitors. A rough translation of their thoughts in our terms might go something like this:

"We have observed how that species has conducted itself over a period which in terrestrial terms is measured as roughly two thousand years. They are trying to convince us to accept their primitive religion, based on unsubstantiated miracles, although they are incapable of following its precepts? They exhibit less intelligence and social structure than the class of Hexapoda [the six-legged insects]. They slaughter each other for no reason other than that their victims do not accept their irrational beliefs. We are aware that great numbers of that species hold still other irrational beliefs. Alas, they will never reach a consensus and will continue their murderous ways. They do not realize that their continued blind multiplication will reduce viability of the ecosystem and hence of their own species. Finally, they cannot face the reality that their planet and their solar system is finite and that their theologies cannot survive in the cosmic dust."

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

M. said:

A possibility I've also entertained. What if we indeed are some sort of bio-social experiment and UFOs are field trips by the experiment controllers and classes of eager students?

Brings to mind the classic joke:
Q - If there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe why have they not contacted us?
A - If you observed a species and one of their main activities was genocide, would you bother?

*

Skin Colour

Probably the most visible characteristic is skin colour. Historically long standing division into white, yellow and black. This is probably due originally to mutation: the classic story says that a darker pigment will give more protection against the sun. Probably more likely, if we believe an out of Africa scenario is that mutation giving a less pigmented skin allowed greater synthesis of vitamin D from the rather reduced sunshine of northern areas. Anyway, there was presumably a selective advantage. Skin colour is therefore a good racial classifier, highly visible, not terribly accurate (some Caucasoid races are darker than some Negroids and there is a huge range of variation).

Eye colour

All non-Caucasoid populations have a dark brown or a black iris: Caucasoids have a range from light blue to brown. Many Asiatics have an epicanthic fold over the inner cornea of the eye which gives there appearance of a slant

Hair colour and texture

Hair is dark and woolly in Negroids, straighter and lighter coloured in most Caucasoids, black and flat in cross section in Chinese.

Other indices

Cephalic index has also been used i.e. relative broadness of the head. This is not really useful because of inter-group variability. Stature, nose shape, lips, ears and body hair have also been used. Blood groups are useful - Caucasians and Asiatics have a very similar distribution, American Indians are largely O

Overlaps

Of course these are generalisations and there is much variation: Swedes are tall, fair haired and blue eyed aren't they? Well 11% of them are according to the Swedish army recruiting figures.

But even allowing for overlaps and generalisations and mixtures we can classify three broad racial types in the modern world.

Caucasoids: 1,000 million people with variable skin colour; white-dark brown. Hair variable, never woolly, body hair often thick. Lips tend to be thin. Three subdivisions exist, the Nordic, the Mediterranean and the Alpine.

The Nordic group are often tall, blonde and narrow headed - Scandinavia, Baltic, Germany, France, Britain The Mediterranean group (Southern France, Spain, Italy and oddly, Wales Egyptians, Semites, Persians, Afghans and some Indians. Lighter in body build, dark and narrow headed. The Alpine group extends from the Mediterranean to Asia. Broad headed, square jaws, olive skin, brown hair.

Mongoloids: Most numerous of the present day populations, split into three groups

The Eastern Siberians, Eskimos and the Northern American Indians
The Japanese, Koreans, Chinese
The Indonesians and Malays

Negroids: 100 million from Africa south of the Sahara and Melanesians of the S Pacific.
Others. We also have to fit in somewhere the Central African pigmies, the Bushmen and the Australoids.

- tinyurl.com/47vda

*

I thought I was gone, but tomorrow is a travel day and I'm always restless and excited before one.

A facinating dissertation. Perhaps you should be working for the US army helping them to develop 'really' smart bombs.
You do point out that politically incorrect generalizations do have merit. Pygmies are short, Zulus are tall, Asians are smart, Blacks are athletic. Genetics does have more influence than does environment. In a collection of children, a kindergarten teacher can predict which ones will be leaders, followers, socially skilled etc with a great degree of accuracy. Many of us as parents have raised our children is ostensiblly similar environments only to see wide variances in the intellect, personality and ability of our progeny. I was facinated with "The Bell Curve" (yes, I do read too occasionally) and recopmmend it to anyone who has the time to become deeply absorbed in a thick but interesting novel.

[MC Habber]

Blaise said:

One can be religious without thinking of god as sentient and deliberate.

True, but isn't it common among religious people, in the West at least, to see god as sentient and deliberate?

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Genetics does have more influence than does environment.

I might have agreed with this statement until recently, but after discussions with certain people I've come to believe that nurture plays as least as big a role as nature. To see this we need only look at the differences between identical twins, even when raised together, or at the difference in the behaviour of the clone from the clonee. I think that in the human case, the first 10-16 years usually play a huge role in forming a person. Even something as simple as having good teachers in the first years of elementary school can make a total difference, although this is in part because of the importance of reading in our society and in school - the child who can't read by fourth grade will not get much out of school and their view of themselves and the world can't help but be affected.

I think one's genetic code is only a rough statement of one's potential. Environmental factors go a long way to determining whether we meet that potential.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

MC said:

I might have agreed with this statement until recently, but after discussions with certain people I've come to believe that nurture plays as least as big a role as nature. To see this we need only look at the differences between identical twins, even when raised together, or at the difference in the behaviour of the clone from the clonee. I think that in the human case, the first 10-16 years usually play a huge role in forming a person. Even something as simple as having good teachers in the first years of elementary school can make a total difference, although this is in part because of the importance of reading in our society and in school - the child who can't read by fourth grade will not get much out of school and their view of themselves and the world can't help but be affected.

I think one's genetic code is only a rough statement of one's potential. Environmental factors go a long way to determining whether we meet that potential.

It is obvious that if a Zulu warrior grows up in Kenya, he won't be a starter in the NBA unless he gets the right training. But if he is naturally over 7 feet tall, he has a genetic advantage. Genetics is in his physical size, athletic skills, reflexes, strength, fast twitch muscles etc. I really learned a lot from the book "The Bell Curve" and highly recommend it.

[MC Habber]

But you're talking about physical characteristics. I don't dispute that those are largely determined by genetics. But environment is a large determiner of personality. The kindergarten teacher you mentioned above would be making his predictions with knowledge of each child's family environment.

[HabbaDasher]

As far as contacting other intelligent life forms goes...I think it most likely our and their machines will make initial contact....and we may be extinct by that time...

[blaise]

You don't grow as tall as your genetic makeup would allow if you are chronically malnourished. Here is but one example of how environment substantially modifies hereditary characteristics. Minds can also be malnourished in a figurative sense.

By the way, James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, has an IQ that is substantially lower than that of most elite scientists (although, not surprisingly, higher than that of George W. Bush). However, he has other qualities that more than compensate, and I wish I had them.

The Bell Curve alluded to by the emigrant to Los Angeles is bullSaperlipopette, the preconceived notions of an author who is biased against certain racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Give people low expectations and in most cases they'll live up (rather, down) to them. Go back four or five decades and read Jensen, one of the granddaddies of this wave of faux sociology, and you'll find the same sort of thinking.

[franko]

Blaise said:

I think Franko is the only poster on HabsRus who firmly believes god is sentient and deliberate.

I'm probably not; just the only one idiot enough to debate/discuss.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blaise said:

You don't grow as tall as your genetic makeup would allow if you are chronically malnourished. Here is but one example of how environment substantially modifies hereditary characteristics. Minds can also be malnourished in a figurative sense.

By the way, James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, has an IQ that is substantially lower than that of most elite scientists (although, not surprisingly, higher than that of George W. Bush). However, he has other qualities that more than compensate, and I wish I had them.

The Bell Curve alluded to by the emigrant to Los Angeles is bullSaperlipopette, the preconceived notions of an author who is biased against certain racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Give people low expectations and in most cases they'll live up (rather, down) to them. Go back four or five decades and read Jensen, one of the granddaddies of this wave of faux sociology, and you'll find the same sort of thinking.

Don't hold back. What do you really think?

The Bell Curve recognizes that when the NCAA holds 100 yard dash races, 99% of the finalists are black. A walk through the campus at UCLA shows a disproportionate percentage of Science and Engineering students are of Asian descent.
Is the NBA 85% black because coaches favor them or is it because they play better? Perhaps it's because they are better nourished or motivated, or maybe they share some genetic traits that predispose them to reflexes, coordination, size or body structure?
Sure some young Blacks gravitate toward careers in sports and some Asians see their future in Academic endeavors; and we all can point out some exceptions to the statistical observations. When we observe a statistical anomoly, we search for the rationale. When we see a tall slim Black mother and father, it isn't surprising that their prodgeny are tall too with a high percentage of fast twitch muscle fibre, long limbs and strong buttocks. I'm not advocating separation of races, affirmative action or racism. I'm simply observing statistical discrepancies and stating the obvious.
If a child of tall parents isn't nourished in his environment, he won't grow tall, but I maintain that the genetic makeup of people largely influences his outcome.
Racehorse bloodlines make one yearling worth $1,000,000 and another worth $10,000. The horses need training to reach their potential, but the owners recognize the inherant differences in DNA.
Wayne Gretzky had siblings who played hockey at a very high level but didn't approach his unique gifts. Wayne was born special. His body and mind worked in concert from his days as a mite through his NHL career. His brothers also had an enriched environment but less genetic potential. The Sutters never achieved greatness as individuals but their success as a family was noteworthy. Richards, Howes, Espositos, Hulls managed to beat the odds against the average individual making it to the NHL as a player.
We have all atended high schools where a single surname is posted for sports and generations dominate track, volleyball or wrestling. The family members naturally resemble eachother and share characteristics of stringth and speed.
I'm not biased in favor of any group. If I raise dachunds, I don't expect the puppies to compete against greyhounds or pit bulls no matter how much I feed or train them. When I coach hockey I treat all kids equally, but at tryouts I notice immediately which kids are bigger, faster, stronger, self-confident and talented. NHL scouts not only factor in an 17 year olds size, but the size of their parents. The surname Koivu or Statsny doesn't guarantee success, but all scouts are aware of genetics.

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

A walk through the campus at UCLA shows a disproportionate percentage of Science and Engineering students are of Asian descent.

That can be explained culturally. For instance, it is common for wealthy families in Asia to send their children (well, not children, but 18-year-olds) to North American universities to study in science or engineering.

Is the NBA 85% black because coaches favor them or is it because they play better? Perhaps it's because they are better nourished or motivated, or maybe they share some genetic traits that predispose them to reflexes, coordination, size or body structure?

Or could it be that basketball is predominately played by black children in the United States, while most hockey playing children around the world have historically been white?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

MC said:

That can be explained culturally. For instance, it is common for wealthy families in Asia to send their children (well, not children, but 18-year-olds) to North American universities to study in science or engineering.



Or could it be that basketball is predominately played by black children in the United States, while most hockey playing children around the world have historically been white?

The Asian students at UCLA are predominantly Asian American. They have the highest SAT scores and win most medals. Yes there is a cultural bias which encourages them to work hard and succeed academically, but the fact they are successful in far greater numbers than their representative population predicts indicates that there are other factors influencing the outcome.

Basketball is played extensively by black children in predominantly black communities, but the success rate they enjoy indicates that there are factors beyond participation, interest and numbers that contributres to their success.

[blaise]

Cultural and economic factors absolutely play a role in sports and intellectual activities, and these things may run in cycles. For several decades black athletes took over MLB but now there is a veritable tsunami of Latinos, especially Dominicanos. African-American basketball players, with a few exceptions, have lived almost exclusively for basketball. They spend countless hours on the playgrounds or in the gyms, honing their skills against each other. Whites aren't encouraged to participate with them. However, I find it interesting that the US has gotten its butt kicked in recent international basketball tournaments and there are now more than a handful of outstanding European and Asian players in the NBA.

At one time African-Americans were discouraged from becoming quarterbacks because they were said to be not bright enough to learn the complexities of the position. So those who played QB in high school were generally converted to wide receivers or running backs. Now look, another myth shattered.

As for SATs, Asian kids (I should specify Eastern Asian) who show aptitude are forced to keep their noses to the grindstone. Poor scores are regarded as a disgrace to the family. Previously, Jews were the leaders in science and engineering despite being a tiny minority, and in fact you still see quite a few Jewish names among the thought leaders. The impetus is not as great nowadays because many ultrabright Jewish kids forsake medicine and science for MBA degrees. This is not to say that Jews and Asians are inherently superior to others.

The Irish have long been among the best writers in the English language, both in literature and in journalism. That's ironic, considering what the English did to their ancestors.

Another interesting phenomenon has been the emergence of Eastern Asian classical musicians, especially string players. There was a time when practically every world class fiddler was Jewish.

At one time it was widely believed that men were more intelligent than women and that there could never be a female Newton or Shakespeare or Beethoven. Anyone who still holds on to those beliefs is on shaky ground. Historically, women were discouraged from entering those fields and if they did they were generally discriminated against.

To sum it up, bell curves of IQ and athletic ability have definitely shifted over the decades.

[blaise]

Happy New Year to those who agree and disagree alike. May 1905 not see any tsunamis or dirty bombs detonated in the port of Los Angeles or anywhere else.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blaise said:

Happy New Year to those who agree and disagree alike. May 1905 not see any tsunamis or dirty bombs detonated in the port of Los Angeles or anywhere else.

Agree 100%

Happy New year to ALL!

[Skilly]

Blaise said:

At one time African-Americans were discouraged from becoming quarterbacks because they were said to be not bright enough to learn the complexities of the position. So those who played QB in high school were generally converted to wide receivers or running backs. Now look, another myth shattered.

The Rush Limbaugh theory.

An interesting stat, (and that is all it really is ..... but more aptly called a piece of trivia) is that there has only been one African-American quarterback (Doug Williams in 1988) to win the superbowl. Ever. This is what many of your myth creators allude to.

What gets me about this argument is that even though you hear that only 8 or 9 of the starters are African American, you never hear about how many white players are starting running backs. I believe that number is zero. There are a few blocking tailbacks, Mike Alstott most notably, but the running backs are exclusively African American, and that is a skill position. Then the same can be said for the wide receiver position. The percentage of white wide receivers is comparable to the percentage of african-american quarterbacks.

The only positions where there seems to be an equal representation is tight end, and linemen (on both offense and defense).

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Skilly said:

The Rush Limbaugh theory.

An interesting stat, (and that is all it really is ..... but more aptly called a piece of trivia) is that there has only been one African-American quarterback (Doug Williams in 1988) to win the superbowl. Ever. This is what many of your myth creators allude to.

What gets me about this argument is that even though you hear that only 8 or 9 of the starters are African American, you never hear about how many white players are starting running backs. I believe that number is zero. There are a few blocking tailbacks, Mike Alstott most notably, but the running backs are exclusively African American, and that is a skill position. Then the same can be said for the wide receiver position. The percentage of white wide receivers is comparable to the percentage of african-american quarterbacks.

The only positions where there seems to be an equal representation is tight end, and linemen (on both offense and defense).

When you say equal representation, you are saying the the same number of blacks and whites. Blacks actually make up 12 - 18% of the general population, therefore all things being equal they should make up 1- - 18% of the tight end and lineman positions. Also since over 95% of the players in the NFL come from college and blacks make up 2% of the general college population, one would expect 2% of the linemen to be black?
I'n not arguing in favor of racism, quotas or afirmative action; I'm simply stating the obvious, "the number of athletes, doctors, lawyers of various racial groups, are not statistically representative of the general population and the radical skewing indicates factors beyone merely environment!"
Socialogy is the study of racial groupings and the characteristics of those groups.

[Montrealer]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

When you say equal representation, you are saying the the same number of blacks and whites. Blacks actually make up 12 - 18% of the general population, therefore all things being equal they should make up 1- - 18% of the tight end and lineman positions. Also since over 95% of the players in the NFL come from college and blacks make up 2% of the general college population, one would expect 2% of the linemen to be black?
I'n not arguing in favor of racism, quotas or afirmative action; I'm simply stating the obvious,

www.usccr.gov/pubs/percent2/ch4.htm

Percentage Distribution of Undergraduates by Race/Ethnicity, 1999–2000
Black, non-Hispanic 12.2%

Let me quote Mr. Non-Offensive in LA again.

blacks make up 2% of the general college population

Sheesh. It's like arguing with Archie Bunker.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Montrealer said:

www.usccr.gov/pubs/percent2/ch4.htm




Let me quote Mr. Non-Offensive in LA again.



Sheesh. It's like arguing with Archie Bunker.

My first reaction was, your graphs are neat and the numbers have decimal places so they must be right. In went back to my bookshelf and reread "The Bell Curve" and the figures agree with yours. I went from memory and was wrong about 12% black enrollment vs. the 2% I stated.

Ethnic composition of the Student Body on an Average Campus: (The Bell Curve; Herrinstein and Murray) pg. 472

All Students:
White 80%, Black 12%
Students in the top 10% of IQ:
White 94%, Black <1%
Students in the bottom 10% of IQ:
White 34%, Black 52%


I understand that standardized IQ testing may favor one group vs. another due to cultural differences and admissions are influenced by affirmative action and I'm not attempting to inflame passions.
My statement that Blacks constituted 2% of the undergraduate student body was grossly incorrect. The mistake was made honestly from my inaccurate recollection. I last read the book several years ago. I apologize to anyone I may have offended.
(Saperlipopette. I'm starting to sound like a certain CBS Anchorman)

The essence of what I tried to convey was that there are statistical differences in success in sports and education that lead to the conclusion that environment and heredity play a significant role.
I got through that without calling anyone meathead.

[blaise]

It's hopeless.

[Skilly]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

When you say equal representation, you are saying the the same number of blacks and whites. Blacks actually make up 12 - 18% of the general population, therefore all things being equal they should make up 1- - 18% of the tight end and lineman positions. Also since over 95% of the players in the NFL come from college and blacks make up 2% of the general college population, one would expect 2% of the linemen to be black?
I'n not arguing in favor of racism, quotas or afirmative action; I'm simply stating the obvious, "the number of athletes, doctors, lawyers of various racial groups, are not statistically representative of the general population and the radical skewing indicates factors beyone merely environment!"
Socialogy is the study of racial groupings and the characteristics of those groups.

No, when I say equal representation I am saying the percentage of players in the league as a whole are comparable +/- 10%.

My point was that any arguement regarding an African-American's intelligence in the sport of football is flawed. Most would agree there are only three so-called "skill" positions in football - QB, WR, and RB. These are the positions where you have to be able to think. (I would also argue the CB is a skill position but I digress).

Some say that because there are only 8 (6 are starters - McNabb, Culpepper, Brooks, Leftwich, Vick, and McNair) african-american QB's it is because of their intellect. Hogwash.

At WR the same percentage in the other direction is found. And at running back there isn't any whites. So a white man is smart enough to be a QB, but not smart enough to be a running back? It is flawed logic. Intellect, IMO, can not be argued based on race. Put that person in different environs and give them a chance to succeed and they probably will.