Is a New World Order Emerging?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Skilly said:

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).

You set your own ground rules in order to validate your argument. Nicely done

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.

[Skilly]

M. said:

You set your own ground rules in order to validate your argument. Nicely done

Thank-you, I think.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Skilly said:

Thank-you, I think.

Oh dear. I was being snarky. Appears I don't have the bite I once did. Sigh.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Skilly said:

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.

I'm certainly not saying that Blacks are not intelligent enough to be quarterbacks or whites are not athletic enough to be running backs.
My statement is that most running backs are black, most 100m track stars are black, most doctors are white, most engineering students are Asian. (Most = disproportionate to general population).
There are reasons for the statistical discrepancy, and some are in genetics. Body size, build, fast twitch muscle percentage, nervous system. On a micro scale we accept that children of NBA basketball players have a greater than average chance of playing basketball in the NBA. Children of hockey players. Children of doctors have a better chance of going to medical school. Of course environment, parental encouragement and nurturing plays a part, but a 7 foot tall man and a six foot tall woman have a good chance of having a tall child. An intelligent man and an intelligent woman reproduce children that resemble them physically and intellectually. On a macro scale, Pygmies begat pygmies and Zulus reproduce Zulus. Scandanavians and Yugoslavs are taller than Japanese and Vietnamese.
Culpepper is a huge strong quarterback.
Vick is a fast gifted mobile quarterback.
Manning is a studious quarterback who reads defenses and adjusts.
Favre is a good ol boy who scrambles and makes things happen.
Favre and Manning are completely different as are Vick and Culpepper. I don't generalize about individuals. I'm simply observing numerical trends.

[franko]

M. said:

Oh dear. I was being snarky. Appears I don't have the bite I once did. Sigh.

Oh oh. A kinder, gentler Mr. B., who's in touch with his inner child.

The Apocalypse is nigh!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The said:

Oh oh. A kinder, gentler Mr. B., who's in touch with his inner child.

The Apocalypse is nigh!

[Skilly]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

I'm certainly not saying that Blacks are not intelligent enough to be quarterbacks or whites are not athletic enough to be running backs.
My statement is that most running backs are black, most 100m track stars are black, most doctors are white, most engineering students are Asian. (Most = disproportionate to general population).
There are reasons for the statistical discrepancy, and some are in genetics. Body size, build, fast twitch muscle percentage, nervous system. On a micro scale we accept that children of NBA basketball players have a greater than average chance of playing basketball in the NBA. Children of hockey players. Children of doctors have a better chance of going to medical school. Of course environment, parental encouragement and nurturing plays a part, but a 7 foot tall man and a six foot tall woman have a good chance of having a tall child. An intelligent man and an intelligent woman reproduce children that resemble them physically and intellectually. On a macro scale, Pygmies begat pygmies and Zulus reproduce Zulus. Scandanavians and Yugoslavs are taller than Japanese and Vietnamese.
Culpepper is a huge strong quarterback.
Vick is a fast gifted mobile quarterback.
Manning is a studious quarterback who reads defenses and adjusts.
Favre is a good ol boy who scrambles and makes things happen.
Favre and Manning are completely different as are Vick and Culpepper. I don't generalize about individuals. I'm simply observing numerical trends.

I am of a mathematical persuasion.

Vick is a mobile quarterback, mobile means getting out of the pocket and scrambling, Favre scrambles. Ergo, how come you did not compare Favre to Vick.

Another thing I believe you forgot in your reasoning is opportunity.

A child of a doctor has a greater chance of being a doctor not only because of "genetic intelligence" but because daddy or mommy can afford to send him to medical school.

A child of a professional athlete has a greater opportunity to meet scouts at the supper table than Joe Q. Public.

I am still not convinced that genetics and intelligence are entertwined as dramatically as you suggest. My my grandmother was a janitor, my grandfather a war vet commisioner, my mother was a baker who did not get her highschool diploma, my father is a labourer who quit university after three months. I am an engineer. Genetics? Or hard work and a determination not to live in poverty?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Skilly said:

I am of a mathematical persuasion.

Vick is a mobile quarterback, mobile means getting out of the pocket and scrambling, Favre scrambles. Ergo, how come you did not compare Favre to Vick.

Another thing I believe you forgot in your reasoning is opportunity.

A child of a doctor has a greater chance of being a doctor not only because of "genetic intelligence" but because daddy or mommy can afford to send him to medical school.

A child of a professional athlete has a greater opportunity to meet scouts at the supper table than Joe Q. Public.

I am still not convinced that genetics and intelligence are entertwined as dramatically as you suggest. My my grandmother was a janitor, my grandfather a war vet commisioner, my mother was a baker who did not get her highschool diploma, my father is a labourer who quit university after three months. I am an engineer. Genetics? Or hard work and a determination not to live in poverty?

Vick is a young fast gifted runner whereas Favre is an innovative scrambling experienced oldtimer who's seen better years and can't rely on his determination and luck as he once did. To compare them, Vick has darker skin.

If you look carefully at your progenitors, you will likely find that either the janitor or commissioner had intellect and wisdom that was untapped. You seldom win the Kentuckey Derby with a three year old from a Clysdale and a milk horse.

Of course opportunity, example and parental motivation is a big factor, exceptions exist to every rule, but that's what they are; exceptions. I believe that determination is both learned and genetically predisposed trait. It's likely that both your grandparents were determined. When Mendel counted peas, the number 75% kept popping up, not 0% and not 100%. Genetics is not 100% or we would be clones of our parents.

I'm reluctant to continue my comments on this thread as they can be inflamatory and are certainly controversal. I'm not trying to offend members of any group.

[blaise]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Of course opportunity, example and parental motivation is a big factor, exceptions exist to every rule, but that's what they are; exceptions. I believe that determination is both learned and genetically predisposed trait. It's likely that both your grandparents were determined. When Mendel counted peas, the number 75% kept popping up, not 0% and not 100%. Genetics is not 100% or we would be clones of our parents.

I'm reluctant to continue my comments on this thread as they can be inflamatory and are certainly controversal. I'm not trying to offend members of any group.

Why pursue it at all? You're getting into hot water because you don't seem to know even the rudiments of genetics. I'll offer a highly simplified explanation (a fuller one would require a page of text, plus visuals and the introduction of scientific terms). We aren't clones of our parents because we receive input from both. Each of us has 23 pairs of chromosomes (in rare cases there are duplications or deletions, which result in abnormalities such as the Down syndrome or Turner's syndrome, or else in death). Each chromosome in every pair is different from its counterpart. We receive two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent. Not a single one of those chromosomes is identical to those in our parents because they undergo gene crossover at the time of oogenesis and spermatogenesis in addition to interacting with genes from the other parent's corresponding chromosome. Therefore, we receive a complicated genetic mixture, with some genes dominant and others recessive. The somatic (bodily) expression of these genes may not result in our resembling any particular feature of either parent. By this I refer to intellect and personality as well as physique and metabolism.

[Skilly]

More simply put.

A brain surgeon and a rocket scientist have Mensa IQ ratings and have two children (twins even). One is an "A" student and one is a "D" student. Blows the genetics arguement out the window. The "subject" has to be willing to learn and there are way too many factors that determine that, incuding genetics.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Skilly said:

More simply put.

A brain surgeon and a rocket scientist have Mensa IQ ratings and have two children (twins even). One is an "A" student and one is a "D" student. Blows the genetics arguement out the window. The "subject" has to be willing to learn and there are way too many factors that determine that, incuding genetics.

A black dog and a white dog mate and have two black dogs, one white dog, three spotted dogs and a brown dog. It's anecdotal like the Mensa twins. Of course there is no guarantee that the puppies look exactly like the sire or bitch, or even like eachother.
I just said that if you breed cocker spaniels whatever color the puppies are, they will likely be smaller than the puppies of a breeder who raises Great Danes.
There is no denying that greyhound puppies will run fast. Puppies of very fast greyhounds may run very fast.
Puppies of retreivers will naturally like to retreive and and can be taught to retreive more easily than pupies of pitbulls. Puppies of pitbulls are likely to be more agressive than puppies of Labrador Retreivers. It has nothing to do with skin color and doesn't mean all puppies will come out the same. Both physical and mental traits are passed on genitically.

(It absolutely doesn't mean that children of Newfoundlanders will like to club seals or children of Californians won't)

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blaise said:

Why pursue it at all? You're getting into hot water because you don't seem to know even the rudiments of genetics. I'll offer a highly simplified explanation (a fuller one would require a page of text, plus visuals and the introduction of scientific terms). We aren't clones of our parents because we receive input from both. Each of us has 23 pairs of chromosomes (in rare cases there are duplications or deletions, which result in abnormalities such as the Down syndrome or Turner's syndrome, or else in death). Each chromosome in every pair is different from its counterpart. We receive two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent. Not a single one of those chromosomes is identical to those in our parents because they undergo gene crossover at the time of oogenesis and spermatogenesis in addition to interacting with genes from the other parent's corresponding chromosome. Therefore, we receive a complicated genetic mixture, with some genes dominant and others recessive. The somatic (bodily) expression of these genes may not result in our resembling any particular feature of either parent. By this I refer to intellect and personality as well as physique and metabolism.

I'm quoting Mendels Laws of Genetics:

1st Law: Dominance
2nd Law: Segregation
3rd Law: Independant Assortment

Parents pass on both dominant and recessive genes:

TT, Tt, tT, tt. This is why dominant genes produce the 75% number of tall pea plants. The T gene is dominant and influences 3 of the 4 offspring. It also explains why one fraternal twin can be very different from the other twin.

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

I'm simply stating the obvious,

What seems obvious is often untrue.

"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!"

Simply observing that a "disproportionate" number of doctors are white is not sufficient to conclude that genetics tends to endow white people with the necessary qualities to become doctors with greater probability than people of any other race. Waving your hands and saying that environment could never account for such differences does not convice me.

[blaise]

Get off it, HFLA. Years ago, it was also fashionable among shoddy social "scientists" (counterparts to your "authorities" Herrnstein and Murray) to claim that women were intellectualy and artistically inferior to men. Their "research" revealed that there no female Mozarts, Beethovens, Dantes, Shakespeares, Newtons, Einsteins, etc. They made the "scientific" association between the slightly smaller cranial volumes of women's heads. Aha! Women have smaller (and therefore less well developed) brains. They "backed this up" with observations that bovines and felines and anthropoid apes have smaller brains than humans. Other "scientists" adduced from the fact that dolphins, orcas, and sperm whales have larger brains than humans that these genera must be more intelligent. One delphinologist, John C. Lilly, rhapsodized that sperm whales could carry Mahler symphonies in their heads. (Incidentally, I once spent a week with Dr. Lilly in his laboratory in Florida and got to know him fairly well.) Of course these geniuses failed to note that these brains were less convoluted and that much of the extra volume was devoted to processing sensory information from the animal sonar they used to navigate (beyond a certain depth the ocean admits little light, hence the development of an ability to process echoes of sonic, subsonic, and supersonic signals they bounce off objects in their environment).

Today, women are writing great music and novels. They asre heading departments of science in prestigious universities. They are receiving Nobel prizes in the sciences. They are heading governments. What accounts for this? Did they recently undergo accelerated evolutionary changes that enhanced their brainpower? Did God grant them a miraculous gift? Of course not. They have been taking advantages of opportunities that seldom if ever existed before.

In the 11th century, Hildegard von Bingen, abbess of the convent of Rupertsberg-am Rhein, composed hauntingly beautiful liturgical music and poetry, employing the imagery of mystical love as well as of traditional relationships. None of her male contemporaries could equal the quality of her work. But in addition to her creativity she was renownd for her intellect and knowledge of the cosmos and of statesmanship. (I sincerely doubt whether Herrnstein and Murray are her intellectual peers. I would even go so far as to say that Hildegard surpassed every single one of the savants who constitute the membership of HabsRus.) She was invited to Rome and to European intellectual centers. The first university hadn't even been established.) Of course she could not have accomplished so much in an era of woman's subservience to men if she didn't have tremendous reserves of self-confidence and conviction.

Now look about you, HFLA. You see blacks at high levels of science, music, politics, whatever. You also see many black kids living in substandard homes in substandard neighborhoods in which they are afraid to be seen carrying books, afraid to pay attention to their schoolwork. Does it require supreme imagination to connect this to low enrollment in universities? Working backwards from the demographics to infer inferiority is equivalent to saying that the composition of the NHL proves that blacks are inferior skaters.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

MC said:

What seems obvious is often untrue.



Simply observing that a "disproportionate" number of doctors are white is not sufficient to conclude that genetics tends to endow white people with the necessary qualities to become doctors with greater probability than people of any other race. Waving your hands and saying that environment could never account for such differences does not convice me.

I never said that the environment could not account for such differences. I said that the statistical imbalance indicates that factors like genetic predisposition are likely present.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blaise said:

Get off it, HFLA. Years ago, it was also fashionable among shoddy social "scientists" (counterparts to your "authorities" Herrnstein and Murray) to claim that women were intellectualy and artistically inferior to men. Their "research" revealed that there no female Mozarts, Beethovens, Dantes, Shakespeares, Newtons, Einsteins, etc. They made the "scientific" association between the slightly smaller cranial volumes of women's heads. Aha! Women have smaller (and therefore less well developed) brains. They "backed this up" with observations that bovines and felines and anthropoid apes have smaller brains than humans. Other "scientists" adduced from the fact that dolphins, orcas, and sperm whales have larger brains than humans that these genera must be more intelligent. One delphinologist, John C. Lilly, rhapsodized that sperm whales could carry Mahler symphonies in their heads. (Incidentally, I once spent a week with Dr. Lilly in his laboratory in Florida and got to know him fairly well.) Of course these geniuses failed to note that these brains were less convoluted and that much of the extra volume was devoted to processing sensory information from the animal sonar they used to navigate (beyond a certain depth the ocean admits little light, hence the development of an ability to process echoes of sonic, subsonic, and supersonic signals they bounce off objects in their environment).

Today, women are writing great music and novels. They asre heading departments of science in prestigious universities. They are receiving Nobel prizes in the sciences. They are heading governments. What accounts for this? Did they recently undergo accelerated evolutionary changes that enhanced their brainpower? Did God grant them a miraculous gift? Of course not. They have been taking advantages of opportunities that seldom if ever existed before.

In the 11th century, Hildegard von Bingen, abbess of the convent of Rupertsberg-am Rhein, composed hauntingly beautiful liturgical music and poetry, employing the imagery of mystical love as well as of traditional relationships. None of her male contemporaries could equal the quality of her work. But in addition to her creativity she was renownd for her intellect and knowledge of the cosmos and of statesmanship. (I sincerely doubt whether Herrnstein and Murray are her intellectual peers. I would even go so far as to say that Hildegard surpassed every single one of the savants who constitute the membership of HabsRus.) She was invited to Rome and to European intellectual centers. The first university hadn't even been established.) Of course she could not have accomplished so much in an era of woman's subservience to men if she didn't have tremendous reserves of self-confidence and conviction.

Now look about you, HFLA. You see blacks at high levels of science, music, politics, whatever. You also see many black kids living in substandard homes in substandard neighborhoods in which they are afraid to be seen carrying books, afraid to pay attention to their schoolwork. Does it require supreme imagination to connect this to low enrollment in universities? Working backwards from the demographics to infer inferiority is equivalent to saying that the composition of the NHL proves that blacks are inferior skaters.

Condelisa Rice and Nicole Ritchie have the same size brain and different skin color. It does not guarantee intelligence or performance. Women can be as creative as men although that has not been the case in the past due to lack of opportunity or motivation. I didn't say any race is inferior or should be treated differently. I did imply that when the statistical makeup of a group contains a high likelihood of certain genetically inherited traits, the likelihood of those traits being passed on is greater.

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

I never said that the environment could not account for such differences. I said that the statistical imbalance indicates that factors like genetic predisposition are likely present.

I'll rephrase. Waving your hands and saying that environment probably doesn't account for such differences does not convice me.

[Skilly]

MC said:

What seems obvious is often untrue.



Simply observing that a "disproportionate" number of doctors are white is not sufficient to conclude that genetics tends to endow white people with the necessary qualities to become doctors with greater probability than people of any other race. Waving your hands and saying that environment could never account for such differences does not convice me.

I don't have the heart to tell him that it is "statisically incorrect" to say most doctors are white.

I would tend to thinnk that statistically most doctors are Asian. Afterall, asians make up more than half the world's population.

[blaise]

Skilly said:

I don't have the heart to tell him that it is "statisically incorrect" to say most doctors are white.

I would tend to thinnk that statistically most doctors are Asian. Afterall, asians make up more than half the world's population.

Check your demographic statistics before you come to such a conclusion, Skilly. You are assuming that the ratio of physicians to the general population in Asia is even remotely close to that in Europe, North America, South America, and Australia. I tend to doubt that. While I haven't done the research, it is plausible that most physicians are white after all.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Blaise said:

While I haven't done the research, it is plausible that most physicians are white after all.

Are Jews considered "white"?

[blaise]

M. said:

Are Jews considered "white"?

By and large, although we'd have to exclude Falashas from Ethiopia and orientals, among others. Even the majority of Estonians living in Ontario manage to qualify.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Blaise said:

Even the majority of Estonians living in Ontario manage to qualify.

Yes, but what percentage within their own ethnic group are doctors?

[blaise]

M. said:

Yes, but what percentage within their own ethnic group are doctors?

The data wouldn't be easy to track down for any North American subgroup because ethnicity or religion would not appear in any professional directory. Maybe we should start instead with something easier to quantify, such as the doctor-to-patient ratio in Talinn or Tel Aviv?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Blaise said:

The data wouldn't be easy to track down for any North American subgroup because ethnicity or religion would not appear in any professional directory. Maybe we should start instead with something easier to quantify, such as the doctor-to-patient ratio in Talinn or Tel Aviv?

Well, the reason I asked was because from what I'd heard, according to the last such numbers collected by the Canadian government Estonians were second to Jews in Canada in terms of per capita income. Of course, I suspect that may be a bunch of hooey since the person making the claim was chastising me for bringing the Estonian average down.

[franko]

M. said:

Are Jews considered "white"?

Do you mean Jews or Israelis? Ethiopian Jews are (for the most part) not white! Ethnicity does not equal religious background.

[blaise]

franko said:

Do you mean Jews or Israelis? Ethiopian Jews are (for the most part) not white! Ethnicity does not equal religious background.

The Falashas from Ethopia are Jewish. However, they were not well educated at the time of their emigration to Israel and were extremely unlikely to have attended medical school. In a few generations they will have assimilated like other Middle Eastern and North African Jews, such as the ones who trace their roots to Yemen, Morocco, and Egypt before they were booted out after the formation of Israel. (Actually, there are tiny Jewish communities left in Casablanca and Tunis.)

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blaise said:

The data wouldn't be easy to track down for any North American subgroup because ethnicity or religion would not appear in any professional directory. Maybe we should start instead with something easier to quantify, such as the doctor-to-patient ratio in Talinn or Tel Aviv?

This is really degenerating so I'll ask, "Does the disproportionatly low percentage of blacks herding reindeer in Lapland mean that Blacks are genetically incapable of herding reindeer?" Of course not!
This isn't about obvious environmental issues. It's simply an observation of statistically significant ratios and the underlying factors which influents the numbers. We all see the numbers and draw our own conclusions.

[Montrealer]

Musta lehma saba valge lehma taga, valge lehma saba musta lehma taga.

I love Wikipedia!




















(Aplogies to Mr. B - but with all the talk about black and white I figured this fit nicely)

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Montrealer said:

Musta lehma saba valge lehma taga, valge lehma saba musta lehma taga.

I love Wikipedia!

(Aplogies to Mr. B - but with all the talk about black and white I figured this fit nicely)

Ah, brings back memories of Sunday School at St John's Lutheran Church on Marcil just north of Monkland, and Tiiu, the devil girl who offered me my first cigarette. Good times, good times.

[Skilly]

Blaise said:

Check your demographic statistics before you come to such a conclusion, Skilly. You are assuming that the ratio of physicians to the general population in Asia is even remotely close to that in Europe, North America, South America, and Australia. I tend to doubt that. While I haven't done the research, it is plausible that most physicians are white after all.

Anything is possible statistically. But to generalize (because to go through every nation would be a pain in the arse), lets look at the most populous asian nation vs the most populous white nation.

China with a population of 1.3 billion had 161 doctors per 100,000 people which equates to 2.1 million doctors. For the period of the late 1990's

www.overpopulation.com/faq/health/health_personnel/asia.html

The United States has a population of 350 million and had 421 people for every doctor. This equates to 831,000 doctors (1993). EDIT : I found data for 2001 census where it states that the US has 253 doctors per 100,000 people, which equates to 885,000 doctors.

US Demographics

www.census.gov/statab/www/ranks.html If interested click on the "doctors per 100,000" links.

The one glaring error in all this is that we do not know the ethnicity of all those doctors but it does show that "statistically" there are appears to be more doctors in Asia than in predominantly white nations.