'Powerful' Pogba and 'unintelligent' Lukaku | Debunking media stereotypes

[GrandJury]

Any reason for why you think a man from the general public is 10 times more likely to be gay?

Keep in mind that this is just based on the current 2000 footballers. How many have there been since the early 90s? This is clearly a big problem.

Because football is a 'manly' sport obviously.
It's a joke you tools and i was being sarcastic.

 

[RedChip]

Spot on.

Outside of the sport as well, there is a pattern documented sociologists where people dismiss or excuse a current act or statement with racist implications by recalling a previous act that was deemed not racist, tolerant, etc.

In this article, I thought the author did a terrific job of highlighting the problem. His number one example is the Lukaku versus Morata debate. The reactions and opinions of pundits and fans, including on this forum, have a not so nuanced racist undertone. There's no stretching or exaggeration, it's blatant, clear as day. And the fact that this tendency is accepted and so widely used is the problem.

In Lukaku's case there is basically no evidence to suppose he less intelligent than Morata based on what we know of them as footballers. It is difficult to defend that view, and so it is noticeable how most of the posts trying to dismiss the article as an overreaction are ignoring the Lukaku example and instead picking other examples as basis for dismissing the whole article.

 

[Kentonio]

If 1.5% of the general population are gay I would estimate that only around 0.15% of footballers are gay. So in the English leagues that equates to ~3 gay footballers.

I'm very interested why you would assume only 0.15% of footballers would be gay, when the national figure is 1.5%?

Also its not 1.5%, in the last census its was 1.7% which actually rises to 3.3% amongst 18-24 year olds. The country still has a major level of social discrimination against homosexuals so you can certainly assume that the real figure will be much higher than 3.3%.

 

[Globule]

If 1.5% of the general population are gay I would estimate that only around 0.15% of footballers are gay. So in the English leagues that equates to ~3 gay footballers.

Finally, some cold hard figures. Sure, they're made up figures based on wobbly logic, but we can finally say definitively that football doesn't have a problem with homophobia.

Because football is a 'manly' sport obviously.
It's a joke you tools and i was being sarcastic.

I know you're joking, but I genuinely think that's what he was suggesting.

 

[hobbers]

Any reason for why you think a man from the general public is 10 times more likely to be gay?

Keep in mind that this is just based on the current 2000 footballers. How many have there been since the early 90s? This is clearly a big problem.

Reasons relating to both biochemistry and proclivity. Says I, calmly stepping into the minefield.

Finally, some cold hard figures. Sure, they're made up figures based on wobbly logic, but we can finally say definitively that football doesn't have a problem with homophobia.

You're welcome.

 

[Globule]

Reasons relating to both biochemistry and proclivity. Says I, calmly stepping into the minefield.

Please don't stop there. Elaborate. I want to see where this goes.

 

[Dir Wangem]

Reasons relating to both biochemistry and proclivity. Says I, calmly stepping into the minefield.

I have not seen or heard about any such studies. I know that high testosterone and competitiveness are more common in professional athletes, but I highly doubt that these are linked with sexual preference as well. And if it there somehow is a correlation, then I bet it's very slight. Not nearly to the degree that you suggest.

 

[TsuWave]

The fact you are suggesting this is just down to chance, that the people who worked harder all happen to be black, in america, in the UK, and every western country with a black population, all these people just happen to be the harder workers and it's just coincidence that they are black, given the demographics of these countries,is so unrealistic and unlikely, the odds are just overwhelmingly stacked against you. I really don't think you can understand how wrong you are on this, it's like taking a crap on a maths in general. The idea that black athletes do well do to a 'way out' of poorer neighborhoods does have merit, but it doesn't explain why black people from the same areas are not smashing exam records across their host countries, unless they are genetically predisposed to be good at sports.

I'm mobile and at work and can't reply accordingly

I don't know how me pointing how a bunch of factors that influence and skew the dominance of black athletes in certain sports equates to me suggesting its all down to chance? It's like the exact opposite of that. And again, I wasn't stating all black athletes worker harder than all white athletes, that's a nonsensical statement. I was presenting it as one of many factors that impact athletic performance.

I've already addressed how inadequate academic support, socioeconomic and cultural factors, systemic racism, prejudice, conditioning, standards and expectations, self-removal and a bunch of other factors affect academic performance for black people. Black kids in similar environment and circumstances to white kids perform on par and sometimes outperform white kids and vice versa.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Spot on.

Outside of the sport as well, there is a pattern documented sociologists where people dismiss or excuse a current act or statement with racist implications by recalling a previous act that was deemed not racist, tolerant, etc.

In this article, I thought the author did a terrific job of highlighting the problem. His number one example is the Lukaku versus Morata debate. The reactions and opinions of pundits and fans, including on this forum, have a not so nuanced racist undertone. There's no stretching or exaggeration, it's blatant, clear as day. And the fact that this tendency is accepted and so widely used is the problem.

yep. I made a mental note of the usual "nothing to see here" and the "PC gone mad" police gone mad and sure enough they turned up. Even seen the usual suspects put sarcastic comments on the transfer tweets thread about white players and how one of them was "good physically but a bit of a Donkey technically" as if to make a point. The irony is that they had to make a false example to apply the argument to their straw man... This also shows their disingenuous nature and lack of thought to the core topic and the nuances being discussed.

"Let me make a false example of this argument so I can burn my own straw man down, that will show them!!"

you see them all over threads where a non-white/non-European person commits a crime (terror related) but as soon as it turns out to be in their eyes a "false alarm" because the perpetrator was either white or non-Muslim it doesn't matter to them nor the lives of the victims.

 

[eddiegordo]

I'm mobile and at work and can't reply accordingly

I don't know how me pointing how a bunch of factors that influence and skew the dominance of black athletes in certain sports equates to me suggesting its all down to chance? It's like the exact opposite of that. And again, I wasn't stating all black athletes worker harder than all white athletes, that's a nonsensical statement. I was presenting it as one of many factors that impact athletic performance.

I've already addressed how inadequate academic support, socioeconomic and cultural factors, systemic racism, prejudice, conditioning, standards and expectations, self-removal and a bunch of other factors affect academic performance for black people. Black kids in similar environment and circumstances to white kids perform on par and sometimes outperform white kids and vice versa.

Because people try overstating factors to justify an inherent bias or belief. Again, all those factors you listed don't explain the disparity in black sporting ability compared to other races. If systematic racism holds black people back so much in education, how come in exactly the same environment they thrive in sports? How come poor white people don't do as well at sports as their black counterparts from the same areas? Why do all of the factors you listed which negatively impact black academic performance magically vanish when it comes to athletics?

It's often said that the simplest explanation is the correct one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Regarding similar environment, this isn't something I would like to talk about on this forum. No real test has ever been developed to measure that, as it would be too costly and time consuming. I will say however, that IQ is almost entirely inherent, education and environmental factors are pretty minimal. And IQ isn't culturally biased, it's a pretty damn effective way of seeing how good people are at basic maths, spatial reasoning & pattern spotting.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Because people try overstating factors to justify an inherent bias or belief. Again, all those factors you listed don't explain the disparity in black sporting ability compared to other races. If systematic racism holds black people back so much in education, how come in exactly the same environment they thrive in sports? How come poor white people don't do as well at sports as their black counterparts from the same areas? Why do all of the factors you listed which negatively impact black academic performance magically vanish when it comes to athletics?

It's often said that the simplest explanation is the correct one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Regarding similar environment, this isn't something I would talk about on this forum. No real test has ever been developed to measure that, as it would be too costly and time consuming. I will say however, that IQ is almost entirely inherent, education and environmental factors are pretty minimal. And IQ isn't culturally biased, it's a pretty damn effective way of seeing how good people are at basic maths, spatial reasoning & pattern spotting.

Just dipped back into this thread. Not sure I want to get into a full-on debate but that bit in bold (about which I know a fair bit) is absolute bollox. It's difficult to quantify the ratio of nature vs nurture but there's not a psychologist on the planet who would try to argue that the effect of environment on IQ is "pretty minimal". Even one of the most controversial books ever written on the relationship between race and IQ didn't try to make such a daft claim.

 

[villain]

Because people try overstating factors to justify an inherent bias or belief. Again, all those factors you listed don't explain the disparity in black sporting ability compared to other races. If systematic racism holds black people back so much in education, how come in exactly the same environment they thrive in sports? How come poor white people don't do as well at sports as their black counterparts from the same areas? Why do all of the factors you listed which negatively impact black academic performance magically vanish when it comes to athletics?

It's often said that the simplest explanation is the correct one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Regarding similar environment, this isn't something I would like to talk about on this forum. No real test has ever been developed to measure that, as it would be too costly and time consuming. I will say however, that IQ is almost entirely inherent, education and environmental factors are pretty minimal. And IQ isn't culturally biased, it's a pretty damn effective way of seeing how good people are at basic maths, spatial reasoning & pattern spotting.

I don't think the issue has been as prominent because black footballers haven't been as common over the years as white footballers, it's really in the last 20 years or so you've seen more black players at the highest levels, in the best clubs.
Whereas NBA especially has had decades of dominance from the black players.

Onto your point about white players finding it difficult to break though - basketball as a professional sport is played mostly by white people globally, I don't have numbers or statistics to back that up, but at collegiate level in the USA, plus throughout Europe its a mostly white sport.
The focus is of course on the NBA because that's where the best talent is, most exciting plays are etc, similarly with the NFL.

The conversation on why that is dominated by black people, and assuming it's because black people are naturally stronger is lazy and only further highlights just how racist stereotypes are embedded even subconsciously. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you (or anyone else) is a racist for thinking this, no. Just that it's not as simple, and certainly isn't the only reason why these situations occur.

I'll explain - you can't say a statement like that without looking at the wider context that surrounds the conversation, historically in America black people have a history of being denied opportunities to succeed, and black communities & schools have been underfunded - we don't need to go into details everyone knows the story.
Sports has always been seen as an escapism for a lot of kids to avoid drugs, gangs, crime etc and sports stars are seen as celebrities, they're rich, they get the girls they live a certain lifestyle that is enviable.
Now when you couple those two influences together you get black kids who find it harder to get into traditional avenues to be successful - business owners, lawyers, doctors etc so instead they rely on sports because if you can dunk at the age of 14, a scout isn't going to pass you up just because you're black.
That means it levels the playing field a little more you are assessed because of your ability - watch any sports documentary that focuses around poor black kids and you'll find a common theme - they work hard because they didn't opportunities, they've had to compete all their life so sports feels more natural, and they work hard to improve their skillset.
On the other hand, if you're a white kid who's very good at sports, you will have been given a scholarship to study and you'll at least be more open to the idea of taking a more traditional route to success because you haven't had to face the same lack of opportunities that the black kid will have done - and you won't have the fear of being rejected for job interviews because of things about you that you can't control or change.
(Yes I realise i'm generalising, and yes I understand that these two situations wont apply for everyone - however it's important to highlight that these are very common situations)

If you ever watch any sports documentary that's centered around poor black kids who have gone onto reach the highest level at their sport, or have aspirations to do so - you will see this theme being very consistent. Last Chance U on Netflix is a fantastic example, but there's so many more.

I could go into this further, but the main point is that to suggest that black players dominante the NBA & NFL because they're physically stronger than white players is dangerous & lazy, and takes away from the hard work and sacrifice that they will have put in to get to where they are. It suggests that they are somehow born to be better equipped than their white colleagues, and i'm not discounting someone like LeBron James being a physical specimen - yes he absolutely is, some people are born unique. But someone like Kevin Durant is tall, gangly, awkward but is arguably the best player in the league right now because he works hard - similarly the Point Guards are usually the best players in NBA and they are (usually) the least physical.
Black kids are attracted to the NBA & NFL because of the money involved, and in a lot of cases sports has been the only thing that has given then them a chance to better their life.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

@TsuWave

This article posits some possible reasons as to why West Africans and Jamaicans are better sprinters, a genetic advantage in athleticism.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...aicans-sprinting-athletics-commonwealth-games

My opinion is that Afro/Caribbean, players of Afro/Caribbean descent, players are, in general, more technically limited, when viewed in comparison to countries that need a high level of technical ability in order to compensate for a lack of physicality and compete, like Spain or Japan. As are many countries, England, for example.

I believe the reasons for this is that at youth levels it is easier for physically gifted players to stand out and dominate and they will get selected over smaller players. As these players don't have to hone their technical abilities to be able to compete at a high level, by and large they do not. It is no coincidence that smaller framed players and countries that produce smaller players have the higher technical levels.

I'm not saying it is entirely as simple as that as other factors like coaching quality, infrastructure and cultural factors etc will affect outcome as well.

 

[Hammerfell]

If 1.5% of the general population are gay I would estimate that only around 0.15% of footballers are gay. So in the English leagues that equates to ~3 gay footballers.

Load of tosh.

 

[eddiegordo]

Just dipped back into this thread. Not sure I want to get into a full-on debate but that bit in bold (about which I know a fair bit) is absolute bollox. It's difficult to quantify the ratio of nature vs nurture but there's not a psychologist on the planet who would try to argue that the effect of environment on IQ is "pretty minimal". Even one of the most controversial books ever written on the relationship between race and IQ didn't try to make such a daft claim.

It depends in what context, I was speaking in regards to individuals in a single population/country, in which environmental factors are going to vary far less. The effect of environment on IQ between someone who lives in a rainforest and someone who has had a modern education is massive, this is undeniable. The effects of education between people brought up in say, a private school, compared to an average or even poor performing state school in the same country is minimal. IQ can be trained, but not by a huge amount.

To put it simply, thinking that someone has an IQ score 20 points higher than you because they had a better education is a pipe dream.

Edit: To clarify, if you can find a study that shows a private education vastly improves IQ (not job prospects or income) over a state education, I am all ears.

 

[Isotope]

While I agree that generalizations are harmful and should not be done so easily, I don't see why people attribute some of this to racism. It's not racist to say that Italian people are in general less organized but more spontaneous than Germans, is it? They are basically of the same race, and it doesn't mean that every single Italian will be more spontanenous and less organized than every single German you compare him with, just that it's a general trend. People jump to 'THAT'S RACIST!!!!!!!' too quickly at times and the sensitivity on the subject is sometimes vastly over the top.

The way I see it, there are racism and prejudice (R&P) in any aspect of life, including football. Football includes millions of people, so even involving 1% R&P, equates tens of thousands of people.

But then, the scope of what considered R&P is evolving. Now, people that think Lukaku is less intelligent (footballing wise) than Morata, is considered having racist undertone. I mean, why? Why can't people have opinion that this player is fast, this player is stupid, this player is a donkey, just because of their skin color? If someone think a player is fast but unintelligent, they should be able to say that with no fear, regardless of the so called player skin color.

This reminds me of that South Park series about the flag.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It depends in what context, I was speaking in regards to individuals in a single population/country, in which environmental factors are going to vary far less. The effect of environment on IQ between someone who lives in a rainforest and someone who has had a modern education is massive, this is undeniable. The effects of education between people brought up in say, a private school, compared to an average or even poor performing state school in the same country is minimal. IQ can be trained, but not by a huge amount.

To put it simply, thinking that someone has an IQ score 20 points higher than you because they had a better education is a pipe dream.

Again with the sweeping statements. People far more qualified than you or I wouldn't dare to quantify impact of environment (which goes beyond education) the way you just did. It's a massively controversial area, for obvious reasons. There's a school of thought that would like to dismiss the role of genes entirely. You also get a lot of people who argue against the very concept of IQ being a useful metric for intelligence.

My personal take is that genes do have a role to play and, therefore, you can't dismiss the idea that there might be genetic differences between races when it comes to IQ, or many other traits - mental and physical. That's a very controversial opinion (especially on the left) but one that I would find very hard to argue against, convincingly. The problem we have with inferring anything useful from this is the undeniable and significant effect that environment has on all of these traits too. It's incredibly hard to accurately separate the two. Even with adopted twin studies and the like.

Plus the fact that any difference between populations cannot be applied to each individual, so none it matters anyway. There might be differences between the mean IQ of two large populations of people that have a differing ethnic genotype but that tells us feck all useful about the likely phenotype of any one individual, based on their ethnicity. Failing to appreciate that is the basis for the sorts of stereotypes and sweeping generalisations that litter this thread.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

Would be interesting to hear older posters' perspective on the narrative on Pele? He is regularly heralded as the GOAT but at that time what were the adjectives being used in the media?

I was looking up stuff on Jose Manuel Moreno the other day and came across a great post on another football forum on that very topic:

Prior to world cup 1966 there was a respected argentine journalist, juvenal, who wrote for the magazine of el gráfico, fan of la máquina of River Plate, who saw all the greats from the 1940s onward, printed "Pelé the best of all time"....something along those lines.

Whether this was a view shared by european journalists is unknown to me, but I would have some doubts whether Pelé would have been generally viewed greater than Di Stefano by 1966. By 1970, the final coronation in México, the 1000 goal landmark, the advent shift from b&w to color screen tv, the aknowledged universal acceptance of the black athlete, all shifted perceptions in the brazilian's favour.

Pelé arrived at the right time, right place, when black athletes were breaking barriers, predecessors such as Arthur Friedenrich, aknowledged by those whom witnessed him as possibly superior and an achiever of 1000 goals himself, according to some reports, suffered from living in the pre-war era. He was in some ways what Moreno was to Di Stefano, possibly the better or equal player but not greater.

In 1964 Pele was at the physical peak of his powers, generally viewed as the premier player in the game, so el gráfico decided to conduct a comparison with the current best with the previous best, Moreno, utilizing witnesses that had saw them both in action. The conclusion was fairly even. By 1980 Moreno had been somewhat forgotten, with a shift of the old guard of journalists to a new set of experts in a new comparison but this time it was Pelé vs Di Stefano. Again both faired evenly but with a slight tendency in favor of the Brazilian.

Di Stefano never obtained Pelé's fame from an early age, viewed in South América in the shadows of the Moreno's and Pedernera's of the world, excluded and barely receiving votes in el gráfico's 1960s poll as part of the best XI of all time of the Argentinian national team, with Moreno topping the list, but with discipline and sacrifices, aided by his eventual successful move to Europe, he made his way up the ranks in the pantheon of football greats.

 

[TsuWave]

Because people try overstating factors to justify an inherent bias or belief. Again, all those factors you listed don't explain the disparity in black sporting ability compared to other races. If systematic racism holds black people back so much in education, how come in exactly the same environment they thrive in sports? How come poor white people don't do as well at sports as their black counterparts from the same areas? Why do all of the factors you listed which negatively impact black academic performance magically vanish when it comes to athletics?

Here:

Commitment/hard-work, social conditioning and circumstances, environment, prejudice, and cultural factors like diet etc, are the reasons why the NFL and NBA are dominated by black athletes, not some hidden attribute in their genetic code. Self-removal is also a major factor with white parents using their prejudices to exclude and discourage themselves and their kids in the sports you mentioned.

In western societies black athletes often come from disenfranchised communities that have inadequate academic support. That coupled with systemic racism, social conditioning, and prejudiced attitudes that program black children to believe they are less intelligent than other kids, often leads black kids to not value education (self-removal from other career paths). These kids see the NFL and NBA as their get out ticket, and culturally those sports have a massive presence in their community. Now add the hunger and the hard work these kids put in = NFL and NBA being dominated by black athletes. And even within these sports you see self-election/removal, as white athletes are pushed for quarterback roles and black athletes for RB roles.

Are you black? Have you ever studied at a majority black and undefunded school? Do you know what the environment and attitudes towards education are like in those places? Granted that from personal experience these attitudes are gradually changing, but still

Somehow athleticism being an innate ability to black people doesn't strike me as "the simplest explanation" as you tried to frame it

@TsuWave

This article posits some possible reasons as to why West Africans and Jamaicans are better sprinters, a genetic advantage in athleticism.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...aicans-sprinting-athletics-commonwealth-games

My opinion is that Afro/Caribbean, players of Afro/Caribbean descent, players are, in general, more technically limited, when viewed in comparison to countries that need a high level of technical ability in order to compensate for a lack of physicality and compete, like Spain or Japan. As are many countries, England, for example.

I believe the reasons for this is that at youth levels it is easier for physically gifted players to stand out and dominate and they will get selected over smaller players. As these players don't have to hone their technical abilities to be able to compete at a high level, by and large they do not. It is no coincidence that smaller framed players and countries that produce smaller players have the higher technical levels.

I'm not saying it is entirely as simple as that as other factors like coaching quality, infrastructure and cultural factors etc will affect outcome as well.

Cheers mate, I've read similar articles on that theory, they usually end with, that one included, that no firm conclusions can be drawn or that it even has any substantial effect. It becomes even more questionable when those gene variants are often found in other populous, hell, that article says it's only slightly higher in certain populous so naturally we should/would be seeing sprinters that are similarly fast from everywhere no?

And then there's the case of Brazil, one of the highest black populations, shared west African ancestry via slave trade like Jamaica and U.S yet not known for/producing sprinters, and in football also not know for its physical/powerful players but for technical ability, touch, creativity and spontaneity. I guess you could say they are admixed but so are majority of black people in the diaspora, and census show a substantial amount of Brazilians identify as black.

It's culture, environment, infrastructure, societal expectations and attitudes, opportunities, diet, shit all these factors that's been mentioned ad nauseam, rather than "athleticism is innate to black people/innate differences between races"

 

[2 man midfield]

While I agree that generalizations are harmful and should not be done so easily, I don't see why people attribute some of this to racism. It's not racist to say that Italian people are in general less organized but more spontaneous than Germans, is it? They are basically of the same race, and it doesn't mean that every single Italian will be more spontanenous and less organized than every single German you compare him with, just that it's a general trend. People jump to 'THAT'S RACIST!!!!!!!' too quickly at times and the sensitivity on the subject is sometimes vastly over the top.

Because Germans have never been oppressed or something.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Cheers mate, I've read similar articles on that theory, they usually end with, that one included, that no firm conclusions can be drawn or that it even has any substantial effect. It becomes even more questionable when those gene variants are often found in other populous, hell, that article says it's only slightly higher in certain populous so naturally we should/would be seeing sprinters that are similarly fast from everywhere no?

And then there's the case of Brazil, one of the highest black populations, shared west African ancestry via slave trade like Jamaica and U.S yet not known for/producing sprinters, and in football also not know for its physical/powerful players but for technical ability, touch, creativity and spontaneity. I guess you could say they are admixed but so are majority of black people in the diaspora, and census show a substantial amount of Brazilians identify as black.

It's culture, environment, infrastructure, societal expectations and attitudes, opportunities, diet, shit all these factors that's been mentioned ad nauseam, rather than "athleticism is innate to black people/innate differences between races"

I'm not making an argument that the differences are anything to do with race or innate ability of any sort. More a combination of factors that create a dynamic. These sporting culture dynamics are apparent in every country. I agree that there seems to be no conclusive evidence about to settle the debate one way or another but I don't feel it would be sensible to discount that some genetic factors could exist that give a peoples an advantage other others in certain sporting events. We know that some genetic conditions are more prevalent in some populations and some physical attributes like height vary, to an extent that could give a sporting advantage if all other things were equal, from country to country.

 

[ti vu]

Mostly in non-big games though. It's his performances in the big games that made him one of the best midfielders of all time and one of the best Madrid palyers of all time to boot.

Zidane was a serial bottler until that World Cup where he turned his fortune around. If anything Pogba was considered better player at the same age (Pogba's current age).

 

[Raoul]

I for one am getting tired of hearing about the punctual Swiss.

 

[VP]

Black people have nothing innate to them that makes them better sprinters or spit out "michael phelps body types" much like white people have nothing innate to them that makes them produce messi body types, if we were to take your example into consideration. Athleticism or predisposition for it nor a certain body type is innate to black people.

I'm not attributing hard work to race, and the fact that you think i am makes me realize i've wasted my time and keyboard strokes even replying to you in the first place. What I said was "the people that run sub 10 are exceptional individuals that pop up in every group, on track they are black because when hundreds of thousands of black kids dedicate themselves to track like they do, you are more likely to find these exceptional individuals, whereas white sprinters usually don't come from similar circumstances or even countries that support sprinting like the black athletes do, also sprinting is not as an accentuated part of their lives as it is for black athletes so the talent pool is not as big, and lastly, white sprinters don't put in as much work", that is logical reasoning. Not some dumb "oh them blacks got something in their genetic code that gives them an advantage" assumption that's been debunked over and over by science.

You seem to have a problem with the real possibility that due to economic background, social conditioning, expectations and circumstances, environment, prejudice, and other cultural factors, black athletes are more likely to put more work in than their white counterparts in the realms where they dominate. I keep asking you and you keep skirting it, if its innately a black body type thing, why aren't africa or brazil producing these sub 10 athletes?

there's nothing, and this is scientifically supported, NOTHING outside of socio-cultural factors stopping/preventing white sprinters from competing at the level black sprinters compete, certainly not black people hitting the genetic athleticism lotto.

Race is a social construct, its labels attached to people based on superficial differences/people with similar phenotypes (skin color, hair type), and just because individuals have similar phenotype it doesn't mean they have similar genetic variant sequences:


So yeah, I don't mean to crush your world, but an Indian living in Kenya might actually find a bunch of Kenyans that share more genome sequences with him than a substantial amount of his fellow Indians.

This is what you don't seem to get. If you were living in that environment and fully immersed in the culture and dietary habits, and had kids there, your kids wouldn't be at a disadvantage genetically (outside of being extraordinary individuals). They'd be at a level playing field, and stuff like training, time, commitment, attention and support, etc would be the differentiators in how far he'd go. He'd be better than some and worse than some depending on those factors, not on simply not being a kalenjin.

I clearly don't know enough about this and you've shared some good articles - so let me read them first.

But to break it down, there are certain body-types suited suited for sprinting (short, stocky, fast-twitch muscles tc.) - that's indisputable, surely? - but I'm saying that certain races (like folks of West AFrican origin) are more likely to have this body-type (this the point we're disputing). Your explanation in bold just seems intuitively wrong. American is 80% white with a strong track culture across the board - even if we accept your claim that black people are into sprinting more, there will still be a bigger white talent pool who are into sprinting (esp. when you throw in European and other countries with similar infra/sprint culture). Saying 'white sprinters don't put in as much work' makes no sense at all. But like I said let me read more.

 

[Moved To Differently]

I'm not sure if this thread has coloured my perception of the language people in football use but I did notice an instance yesterday (well a few, but this one was particularly intreguing) during the City game. Jesus took a quick free kick in the final third having won a foul and then times and angles his run to perfection between the Bournemouth centre backs for David Silvas' pass which he then finishes.

To all intents and purposes this is a goal for which Jesus' quick thinking and understanding of the game is the prime factor and yet the commentator lauded David Silva with superlatives like 'maestro' and 'magician' whereas Jesus was described as 'a willing runner' (verbatim). I'm not entirely sure how anyone with an iota of sense could arrive at that summary.

There were also the usual 100 times Pogba is referred to first and foremost for his power ignoring the fact that he's comfortably got the best technique of any player in the premiership. I'm not entirely sure this is racism though, more an insight into the mindset of people in and around English football for whom the most eye-catching quality is strength and power over technique and guile. Or perhaps it is.

 

[The Firestarter]

I'm not sure if this thread has coloured my perception of the language people in football use but I did notice an instance yesterday (well a few, but this one was particularly intreguing) during the City game. Jesus took a quick free kick in the final third having won a foul and then times and angles his run to perfection between the Bournemouth centre backs for David Silvas' pass which he then finishes.

To all intents and purposes this is a goal for which Jesus' quick thinking and understanding of the game is the prime factor and yet the commentator lauded David Silva with superlatives like 'maestro' and 'magician' whereas Jesus was described as 'a willing runner' (verbatim). I'm not entirely sure how anyone with an iota of sense could arrive at that summary.

There were also the usual 100 times Pogba is referred to first and foremost for his power ignoring the fact that he's comfortably got the best technique of any player in the premiership. I'm not entirely sure this is racism though, more an insight in the mindset of people in and around English football for whom the most eye-catching quality is strength and power over technique and guile. Or perhaps it is.

Let's not get that ahead of ourselves.

 

[Moved To Differently]

Let's not get that ahead of ourselves.

So you read that post and that's the point you deemed worthy of response?

 

[AshRK]

Lukaku is a very good footballer who is more than goals. Like yesterday his hold up play was superb. He never let Leicester defenders to relax. I really enjoyed his performance yesterday.

 

[The Firestarter]

So you read that post and that's the point you deemed worthy of response?

I agree with the rest.

 

[Moved To Differently]

I agree with the rest.

Right. Out of interest who would you say is technically better than Pogba?

 

[The Firestarter]

Right. Out of interest who would you say is technically better than Pogba?

Silva, Hazard, even Mahrez.

 

[Prodigal7]

Don't agree with that article. Its not a race thing, its a combination of:
1. Politically/club affiliation driving the media. Its suchy a huge thing that annoys me and most people never pick up on it but there are so many Liverpool ex players driving opinion through their punditry.
Murphy will try to play down Pogba's world class skill on the ball because he doesn't want to talk about it. He'd rather try to tell people that Pogba is just power and pace.
2. It shows Ex English footballers know very little about the game in general. I've always been impressed with Henry, Ballack etc when they interview as they're very intelligent. I'm not intending to call all English players thick, but they don't do themselves any favors.

 

[Flytan]

It really has been clear as day since the beginning. Don't forget the "big lump" and "donkey" references on here. It's really pathetic. Why would you even use those terms to describe someone with a perceived lack of technical ability? It's a really strange choice to make.

Oh come on, people refer to Andy Carroll as worse.

As usual media exaggerates.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Donkey is an age old term in the UK for any ungainly player. It is used at playground - professional level as a term of derision.

 

[Moonwalker]

Again with the sweeping statements. People far more qualified than you or I wouldn't dare to quantify impact of environment (which goes beyond education) the way you just did. It's a massively controversial area, for obvious reasons. There's a school of thought that would like to dismiss the role of genes entirely. You also get a lot of people who argue against the very concept of IQ being a useful metric for intelligence.

My personal take is that genes do have a role to play and, therefore, you can't dismiss the idea that there might be genetic differences between races when it comes to IQ, or many other traits - mental and physical. That's a very controversial opinion (especially on the left) but one that I would find very hard to argue against, convincingly. The problem we have with inferring anything useful from this is the undeniable and significant effect that environment has on all of these traits too. It's incredibly hard to accurately separate the two. Even with adopted twin studies and the like.

Plus the fact that any difference between populations cannot be applied to each individual, so none it matters anyway. There might be differences between the mean IQ of two large populations of people that have a differing ethnic genotype but that tells us feck all useful about the likely phenotype of any one individual, based on their ethnicity. Failing to appreciate that is the basis for the sorts of stereotypes and sweeping generalisations that litter this thread.

Actually, it's an absolute consensus in psychology that genes play a greater role in determining IQ than environment. What psychologists avoid doing is putting an exact ratio to it, as it's
conceited. Richard Herrnstein was actually very fond of the 80-20 estimate, which you can hear in his Firing Line appearance. The 'wouldn't dare quantify' is somewhat misleading as well. Charles Murray is actually on record saying that they did try to quantify 'quality of life', and this can be done with a fair amount of precision. The difference in quality of life (which is environment operationalised) isn't big enough to account for the one standard deviation difference in IQ scores, no matter which ratio (and it ranges from 40 to 80% environment according to Herrnstein), you apply to it. Of course they were wise enough not to spell that out or put it in bold, because they got crucified enough as it is, but that's the inescapable conclusion from their book (that the difference isn't and cannot be explained by environment, or cultural differences, or culturally biased tests).

The two schools of thought that you mention in your first two sentences are actually, not just on the lunatic fringe, but in sharp opposition to everything put forward by the book you cite as an example.

If you can take one impression from the work of Murray and Herrnstein, it's precisely that people believing in the omnipotence of nurture are ignorant or dishonest.

So there, weird tangent and absolutely derails the thread, but nothing else in it seemed even remotely interesting.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Actually, it's an absolute consensus in psychology that genes play a greater role in determining IQ than environment. What psychologists avoid doing is putting an exact ratio to it, as it's
conceited. Richard Herrnstein was actually very fond of the 80-20 estimate, which you can hear in his Firing Line appearance. The 'wouldn't dare quantify' is somewhat misleading as well. Charles Murray is actually on record saying that they did try to quantify 'quality of life', and this can be done with a fair amount of precision. The difference in quality of life (which is environment operationalised) isn't big enough to account for the one standard deviation difference in IQ scores, no matter which ratio (and it ranges from 60 to 80% environment according to Herrnstein), you apply to it. Of course they were wise enough not to spell that out or put it in bold, because they got crucified enough as it is, but that's the inescapable conclusion from their book (that the difference isn't and cannot be explained by environment, or cultural differences, or culturally biased tests).

The two schools of thought that you mention in your first two sentences are actually, not just on the lunatic fringe, but in sharp opposition to everything put forward by the book you cite as an example.

If you can take one impression from the work of Murray and Herrnstein, it's precisely that people believing in the omnipotence of nurture are ignorant or dishonest.

So there, weird tangent and absolutely derails the thread, but nothing else in it seemed even remotely interesting.

Maybe it didn't come across but that's exactly my own take on it. I mentioned Murray's book as being a reasonable argument about nature being more important than nurture. Other very well respected psychologists think he underestimates environmental factors. The truth is, no doubt, in the middle. The main point I was making is that anyone who tries to deny any influence from genes or environment is well wide of the mark.

 

[Moonwalker]

Maybe it didn't come across but that's exactly my own take on it. I mentioned Murray's book as being a reasonable argument about nature being more important than nurture. Other very well respected psychologists think he underestimates environmental factors. The truth is, no doubt, in the middle. The main point I was making is that anyone who tries to deny any influence from genes or environment is well wide of the mark.

Right, well who could possibly disagree with your last sentence, I just think the appeal to moderation is very much misrepresenting what's a pretty strong consensus in favor of nature. I was reading a psychology book just last night, and even this undoubtedly left-leaning professor, couldn't help but concede that.

 

[RaptorSlo]

Can you cite at least one peer reviewed scientific study that have shown these differences? Just because you see an asymmetry in the NFL doesn't mean said asymmetry is caused by genetics.

So, how many white guys do you see competing in athletics 100/200 meter sprints with the top athletes?

 

[E-mal]

Cant be assed to go through the entire thread about athletism, technical ability and IQ and how its affected by race.
The disaprity in people of thesame race or of different race makes it difficult to have a conclusive evidence to support either assertions.
As far as am concerned IQ has mostly been a product of one"s enviroment as is athleticism and sporting ability.

 

[ryadmahrez]

The people that run sub 10 are exceptional individuals that pop up in every group, on track they are black because when hundreds of thousands of black kids dedicate themselves to track like they do, you are more likely to find these exceptional individuals, whereas white sprinters usually don't come from similar circumstances or even countries that support sprinting like the black athletes do, also sprinting is not as an accentuated part of their lives as it is for black athletes so the talent pool is not as big, and lastly, white sprinters don't put in as much work. If it was a "black" thing then surely African countries would also be spitting sub 10 runners but the fastest sprinters are usually Jamaican or American, why? African countries do not have comparable infrastructure or support for the sport, state wide corruption restricts the amount of funding etc, culturally, it's a much more viable career path in the USA or Jamaica than in Africa (self-removal/election), African sportsmen often speak of not being able to dedicate themselves fully to their craft due to having to have jobs sometimes merely just to stay alive etc

Like I said, body type differences are a result of diet, cultural/lifestyle habits, and even geographical location/environment. You should read it all since its only a couple of paragraphs but I bolded the part most relevant to your post

Diet, habits etc will only bring you so far. You need talent. People of African descent seem to have more of it on average than others. If you look at the facts from the 124 people who officially ran a sub 10, 20 were Born in an african country and represented that country. 3 others were naturalised and ran for countries like Qatar and Turkey. There is one Chinese and one Turk on the list. The rest are people of african descent in the diaspora.

Despite having worse infrastrucure than european countries, runners from Africa are far more represented than all European runners. There is more to it than just circumstances etc its a very complex issue.