Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards - View Single Post - Who watches the WNBA?
View Single Post
Old 05-17-2010, 05:39 PM   #27 (permalink)
Bill Haverchuck
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,375

Originally Posted by Cory View Post
Big time. Males, especially male blacks, have been genetically selected for feats of physical strength and bodily coordination.
No, I disagree. People write whole books on this shit. I can only touch the tip of iceburg here. If (and I stress if) the success of "black" athletes has anything to do with genetics (again I stress if, because certain research is being avoided), it is because the peoples of the African Diaspora have the most genetic diversity amongst the "races." And I put "races" in quotes because it is such a problematic term and difficult to pin down consistently. Based on what I've read, you've got it backwards. When you isolate certain "black" populations ("nations" in the loose sense of the word), they are amongst the extremes on both ends of a spectrum; height is a perfect example of that. Genetic diversity is the issue, if genetics matters at all, not generalizations about breeding practices. So, any PERCEIVED advantage that "blacks" may have, is a result of probability due to genetic diversity, not something resulting from "breeding" for certain skills.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the "black" athletes who dominate a given sport reside in PARTICULAR geographic locations. Certain "black" populations dominate SPECIFIC sports, while accomplishing almost nothing as a nation in other sports. And the same can be said of other ethnic groups from around the world. There is a HUGELY important geographic component to all of this, which ultimately relates to social, economic and cultural factors as well.

Why are such a disproportionate amount of the great hockey goalies born in the province of Quebec? They must have a eugenics program! What about track? The Carribean women must be fucking men who will pass on good track and field genes! /end sarcasm/

Also, there is evidence that training and "icons" are a huge part of this. Icons draw greater amounts of the "nation" or "race" into a particular sport. More talented youngsters playing a particular sport will equate to the best talent in a given group going towards that sport or a position within a sport, such as goalies in hockey. It's like lottery tickets. If the best athletes from group "A" are pushing for success in a particular area, you will likely, but not necessarily always, see more people from group "A" playing at the highest level of that sport (or position) since they have more of their top talent pursuing it.

Training, of course, will lead to fluctuations and certain groups "emerging" as powers. Brazil accomplishes a lot in Soccer due to the harsh training ground the youngsters play on. That training helped revolutionize soccer (similar to how black musical culture revolutionized basketball decades ago. The Jews were once perceived to be the best at basketball and race was made an issue. Same shit, new era and group). That context, combined with more and more icons to look up to, creates a shit load of good Brazilian soccer players. The same can be said of Dominican baseball players. They train in crazy conditions and much of the best athletes devote their talents to succeeding in Baseball (they see the icons and gravitate to that sport). Anyone from Canada should recognize this phenomema talking place. Imagine if the passion for hockey were re-directed towards another sport? Is there any doubt Canada couldn't kick as at something else, if enough people committed to it?

In terms of the individual, there are always exceptions, of course. But, when we're talking about things at the "group" level, whether it be a "nation" or a "race", geography, culture, and socio-economics play a huge role.

Do I even need to cover how economics adds to all of this?

I have not seen credible evidence that success in sports amongst "races" has to do with genes, unless we're talking about genetic DIVERSITY leading to a greater probablity that a "colour" will have a slight advantage by having more genetic lottery tickets (and we're not talking about anything major, to my knowledge). If anybody has real evidence that "race" matters, let me know; I'd like to look at it.

Usually the most gifted female athlete in grade school cannot beat the most clumsy male in her grade, provided both have put in the same amount of practice. This is because women have been genetically selected for other traits oriented around things like fine hand motor coordination, care-giving and nurturing, emotional navigation, and physical beauty.
Ugh. The best female athlete is going to belie all of those years of evolution, assuming you've even got your facts straight (you're generalizing). Furthermore, the most clumsy male is going to be fucking clumsy.

When it comes to physical and mental skills, humans actually have what is called a "mosaic" brain. Again, it is a matter of probability. There are a range of skills that the brain is responsible for, and men and women fall on varying areas of the spectrum for EACH skill or trait. You can talk in probabilities about a greater number of men or women being at one place on the spectrum for a given skill, but you can't generalize about the genders in absolute terms. Most men have better visual-spacial skills and work a fork-lift better than women, but some women will fall on the male dominated end of the spectrum with that skill, and thus operate a fork-lift better than certain men. You see that amongst women who have been exposed to high levels of testosterone while in the womb. Conversly, a male exposed to high levels of esterogen might not be likely to try out for the football team, if you know what I mean.

And since you're talking about the best female athelete, you're essentially talking about a woman who posssess traits more commonly held by males. That female athlete will likey beat a clumsy guy 10 out of 10 times, unless you're talking about a VERY small population. In a big population, that clumsy guy is probably going to be very clumsy compared to the top female.

For example, in my high school, the best female basketball player went on to play university and start. She had some very "male" traits (what's associated with males in terms of probability). Now, she would have been a bench player on the guys team, but she could have FUCKING DESTROYED the most clumsy male in the school. The fact that she could have even made the bench for the guys team puts her well ahead of the clumsy motherfucker. I can think of some dudes who refused to participate in Physical Ed class. She would have ate them alive.

We are driven by gender norms, because the fact of gender differences is right there before our eyes, and each genders specialization is there to exploit different things.
Lots of it is constructed. Like I said, we have "mosaic" brains. There are some definte biological realities, but it's more useful to see them in terms of probabilities than absolute terms. A guy is more likely to be stronger and taller than a woman, but not always. And DEFINITELY NOT when we're talking about the extremes of each case. The tallest woman is waaay taller than the shortest guy. The strongest woman is waaay stronger than the weakest man. And the most athletically gifted woman is a waaay better athlete than the most clumsy male. Try thinking about it in those terms.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key