Althouse: "American woman wins NYC Marathon for 1st time in 40 years."

November 6, 2017

"American woman wins NYC Marathon for 1st time in 40 years."

Shalane Flanagan.

(CNN.)

83 comments:

Fabi said...: MAGA!; 11/6/17, 5:52 AM
rhhardin said...: She looks like the long-distance running babe I pass on my bike commute, except less tanned.; 11/6/17, 5:55 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Watch this space. Uber or subways?; 11/6/17, 5:59 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Oh my bad, an American woman won the woman's race. Cheerio, pip pip!; 11/6/17, 6:00 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: This win made an odd juxtaposition with the endless talk about race here this weekend. In fact there is vastly more overlap than differences between all races in abilities.; 11/6/17, 6:02 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "vastly more"?

Who knows? But it's what good people like to think, so let's make it the conventional wisdom and find other things to talk about.; 11/6/17, 6:32 AM
Curious George said...: Let's be clear, she didn't win the NYC Marathon. She was the first woman to finish. 19 men were faster.; 11/6/17, 6:43 AM
Tank said...: Two idiots in the first seven comments.; 11/6/17, 6:46 AM
FIDO said...: Oh. She DID NOT win. I thought for a moment that they banned Africans from the race this year.

Being the first woman behind 19 men isn't 'a winner'. It is like sled dogs. If you aren't the first, all you see are 19 assholes ahead of you...who are faster.

Defining 'winning' down for feelz.; 11/6/17, 6:49 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Still not tired of all the winning!; 11/6/17, 6:52 AM
Big Mike said...: And she’s a biological woman, not a transgendered male with s full set of male genitals. Good for her.; 11/6/17, 7:02 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Ann Althouse said...
Who knows? But it's what good people like to think, so let's make it the conventional wisdom and find other things to talk about.

Cheap cop out. In reality there is vast overlap genetically and in terms of performance.; 11/6/17, 7:07 AM
Fernandinande said...: "American woman wins NYC Marathon for 1st time in 40 years."

She didn't win the marathon, she came in about 15 minutes after the real winner, Geoffrey Kamworor.

The fake CNN headline reminded me of an old Boulder Daily Camera headline, something like "Person of Gender Wins Boulder Marathon!" with a sub-heading "Some guy won the 'men's division'" with a faster time, as if it was a miracle that a woman won the woman's division.; 11/6/17, 7:12 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Ann Althouse said...
"vastly more"?

Who knows? But it's what good people like to think, so let's make it the conventional wisdom and find other things to talk about.
11/6/17, 6:32 AM

We disagree from time to time, Emerita, but I have to speak my love for the way you gut and filet such as ARM en passant, leaving scarcely a trace of red.

Blogger AReasonableMan said...

Cheap cop out.

Yeehaw, there's some real man Alpha male talk right there, you betcha! C'mon girls, who wants to have ARM's babies?; 11/6/17, 7:14 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Cheap cop out. In reality there is vast overlap genetically and in terms of performance."

If your "vast overlap" notion is based on reputable scientific research, you should cite it. That you went straight for an insult only increases my suspicion.

I have watched for stories about this kind of research for the entire time I've been blogging (and long before that), and I don't believe it exists. People trade in myths and stereotypes about race, passing along what makes them feel good or assuages their fears.

Why are you accusing me of "copping out"? Seems to me, you're copping out. It's ludicrous to festoon your empty assertion with "In reality." Cite something or admit I'm right.; 11/6/17, 7:26 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: "she came in about 15 minutes after the real winner,"

But that's only about 3 miles!!; 11/6/17, 7:27 AM
tola'at sfarim said...: Travel ban side effect I'm sure; 11/6/17, 7:27 AM
kjbe said...: No on wins a marathon, they win a division of a race. That's she's a woman and it's said that she won, means, she won the women's race. Same for a guy. The headline isn't wrong.; 11/6/17, 7:28 AM
Curious George said...: "kjbe said...
No on wins a marathon, they win a division of a race. That's she's a woman and it's said that she won, means, she won the women's race. Same for a guy. The headline isn't wrong."

That's some fine tap dancing there!; 11/6/17, 7:35 AM
rhhardin said...: ARM is no doubt relying on the bell curve mathematics, which is probably right so long as the means aren't widely different compared to the standard deviation.

He'd have some trouble with Australian aborigines (IQ 64) and Ashkenazi Jews (110). The difference is too big.

Where the topic should come up is as against outcome based tests for discrimination. There the means show up and so do not test for discrimination at all.

Otherwise nobody knows or cares about IQ. I go by sense of humor, which apparently is not tested at all.; 11/6/17, 7:40 AM
rhhardin said...: You know she's a genuine woman because of the womanish platitudes she came out with after winning.; 11/6/17, 7:44 AM
rhhardin said...: What do Kenyen women say after winning. Maybe it's woman-cultural.; 11/6/17, 7:45 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Ann Althouse said...
If your "vast overlap" notion is based on reputable scientific research, you should cite it. That you went straight for an insult only increases my suspicion.

You appear to know literally nothing about genetics and yet you are suggesting that it's all a vast liberal conspiracy with the insult "it's what good people like to think". So cheap cop out was the appropriate response.

My view is in line with the mainstream view of geneticists so what good would it do to cite any particular paper when you dismiss the entire field with "it's what good people like to think". Humans are a single species which, by definition, means that they can all interbreed and in fact do interbreed. Again, by definition, this means that there is a vast overlap in genetics and abilities. If you don't accept these basic tenets of the field what basis is there for discussion?; 11/6/17, 7:46 AM
Michael K said...: "And she’s a biological woman, not a transgendered male with s full set of male genitals. Good for her."

That's next year.

Last year the women's division of the bicycle "Tour d Tucson" was won by a trannie.; 11/6/17, 7:52 AM
rhhardin said...: So ARM is relying on interebreeding removing race rather than bell curve mathematics.

The bell curve mathematics say that a particular member of the advantaged race has lots of members of the disadvantaged race better than him, in the general run of things. Nothing to do with interbreeding.

The extremes tend not to overlap though. The best guy from the disadvantaged race has lots of advantaged race people better than him.; 11/6/17, 7:56 AM
rhhardin said...: It's that damn x squared in the exponent.; 11/6/17, 7:58 AM
jaydub said...: It's just a coincidence her name is Rosie Ruiz.; 11/6/17, 7:58 AM
rhhardin said...: Scott Adams says something like a third of the population has no sense of humor.

I don't know if that's right, or if there's a big gender difference.

If it's right, there probably is.; 11/6/17, 8:01 AM
mockturtle said...: Did the Kenyans fail to show up?; 11/6/17, 8:10 AM
bagoh20 said...: We all have a sense of humor, just like we all have an I.Q.; 11/6/17, 8:19 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: She certainly has the female marathon runner look.

Desiccated breasts.

Desiccated ass.

Small boys are sexier than that.

Wait.

I am Laslo.; 11/6/17, 8:24 AM
Fernandinande said...: mockturtle said...
Did the Kenyans fail to show up?

1st and 2nd place were from Kenya, 3rd and 4th from Ethiopia. The first American to finish - 7th place - is named Abdi Abdirahman, so probably a big fat Scottish guy.; 11/6/17, 8:28 AM
rhhardin said...: Men and women have been interbreeding for a long without women developing a sense of humor.; 11/6/17, 8:41 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "You appear to know literally nothing about genetics and yet you are suggesting that it's all a vast liberal conspiracy with the insult "it's what good people like to think". So cheap cop out was the appropriate response. My view is in line with the mainstream view of geneticists so what good would it do to cite any particular paper when you dismiss the entire field with "it's what good people like to think". Humans are a single species which, by definition, means that they can all interbreed and in fact do interbreed. Again, by definition, this means that there is a vast overlap in genetics and abilities. If you don't accept these basic tenets of the field what basis is there for discussion?"

That is all hot air, and I hope you know it.

Scientists are human beings and they may express platitudes and helpful generalities. But you have cited nothing to respond to my demand for reputable research on the subject.

And I said absolutely nothing about liberals. Where did that come from? Is that your paraphrase of "good people"?! I do have the political opinion that liberals think they are the good people, but I didn't intend to speak about liberals generally.

In a sense, your original statement — "In fact there is vastly more overlap than differences between all races in abilities" — is so bland and vague as to be meaningless.

All human beings share a lot of genes with all other human beings. But the topic here is elite sports, specifically long-distance running. You were trying to assert that the recent history of great success by people from Kenya isn't something special at the genetic level. I asked for some scientific backup. You won't even take one step toward responding substantively. That reinforces my original assertion, which is that you care about the social benefit of a belief and not its scientific truth. Why not just be honest and admit that?; 11/6/17, 8:48 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "That reinforces my original assertion, which is that you care about the social benefit of a belief and not its scientific truth. Why not just be honest and admit that?"

Notice that I admit exactly that. We are socially and politically better off if we believe that aptitude is shared basically equally across the races. We can say that and move on to looking at people as individuals.

Now, I do see the subtlety, which is that the belief that this is really hard science is a useful component of the convenient belief, so let's not only not talk about racial differences, let's also claim that it's all been determined as a matter of science.

But you know what? I don't even want the science. The belief in equality is so important, morally and philosophically and politically, that we should not attempt to verify or disprove it through scientific research. This is the clearest example of truth not being our highest value.; 11/6/17, 8:56 AM
Michael McNeil said...: Humans are a single species which, by definition, means that they can all interbreed…

The fact that humans around the world can (mostly) interbreed does not imply that “humans are a single species.” They may be, but that’s not the technical definition of what “different species” means. Many biological groups which are taxonomically classified as being separate species (even separate genera or greater separation) can interbreed, yea even producing viable, fertile offspring.; 11/6/17, 9:09 AM
rhhardin said...: But you know what? I don't even want the science. The belief in equality is so important, morally and philosophically and politically, that we should not attempt to verify or disprove it through scientific research. This is the clearest example of truth not being our highest value.

Except: if you make laws that bring out average differences, then you're building in social acrimony where there was none.

In particular outcome based discrimination tests.

They prove you're discriminating when you're even doing the opposite. At some point you say the hell with them all.

Good will turned into bad.; 11/6/17, 9:14 AM
rhhardin said...: Two great sexes animate the world. Milton proposed that as the top of the taxonomy tree.; 11/6/17, 9:16 AM
Jessica said...: I thought the headline implied a woman won overall -- beat all the men competing. Oh well.; 11/6/17, 9:28 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Ann Althouse said...
your original statement — "In fact there is vastly more overlap than differences between all races in abilities" — is so bland and vague as to be meaningless.

If objective reality is meaningless.

Ann Althouse said...
That is all hot air, and I hope you know it.

Restating the basic tenets of population genetics is hot air?

Ann Althouse said...
That reinforces my original assertion, which is that you care about the social benefit of a belief and not its scientific truth. Why not just be honest and admit that?

Because it is nonsense and nothing I said leads to this conclusion. Genetics plays a critical role in determining individual characteristics but in the case of humans vast differences in social and economic status will also have considerable influence, so differences in performance will usually have multiple explanations.

Take a deep breath and recognize that genetics is a science and as such reliant on objective facts. It has nothing to say regarding how society should be organized, how to set tax rates or which different groups may be more or less valuable.; 11/6/17, 9:32 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael McNeil said...
The fact that humans around the world can (mostly) interbreed

Which extant humans cannot interbreed?

Humans did interbreed with other species, Neanderthals, Denisovans and probably at least one other species. I did not suggest otherwise.; 11/6/17, 9:39 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: In reality there is vast overlap genetically and in terms of performance

No. There is SOME overlap. Take two bell curves of running times (for instance). One for men and one for women (genetically speaking) The right hand side of the bell curves will have the fastest times. The left hand portion of the curve will have the slowest times. And true to its name and shape, the middle of the Bell curve will have the most data going from slowest (left) to fastest (right)

The overlap on the two bell curves will be that the right hand side of the women's speeds on the curve will overlap with the left hand side of the men's curve. IN other words the faster women will be somewhat faster than the slower men. AT no time will the two curves 'vastly' overlap.

Biology and genetics.; 11/6/17, 9:44 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said...Notice that I admit exactly that. We are socially and politically better off if we believe that aptitude is shared basically equally across the races. We can say that and move on to looking at people as individuals.

Now, I do see the subtlety, which is that the belief that this is really hard science is a useful component of the convenient belief, so let's not only not talk about racial differences, let's also claim that it's all been determined as a matter of science.

But you know what? I don't even want the science. The belief in equality is so important, morally and philosophically and politically, that we should not attempt to verify or disprove it through scientific research. This is the clearest example of truth not being our highest value

Full marks for honesty there, Professor. Genuinely: I appreciate it.

It makes me angry when nice centrist people punish scientists/objective-type people for asserting uncomfortable facts (possible genetic bases for differences btw races or genders, etc). Most of my anger comes from the refusal of those nice centrist people to ADMIT that's what they're doing--usually they just act as tools for some Leftist and assert they're really just punishing racism/sexism/etc. I would dislike that tactic much less if they, like you, would simply admit they prefer that the truth of the matter not be discussed/not be investigated since knowing it would possibly be harmful (would possibly make some people feel bad, etc).

If we're going to punish certain types of wrongthink in order to serve some greater (social) good we ought at least to be honest about what we're doing. Professor Althouse here is much more honest about that than most, and I applaud it.; 11/6/17, 9:50 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Now take the bell curves for same sex runners but of different human variations (breeds or races if you will)

The bell curve for long distance running Eskimos versus Kenyans. Genetically and evolutionaryily (not a real word but go with it) each group has been selected over time for different physical traits that are advantageous for their environment. Those two Bell Curves with have very LITTLE overlap for long distance running.

Just like Greyhounds versus Basset Hounds. Both are the same species but pretty obviously not the same breed or race. You are not going to see a race between Greyhounds and Basset Hounds. (Although that would be sort of amusing)

There is nothing derogatory about being either Eskimo or Kenyan. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation or environment.

It just is what it is.; 11/6/17, 9:55 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: ARM: what's a testable hypothesis for your assertion (more overlap than not)? Is there one we can look at that relates to this story (regarding elite athletes)?

Dust Bunny Queen said....The overlap on the two bell curves will be that the right hand side of the women's speeds on the curve will overlap with the left hand side of the men's curve. IN other words the faster women will be somewhat faster than the slower men. AT no time will the two curves 'vastly' overlap.

That depends on the distribution of the particular trait, though, right? I mean I doubt it's true that the highest-performing female (pro) runners are only a bit faster than the worst-performing male runners. If you're studying something like grip strength or upper-body strength you're probably right, but long-distance or cross country running won't be as starkly different (the means will be closer together) I'd bet.

For some traits and some comparison pairs (races, sexes, whatever) there's probably more overlap than not. For others there is likely less overlap than not. It depends!; 11/6/17, 9:57 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: But you know what? I don't even want the science. The belief in equality is so important, morally and philosophically and politically, that we should not attempt to verify or disprove it through scientific research. This is the clearest example of truth not being our highest value.

Wow. I got nuthin'.

Maybe if there weren't the apparent sentiment that the superior may grill the inferior and eat them with ketchup, we could accept that there are the superior and the inferior, or whatever flavors of unequal you care to admit.

Maybe you could work on that instead of saying La-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you to reality.

Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free. Freedom is not free.; 11/6/17, 10:02 AM
jaydub said...: "Which extant humans cannot interbreed?"

Transgenders who have completed the mutilation of their sex organs, for one.; 11/6/17, 10:02 AM
rhhardin said...: ARM and Althouse more or less agree. Take overlap to mean not mattering.

Putting it as overlap is a way to put a scientific face on not mattering, is all.

The counter is sometimes it does matter, like when you pass a misguided law that makes it matter. So take the science into account and don't do that. Then it goes back to not mattering.; 11/6/17, 10:07 AM
Nonapod said...: I've heard that woman can do quite well against men in very long distance running like ultramarathons. Last month a woman named Courtney Dauwalter won the MOAB 240 Ultramarathon, a 238 mile race in Utah. She apparently beat the second placer (a guy) by over 10 hours.; 11/6/17, 10:11 AM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Cheap cop out. In reality there is vast overlap genetically and in terms of performance.

11/6/17, 7:07 AM

No.

David Epstein's book "The Sports Gene" goes into a great deal of detail about the impact of genetic differences on athletic performance. Surprisingly, it was very favorably reviewed despite the clearly non-PC conclusions it draws.

I wrote in a thread yesterday of how those descended from West Africans excel at sprinting but do not do so well when it comes to marathons, while the reverse is true of Kenyans. Whites dominate swimming. When the Dodgers were vision tested in the 90's, every single major league player had vision that was 20/15 or better and a few had 20/8 vision, which is as good as human eyesight gets. That is incredibly rare in the general population. Sure helps them to see which way the seams are spinning when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.

More than a few Olympic-level women runners are XY women - that is, they have a vagina, but internal testes rather than ovaries. They tend to be tall, with long legs and narrow hips, which gives them a huge advantage over curvier XX runners. (Paradoxically, many of them tend to look very feminine, so they are also overrepresented among fashion models.)

That is not to discount the hard work and dedication of athletes - but they are also genetically blessed and blessed in very different ways, determined by DNA.

Epstein's book is truly a fascinating read.; 11/6/17, 10:15 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said...But you know what? I don't even want the science. The belief in equality is so important, morally and philosophically and politically, that we should not attempt to verify or disprove it through scientific research. This is the clearest example of truth not being our highest value.

I might paraphrase that as "sometimes feelings are more important than facts."

That is, I think, a very widespread but not universal belief. When someone who believes that argues with someone who doesn't it's causes some problems! If people who believe that would declare that belief up front it would probably save a lot of grief/unnecessary argument & bad feelings.; 11/6/17, 10:15 AM
Fernandinande said...: "We are socially and politically better off if we believe that aptitude is shared basically equally across the races."

Rainbow Unicorn Award for participation.; 11/6/17, 10:17 AM
eric said...: When I first read the headline I thought, "Wow! This is huge news! A woman won the race over the men?!"

I was sad when I read the article and realized that she beat all the other women.; 11/6/17, 10:28 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Hoodlum: That depends on the distribution of the particular trait, though, right?

Yes. It depends. The idea that all traits are equally and fairly distributed is an illusion or more accurately a delusion.

We are socially and politically better off if we believe that aptitude is shared basically equally across the races.

I think we are better off if we face reality, honor and enhance our inherent diversities, both individually and as groups, instead of pretending that we are all equal, when we are not. It creates false senses of adequacy and inadequacy. Like Affirmative Action which puts people into situations where they are not able to, or are unprepared to compete.

Some individuals will be better at some things than others....like the above mentioned Courtney Dauwalter. There are always outliers in a data set on both sides of the bell curve.

This isn't to say that those who are on the "left" side of the bell curve for any particular trait...running for example, cannot improve or become better prepared. The reality is that for "some traits" the genetic and biological constraints are such that the improvement is limited. No matter how much the average Eskimo tries, he will not be able to beat the average Kenyan in a sprint. There are a lot of things that the Eskimo can do that the Kenyan cannot hope to do as well.

The average woman firefighter is not going to be able to do the same/equal work as the average male firefighter. To pretend otherwise is dangerous and delusional.

Society is better off when people are allowed to do what they are best able to excel in and we face the reality that absolute equality is impossible.; 11/6/17, 10:28 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: HoodlumDoodlum said...
ARM: what's a testable hypothesis for your assertion (more overlap than not)?

Human genome sequences - remarkably similar between different individuals. Not identical, but remarkably similar. We are not a genetically diverse species by the standards of other species because of the considerable interbreeding and a few relatively recent bottlenecks.

I doubt that comparing a few outliers among different groups is a reliable way to judge similarity or differences between those groups.; 11/6/17, 10:38 AM
rhhardin said...: doubt that comparing a few outliers among different groups is a reliable way to judge similarity or differences between those groups.

Comparing averages is very robust.

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/Lynn_Meisenberg_2010_National_IQs_calculated_and_validated_for_108_nations.pdf

and the differences are surprisingly large.

On the other hand in real interpersonal life they're not significant. Don't do stuff that makes the differences significant, like pass misguided laws.; 11/6/17, 10:44 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Tank wrote:

"Two idiots in the first seven comments."

ARM is clever that way- did it with only one comment.; 11/6/17, 10:45 AM
William said...: Only nineteen men in that crowded field are entitled to say that women are invariably slower runners than men.; 11/6/17, 10:53 AM
Gahrie said...: Siberian Tigers and Bengal tigers can and do interbreed. They are both tigers. But there are enough differences between them that they are considered different animals....we call them sub-species.

Sub-species:a taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race.

Hmm.......; 11/6/17, 10:54 AM
Gahrie said...: But you know what? I don't even want the science. The belief in equality is so important, morally and philosophically and politically, that we should not attempt to verify or disprove it through scientific research. This is the clearest example of truth not being our highest value.

Repeal the 19th.; 11/6/17, 10:56 AM
rhhardin said...: A 25 year old woman has the aerobic capacity of a 50 year old man, I read somewhere.

So women can beat a lot of old guys in a race. It makes you wonder about Harvey Weinstein. Is he a sprinter at his age?; 11/6/17, 10:57 AM
William said...: There's something in (human) nature that loves a wall. I don't have the good fortune to know any Serbs or Croats. I'm sure if I met any Itheir resemblances would strike me more than they differences. I understand that they share a mutually intelligible lingo, and the religious difference between the Orthodox and Catholic faith is minimal. Some generations they get along in peace, but every so often they get a wild hair up their ass and indulge in massacres.......I didn't not know what's the real difference between a Serb or a Croat, but they'd be much better off if they pretended that such a difference does not exist.; 11/6/17, 11:03 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Also, white women often win the women's races, I guess Kenya cares more about the men's races and funds them better. Often seem to see Russians doing well there. Why shouldn't an American take it once in a while?; 11/6/17, 11:51 AM
Biff said...: When someone draped her with the US flag after crossing the finish line, she could be heard to say, "I love this flag!" It's interesting how the media has ignored that moment.; 11/6/17, 11:59 AM
Scott M said...: In reality there is vast overlap genetically and in terms of performance.

In reality, biologists, the scientists that study this sort of thing, do not split humans up in to "races".; 11/6/17, 12:36 PM
Fernandinande said...: kjbe said...
No on wins a marathon, they win a division of a race. ...The headline isn't wrong.

So "American woman wins NYC Marathon" is correct because nobody wins a marathon?

Well, nobody except the guy who actually won the marathon because he ran it faster than anyone else did.

But maybe the real winner was Ludovic Narce of France with a time of 1:28:48.

Or maybe it was Ginette Bedard with a time of 6:12:53 because trying.; 11/6/17, 12:56 PM
Gahrie said...: OK.

It is established fact that different populations of humans share gross physical characteristics among themselves that differ from other populations of humans.

It is established fact that these different populations also share certain characteristics in intelligence that differ from other populations.

It is established fact that these populations share certain biological characteristics that differ from other populations.

In biology we describe populations of animals with these types of differences as different species, or sub species.

Except for humans. The generally accepted term across time, culture and civilization to describe such populations in humans is race.; 11/6/17, 12:59 PM
Gahrie said...: By the way, the second, third and fourth place women were all African.; 11/6/17, 1:04 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Coincidently, there is a review in the WSJ today of a popular science book on human genetics. I quote:

Human ancestry, Mr Rutherford writes, is a "matted web", not a simple tree. Because of this snarl of complexity, there is no "group of people on Earth that can be defined by their DNA in a scientifically satisfactory way."

All of us today are related by descent from a small pool of ancestors just a few thousand years ago.; 11/6/17, 1:04 PM
Gahrie said...: If you ask 100 random Africans if there are different races what would their answer be? If you asked them to sort 20 pictures of random humans by race, would they be able to do so?

If you ask 100 random Europeans if there are different races what would their answer be? If you asked them to sort 20 pictures of random humans by race, would they be able to do so?

If you ask 100 random Asians if there are different races what would their answer be? If you asked them to sort 20 pictures of random humans by race, would they be able to do so?; 11/6/17, 1:07 PM
Gahrie said...: there is no "group of people on Earth that can be defined by their DNA in a scientifically satisfactory way."

Well I guess it is a good thing that most people don't use DNA to define a person's race.; 11/6/17, 1:12 PM
rhhardin said...: Separated populations evolve along different paths, selecting for whatever gives them a reproductive advantage. Common descent doesn't preclude that.; 11/6/17, 1:23 PM
Fernandinande said...: Gahrie said...
It is established fact that these populations share certain biological characteristics that differ from other populations.

In biology we describe populations of animals with these types of differences as different species, or sub species.

I'm pretty sure the genetic differences between the human races aren't as large as the differences between recognized animal sub-species, except perhaps Pygmies vs everyone else.

On the other hand, all dog breeds are the same subspecies, so those small genetic difference between the breeds (=races?) can result in very large differences in phenotype, as in Beagle vs Ovcharka.; 11/6/17, 1:47 PM
Paco Wové said...: "I don't even want the science. The belief in equality is so important, ... that we should not attempt to verify or disprove it through scientific research. This is the clearest example of truth not being our highest value."

Equality not reality! eh, professor?

Well, I appreciate the honesty.; 11/6/17, 2:23 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: "I don't even want the science. The belief in equality is so important, ... that we should not attempt to verify or disprove it through scientific research. This is the clearest example of truth not being our highest value."

Let's live a lie, because it's nicer.; 11/6/17, 2:42 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: "All of us today are related by descent from a small pool of ancestors just a few thousand years ago."

Define "a few."

rhhardin said...
Separated populations evolve along different paths, selecting for whatever gives them a reproductive advantage. Common descent doesn't preclude that."

Well, yeah. It's funny how the Left derides the Right for supposedly not believing in evolution.

Leftists believe in it - until it's inconvenient.

The Party of Science!; 11/6/17, 2:47 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: "I don't even want the science. The belief in equality is so important, ... that we should not attempt to verify or disprove it through scientific research. This is the clearest example of truth not being our highest value."

Doesn't our belief equality mean a belief in equal rights under the law, and in the equal dignity of humans, and not about pretending that we, individually or as races, are exactly equal in every way? In other words, it's more about being fair.; 11/6/17, 6:30 PM
FIDO said...: Here is the thing about that absurd 'woman wanking' headline.

A man actually crossed the finish line first. It was HIS moment to shine. He had been training actually HARDER than the woman who won. After all, he WON. And the second place man...he gets ignored too. And the 17 guys behind those two.

And his brief moment of glory was stolen by the NYT because they want to jerk off the feelz of white women dishonestly.

Are we merit based or not? Sure, divide into male or women's divisions, but don't lie that 'she won'. She did not.; 11/6/17, 8:08 PM
Doug said...: rhhardin at 8:41 wins the thread.; 11/6/17, 8:20 PM
Doug said...: Why are there separate divisions for men and women in competitive billiards? And bowling? And archery?; 11/6/17, 8:30 PM
Lucien said...: Doug, for better or worse, men display an obsessive compulsive behavior around games and sports that women are unable to match. This is why all the top chess players in the world are men (Judit Polgar is not a top chess player) even though chess is one of the purest examples of a sport of the mind that has no relevance whatsoever to physical capability. There is no reason that women shouldn't be as good as men at chess, except for the fact that they aren't. And the explanation is that being good at chess requires 1000's of man hours of study, and most people (especially most women) simply aren't willing to put in the time. Can't say I blame them, but it is what it is.; 11/6/17, 10:19 PM
Michael McNeil said...: Which extant humans cannot interbreed?

In an earlier thread someone pointed out that pairs of individuals within any population find that they cannot reproduce together, and that the proportion of such incompatibility is larger when the couples come from genetically divergent (from each other) peoples. I don’t really doubt that that’s probably true.; 11/7/17, 12:00 AM
Michael McNeil said...: Siberian Tigers and Bengal tigers can and do interbreed. They are both tigers. But there are enough differences between them that they are considered different animals....we call them sub-species.

Yes, but… tigers (Panthera tigris) and lions (Panthera leo) are taxonomically considered to be separate species, not just sub-species of each other — and yet they too “can and do interbreed.” (Tiger and lion offspring are fertile and known as “tigons” or “ligers” depending on which species provides the female versus male of the breeding pair.) This is an example of interspecies fertility within a genus (the felid genus Panthera in this case).

Interspecies fertility frequently doesn’t end at the genus level, however. Bison (Bison bison) and ordinary cattle (Bos taurus) are of quite distinct genera (Bison vs. Bos), and yet these species are still capable of fully fertile reproduction together — which has actually happened to such an extent that the proportion of cattle genes that have entered the bison genome in America has now been deemed a problem and these “foreign” cattle genes are to be stripped out (via eugenics) from American bison.; 11/7/17, 12:39 AM