To those interested in the subject of "unequal representation implying discrimination", I can recommend Thomas Sowell's book "Social Justice Fallacies". It is a 130 page text with no formulas plus 60 pages of bibliography. The representation of races in sports is just one example (actually Sowell says that the Major League baseball is dominated by Hispanics, while Blacks are dominant in the US basketball) of what he calls "equal chances" fallacy, the theme of the book's first chapter. In this chapter Sowell claims (and provides a myriad of examples supported by 98 references) that it is hard to find a single walk of life where proportional representation of different ethnic groups is observed. Instead, he shows, the phenomenon commonly observed is "reciprocal inequalities": it is similarly hard to find an ethnic group that would not be better than most at least in something. Sowell also identifies numerous causes of the phenomenon. But "equal chances" is only one of the fallacies of the Social Justice ideology discussed in the book (spoiler: it has 5 chapters) - which is written with disarming clarity and eloquence.
Actually Sowell says nothing about biological evolution per se, but rather contrasts presumably equal "potentialities" of different groups with their "developed capabilities". E.g. is it surprising that most beer-brewing companies were founded by Germans, if the Germans were brewing beer since the time of the Roman Empire? Or, can one expect Mexican Americans and Japanese Americans have proportional representation in vitality- or experience-demanding occupations, when the average age of the former is 28 and of the latter is 52? Sowell does not deny the possible role of bias and discrimination, but shows that they have no precedence over an ocean of other factors (such as history, geography, age, traditions, even fauna) in predisposing different groups to developing asymmetric capabilities.
I meant either biological or social evolution. I'm aware that Sowell, whose work I greatly admire, strongly emphasizes human nurture over human nature in most activities. For athletes, Taboo (2000) by Jon Entine and The Sports Gene (2013) by David Epstein examine genes-vs-environment issues in sports with depth and sensitivity. Epstein for example emphasizes that there is no single sports gene but rather a diverse variety of sports talents, many of them genetic related. and which manifest in surprising ways. For example, one near-genetic requirement for pro baseball is 20/15 or 20/12 vision, e.g. a hitter seeing the threads on the ball when it leaves the pitcher's hand.
The only thing I've ever heard a left-leaning person say about this is that pointing out this correlation "downplays how hard Black athletes have worked." It doesn't, but that's the only comment I've ever heard made.
Wait a minute, I'm not saying that. Didn't the author above say that it's not necessarily genetic, and that environment and genes can reinforce one another and none of this implies any sort of causation?
Yes, Gina, I agree - Your comment doesn't say that "differences are either due to genetics or effort". Still, causally, what else can explain outstanding achievement in a particular group of people? Genes and doing homework explain how a basketball player, violinist, or a scientist become great. This dual input seems especially clear for a particular genetically-linked group. I look forward to your thoughts.
I really don't know. This is not something I've thought enough about or have any expertise in to tell you if I think genetics or environment or effort play a bigger role in sports performance of different racial groups. I'm just saying it's likely all, but to what degree it is one over the other is not something I'm qualified to speculate on.
Freaked out, and blathering. Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "No, no no! Performance is not due to genetics. Look at long-distance female swimmers. They're better than men." Neil didn't realize he was actually supporting genetics in performance.
To those interested in the subject of "unequal representation implying discrimination", I can recommend Thomas Sowell's book "Social Justice Fallacies". It is a 130 page text with no formulas plus 60 pages of bibliography. The representation of races in sports is just one example (actually Sowell says that the Major League baseball is dominated by Hispanics, while Blacks are dominant in the US basketball) of what he calls "equal chances" fallacy, the theme of the book's first chapter. In this chapter Sowell claims (and provides a myriad of examples supported by 98 references) that it is hard to find a single walk of life where proportional representation of different ethnic groups is observed. Instead, he shows, the phenomenon commonly observed is "reciprocal inequalities": it is similarly hard to find an ethnic group that would not be better than most at least in something. Sowell also identifies numerous causes of the phenomenon. But "equal chances" is only one of the fallacies of the Social Justice ideology discussed in the book (spoiler: it has 5 chapters) - which is written with disarming clarity and eloquence.
“Reciprocal advantage” is a wonderfully apt phrase. Evolution should always favor it. Thanks for calling Sowell’s latest book to my attention.
Actually Sowell says nothing about biological evolution per se, but rather contrasts presumably equal "potentialities" of different groups with their "developed capabilities". E.g. is it surprising that most beer-brewing companies were founded by Germans, if the Germans were brewing beer since the time of the Roman Empire? Or, can one expect Mexican Americans and Japanese Americans have proportional representation in vitality- or experience-demanding occupations, when the average age of the former is 28 and of the latter is 52? Sowell does not deny the possible role of bias and discrimination, but shows that they have no precedence over an ocean of other factors (such as history, geography, age, traditions, even fauna) in predisposing different groups to developing asymmetric capabilities.
I meant either biological or social evolution. I'm aware that Sowell, whose work I greatly admire, strongly emphasizes human nurture over human nature in most activities. For athletes, Taboo (2000) by Jon Entine and The Sports Gene (2013) by David Epstein examine genes-vs-environment issues in sports with depth and sensitivity. Epstein for example emphasizes that there is no single sports gene but rather a diverse variety of sports talents, many of them genetic related. and which manifest in surprising ways. For example, one near-genetic requirement for pro baseball is 20/15 or 20/12 vision, e.g. a hitter seeing the threads on the ball when it leaves the pitcher's hand.
Sowell's calm focus on empirical data reveals humanity's true diversity, offering respect and dignity to everyone, instead of guilt-driven ideology.
I've yet to see any attempts to address the disparate impacts in these sports...why is that? Where is the DEI?
The only thing I've ever heard a left-leaning person say about this is that pointing out this correlation "downplays how hard Black athletes have worked." It doesn't, but that's the only comment I've ever heard made.
so maybe the success of whites in other areas downplays individual effort? I could go along with that.
Exactly. Differences are either due to genetics or effort.
Wait a minute, I'm not saying that. Didn't the author above say that it's not necessarily genetic, and that environment and genes can reinforce one another and none of this implies any sort of causation?
Yes, Gina, I agree - Your comment doesn't say that "differences are either due to genetics or effort". Still, causally, what else can explain outstanding achievement in a particular group of people? Genes and doing homework explain how a basketball player, violinist, or a scientist become great. This dual input seems especially clear for a particular genetically-linked group. I look forward to your thoughts.
I really don't know. This is not something I've thought enough about or have any expertise in to tell you if I think genetics or environment or effort play a bigger role in sports performance of different racial groups. I'm just saying it's likely all, but to what degree it is one over the other is not something I'm qualified to speculate on.
Simply quantitative and profound.
It still baffles me today why some of the NBA teams and coaches filed an amicus brief in support of Harvard in the SFFA lawsuit.
Freaked out, and blathering. Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "No, no no! Performance is not due to genetics. Look at long-distance female swimmers. They're better than men." Neil didn't realize he was actually supporting genetics in performance.