Why English speakers dominate sprinting events(isteve.blogspot.com)
isteve.blogspot.com
Why English speakers dominate sprinting events
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/08/100-meters-why-so-anglophone.html
9 comments
This is a stupid theory, mostly because your facts are false and imaginary.
"West Africa" is huge and diverse. What part of west africa are you talking about?
Most of west africa does not have the geography you describe.
Most west african warfare was not waged with machetes. Can you give ONE example or reference for this? There are plenty of african history books which talk about west african archers, spears, shields, canoes and calvary, but I've never seen one about machete raids.
The world class sprinters are all from the USA or Caribbean. I.e. descended from people brought over as slaves. The slave trade went out of the west african coast, but the people who were sold into slavery were usually from somewhere else - often in the middle.
edit: ugh, I just read the article. I don't like deleting my own posts, so I won't. But i'm a bit embarrassed I responded to this.
"West Africa" is huge and diverse. What part of west africa are you talking about?
Most of west africa does not have the geography you describe.
Most west african warfare was not waged with machetes. Can you give ONE example or reference for this? There are plenty of african history books which talk about west african archers, spears, shields, canoes and calvary, but I've never seen one about machete raids.
The world class sprinters are all from the USA or Caribbean. I.e. descended from people brought over as slaves. The slave trade went out of the west african coast, but the people who were sold into slavery were usually from somewhere else - often in the middle.
edit: ugh, I just read the article. I don't like deleting my own posts, so I won't. But i'm a bit embarrassed I responded to this.
Well, I lived in West Africa for many years, so I believe my opinion is based on fact. Let me address some of things you bring up:
- West Africa maybe huge, but it's not diverse. The entire western coast of Africa is one of the few places in the world where a major ocean runs on the east-west line and not on the north-south line. What this means geographically is that the coast has almost the same temperature and almost the same geography. Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, they all have almost identical landscape.
- West African warfare has always been with machetes. West Africans use bows and arrows, but the arrows are very small, and the bows have a different form from the european bows. The bows are smaller and lot more arched. The arrows have also been traditionally poisoned tipped.
- You can't fight a war using a canoe in a West African river. The vegetation is too thick for this to make any sense.
- Calvary? Are you kidding me? Horses are the worst form of transportation in a rain forest.
- Shields? No. Maybe light shields, but I'd find that a bit suprisng, because I've never seen any evidence of shield use in West Africa in all my travels. Think about it - what use is a shield? A shield is useful against sword-fighters or javelin throwsers, but it's pointless in very close range. And jungle warfare is either sneak-attack (like shooting poison arrows) or it's close range fighting
- Machetes have long been the weapon of choice in West Africa for as long as I know, there is a long tradition of sheath making, there are many rituals involving machetes. Now, IF you can prove that the weapon of choice for West Africans is not the machete, then back it up with links
- The people sold into slavery were from a wide variety of places, but usually from the rain forest. If you wish to read some anectdodes about this, then please read the book by Mungo Park
West Africa is a special interest of mine, so if you really feel that you are in posession of facts that are more accurate than mine, then please do back it up.
If I am wrong, I will gratefully admit it, because it will give me the opportunity to learn something new.
- West Africa maybe huge, but it's not diverse. The entire western coast of Africa is one of the few places in the world where a major ocean runs on the east-west line and not on the north-south line. What this means geographically is that the coast has almost the same temperature and almost the same geography. Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, they all have almost identical landscape.
- West African warfare has always been with machetes. West Africans use bows and arrows, but the arrows are very small, and the bows have a different form from the european bows. The bows are smaller and lot more arched. The arrows have also been traditionally poisoned tipped.
- You can't fight a war using a canoe in a West African river. The vegetation is too thick for this to make any sense.
- Calvary? Are you kidding me? Horses are the worst form of transportation in a rain forest.
- Shields? No. Maybe light shields, but I'd find that a bit suprisng, because I've never seen any evidence of shield use in West Africa in all my travels. Think about it - what use is a shield? A shield is useful against sword-fighters or javelin throwsers, but it's pointless in very close range. And jungle warfare is either sneak-attack (like shooting poison arrows) or it's close range fighting
- Machetes have long been the weapon of choice in West Africa for as long as I know, there is a long tradition of sheath making, there are many rituals involving machetes. Now, IF you can prove that the weapon of choice for West Africans is not the machete, then back it up with links
- The people sold into slavery were from a wide variety of places, but usually from the rain forest. If you wish to read some anectdodes about this, then please read the book by Mungo Park
West Africa is a special interest of mine, so if you really feel that you are in posession of facts that are more accurate than mine, then please do back it up.
If I am wrong, I will gratefully admit it, because it will give me the opportunity to learn something new.
On a related thought: Why are there no black Olympic swimmers?
Cullen Jones won gold as a member of the US 4x100 Free relay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cullen_Jones
That's not related. Why are there no World Class Kungfu Masters from Zimbabwe?
It most certainly is related. If the author of the article is questioning why one race dominates in a certain sport, then asking the follow up question of why that same race is noticeably absent from a different sport is related. We're talking about black people and why they do well at some sports; you could also talk about black people and why they seem not to do as well in others.
And a world class zimbabwean kung fu master could exist.
And a world class zimbabwean kung fu master could exist.
It has nothing to do with race. East Africans are of the same 'race' as West Africans. Your concept of 'race' has nothing to do with reality - you can't just take the color of peoples skin and group them all together. It's very superficial, and is totally unrelated to any biological reality.
>This is a stupid theory, mostly because your facts are false and imaginary.
Not cool.
Not cool.
Faulty reasoning and crap evidence. If what you say is true why is the tiny island of Jamaica vastly dominant instead of any of the MILLIONS more west Africans in west Africa?
Further more natural selection is rarely as neat and tidy as described. Why didn't west Africans evolve superb night vision, to see the men painted black? Why didn't they evolve supreme hearing, to hear the sneaky approach?
While it may be possible west Africans are faster due to genetics, your evidence and theories are bit too neat.
Further more natural selection is rarely as neat and tidy as described. Why didn't west Africans evolve superb night vision, to see the men painted black? Why didn't they evolve supreme hearing, to hear the sneaky approach?
While it may be possible west Africans are faster due to genetics, your evidence and theories are bit too neat.
That's a weak counter argument. Natural selection happens only when things happen on a grand scale. Like during wars. Africans generally have better vision than many other ethnic groups, but there are no vision olympics.
Jamaica is more dominant for cultural reasons - the people there are more likely to have the opportunity to train for the olympics than in West Africa.
How do you want to account for Natural Selection then? There are no animals left in the world which are capable of killing humans in quantities that would favour one trend over the other. There is no disease that selects for Speed. There is only one predator that can cause the natural selection for speed among humans - and that is other human beings!
West Africans are distinct from other African groups when it comes to genetic specialisation - take a look at the wikipedia page on sickle cell anemia for example. Also take a look at language families as some data to cross reference with.
My evidence is speculatory, but it's realistic, I believe. My reasoning is however logical.
Jamaica is more dominant for cultural reasons - the people there are more likely to have the opportunity to train for the olympics than in West Africa.
How do you want to account for Natural Selection then? There are no animals left in the world which are capable of killing humans in quantities that would favour one trend over the other. There is no disease that selects for Speed. There is only one predator that can cause the natural selection for speed among humans - and that is other human beings!
West Africans are distinct from other African groups when it comes to genetic specialisation - take a look at the wikipedia page on sickle cell anemia for example. Also take a look at language families as some data to cross reference with.
My evidence is speculatory, but it's realistic, I believe. My reasoning is however logical.
I am not so sure it is logical. Obviously groups of people have genetic differences. Sickle cell anemia is a great example, here we have exactly one gene which gives malaria resistance with one copy and immunity and anemia with two. And endemic malaria is one hell of a natural selector.
But suppose I claimed that the long standing domination of Romanian gymnasts was genetic. And then I came up an elaborate explanation involving contests of balance and bouncing set to music that decide which maiden gets to marry. Strictly speaking a logical theory but not very smart.
Cultural reasons are a huge contributor, just look at the Russian relay team and their baton passing skills.
Then there's simple genetic drift and founders effect. Those are most often responsible for genetic differences. The Ashkenazi are descendant from a VERY small group of founders. What is a very rare genetic mutation, by accident became common in the Ashkenazi population.
That's simple genetics, but natural selection is much more complicated. The Jamaicans might have more fast twitch muscle fiber due to natural selection, or they might have it because of a genetic bottle neck in the slave trade.
The few Africans who got to Jamaica first happened to have rare genes and there you go founders effect. Or it just might be all cultural with no genetics.
The elaborate scenario with villages and night time warfare and running (but no moats?) is only slightly more serious then any scenario involving music coordinated gymnastics based natural selection in Romania.
But suppose I claimed that the long standing domination of Romanian gymnasts was genetic. And then I came up an elaborate explanation involving contests of balance and bouncing set to music that decide which maiden gets to marry. Strictly speaking a logical theory but not very smart.
Cultural reasons are a huge contributor, just look at the Russian relay team and their baton passing skills.
Then there's simple genetic drift and founders effect. Those are most often responsible for genetic differences. The Ashkenazi are descendant from a VERY small group of founders. What is a very rare genetic mutation, by accident became common in the Ashkenazi population.
That's simple genetics, but natural selection is much more complicated. The Jamaicans might have more fast twitch muscle fiber due to natural selection, or they might have it because of a genetic bottle neck in the slave trade.
The few Africans who got to Jamaica first happened to have rare genes and there you go founders effect. Or it just might be all cultural with no genetics.
The elaborate scenario with villages and night time warfare and running (but no moats?) is only slightly more serious then any scenario involving music coordinated gymnastics based natural selection in Romania.
>Faulty reasoning and crap evidence.
Keep it civil.
Keep it civil.
In the case of night vision and hearing, an individual with those traits wouldn't necessarily have a better chance of survival. He'd have to raise the alarm, and then throw in with everyone else.
I agree in general though.
I agree in general though.
To support this:
"Runners of West African descent—which includes Jamaicans as well as most African-Americans—seem to be built for speed: In 2004, they held all but five of the 500 best times in the 100-meter dash. (East Africans, such as Kenyans and Ethiopians, rule the long-distance field.) Several biological factors may be coming into play here. One study conducted in Quebec in the 1980s found that black West African students had significantly higher amounts of "fast-twitch" muscle fibers—the kind that are responsible for short, explosive bursts of action—than white French Canadians did. (So far, there is no evidence that even extensive training can turn slow-twitch muscles into fast-twitch ones, though moving in the other direction is possible.)"
http://www.slate.com/id/2197721/
"Runners of West African descent—which includes Jamaicans as well as most African-Americans—seem to be built for speed: In 2004, they held all but five of the 500 best times in the 100-meter dash. (East Africans, such as Kenyans and Ethiopians, rule the long-distance field.) Several biological factors may be coming into play here. One study conducted in Quebec in the 1980s found that black West African students had significantly higher amounts of "fast-twitch" muscle fibers—the kind that are responsible for short, explosive bursts of action—than white French Canadians did. (So far, there is no evidence that even extensive training can turn slow-twitch muscles into fast-twitch ones, though moving in the other direction is possible.)"
http://www.slate.com/id/2197721/
I like the theory except the need to depend on machetes as part of the cause. Machetes are a very recent invention in the timeline of evolution.
Maybe there were faster, scarier predators around in that area.
Maybe there were faster, scarier predators around in that area.
Then you obviously are not up to date with your biology. How many generations does it take to breed a new race of dog? Machetes and big knives have been around in Africa for longer than that amount of Generations. Metalwork is very old in Africa.
Quite a controversial author:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer
I think the answer is somewhat more obvious. Look at the facilities, coaches and funding available for athletes in the USA, Jamaica, and Britain compared to West Africa.
He wasn't comparing the USA/West Indies/Britain to West Africa. He was asking why USA/West Indies/Britain/West Africa do so much better than Brazil and other non-anglophone countries.
What about doping? Another throwaway idea: racism still exists, so the blacker somebody looks, the more likely they'll have to resort to desperate means like allowing dangerous medical experiments on their bodies (doping) to still have some success in society. (I am not claiming this is the explanation, just want to point out another possible explanation).
That doesn't explain why west Africans are so strong at sprinting but very weak at distance running, while east Africans are the opposite (dominant in distance running, very weak sprinters), nor why whites are somewhat competitive in the middle distances but not sprints and long distances.
You have to be careful with "explain" - sure you can "explain" anything with a presumed genetic disposition. That is in general not really a proof, only yet another theory. I just wanted to point out that there are alternative explanations.
For example, Europeans tend to be really good at soccer, whereas Americans suck at it. Is it genetic? I highly doubt it, since the European genes are readily available in the US. It has a cultural reason (simple statistics - popular sports - higher percentage of kids trying it - higher percentage of talents being discovered).
For example, Europeans tend to be really good at soccer, whereas Americans suck at it. Is it genetic? I highly doubt it, since the European genes are readily available in the US. It has a cultural reason (simple statistics - popular sports - higher percentage of kids trying it - higher percentage of talents being discovered).
I want to add to this a question, because I truly don't know: who are the kids picking up running 100m distances as their main sport? What is their motivation? I can imagine why people get into team sports, for example, but I can't imagine a huge number of people go into 100m running out of intrinsic self motivation, simply because it is so much fun to run 100m?
So maybe the "system" matters much more for 100m running than for most other sports. The system being things like "scholarships in exchange for sports", the way talent gets identified and promoted, and so on. Just saying that this would be another aspect that might distort the statistics.
I recently heard the quote "Jamaica is too small to have their own drug testing agency"...
So maybe the "system" matters much more for 100m running than for most other sports. The system being things like "scholarships in exchange for sports", the way talent gets identified and promoted, and so on. Just saying that this would be another aspect that might distort the statistics.
I recently heard the quote "Jamaica is too small to have their own drug testing agency"...
why is this story listed on hacker news?
Someone ought to write a script that scans every submission for the words "startup," "Paul Graham," and "Y Combinator" and posts some variation of "Not Hacker News!!!!!" whenever it doesn't find them. At least it would save you all some effort.
I think that's a great idea.
...
Okay, I'm joking. A bot which votes automatically is a bad idea. But, in all seriousness: Perhaps every single article should come with a tiny button to press, with a label: "I believe this article is offtopic for HN".
This suggestion has been made thousands of times by now. The counter-argument -- a good one -- is that enabling the downvoting of articles empowers gangs of organized downvoters to kill content from the site for arbitrary reasons. Everyone knows the kind of trouble that causes.
But that presumes that the downvote button is hooked up to something in the site's software. It doesn't need to be. Just display a tiny number that is the number of accumulated downvotes. Let the people who read each article, and decide whether to upvote it or not, choose whether or not to ignore that number.
In the absence of this feature, the users reinvent it for themselves, as we have seen again and again.
You may ask why the people who wish to express disapproval of an article can't just write a thoughtful post that explains why, instead of clicking a little DOWNVOTE button. The short answer is that to acknowledge a troll is to feed the troll. The longer answer is that some trolls are much more subtle than others: The ones who use rude one-liners are easy to spot, but there are others who will suck you into endlessly circling, long-winded, bad-faith arguments filled with chaff. You'll refute something, and they'll respond with a mixture of inaccurate and irrelevant bullet points; and you'll introduce good points of your own, and they'll be ignored in future posts; and if by some miracle you create a really compelling counter-argument, the troll will go away for two days and then come back, advancing the same argument that he did two days ago, as if the counter-argument had never existed. You can't avoid such people by engaging them -- engagement is what they want. You have to learn their reputations and politely but firmly avoid them.
Which I do. But that doesn't mean I want to sit idly by while effluvia overflows the front page of HN. The site could really use a "cold shoulder" button.
[EDIT: Okay, I promoted this crazy idea to its own submission: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=281431 ]
...
Okay, I'm joking. A bot which votes automatically is a bad idea. But, in all seriousness: Perhaps every single article should come with a tiny button to press, with a label: "I believe this article is offtopic for HN".
This suggestion has been made thousands of times by now. The counter-argument -- a good one -- is that enabling the downvoting of articles empowers gangs of organized downvoters to kill content from the site for arbitrary reasons. Everyone knows the kind of trouble that causes.
But that presumes that the downvote button is hooked up to something in the site's software. It doesn't need to be. Just display a tiny number that is the number of accumulated downvotes. Let the people who read each article, and decide whether to upvote it or not, choose whether or not to ignore that number.
In the absence of this feature, the users reinvent it for themselves, as we have seen again and again.
You may ask why the people who wish to express disapproval of an article can't just write a thoughtful post that explains why, instead of clicking a little DOWNVOTE button. The short answer is that to acknowledge a troll is to feed the troll. The longer answer is that some trolls are much more subtle than others: The ones who use rude one-liners are easy to spot, but there are others who will suck you into endlessly circling, long-winded, bad-faith arguments filled with chaff. You'll refute something, and they'll respond with a mixture of inaccurate and irrelevant bullet points; and you'll introduce good points of your own, and they'll be ignored in future posts; and if by some miracle you create a really compelling counter-argument, the troll will go away for two days and then come back, advancing the same argument that he did two days ago, as if the counter-argument had never existed. You can't avoid such people by engaging them -- engagement is what they want. You have to learn their reputations and politely but firmly avoid them.
Which I do. But that doesn't mean I want to sit idly by while effluvia overflows the front page of HN. The site could really use a "cold shoulder" button.
[EDIT: Okay, I promoted this crazy idea to its own submission: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=281431 ]
Something like that sounds like a good idea, and sorry for my overly brief dismissal of the post that started this discussion.
I actually didn't mean to say the story shouldn't be listed at all. It just seemed unscientific (and borderline inappropriate) and below the usual standards for the site.
I actually didn't mean to say the story shouldn't be listed at all. It just seemed unscientific (and borderline inappropriate) and below the usual standards for the site.
Somebody probably already has.
Not Hacker news.
I find the "cure" (endless threads about things not being hacker news) much worse than the disease.
I did it because I saw some comment
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=280676
mentioning it. My poor attempt at humour, heh. I forgot some exclamation marks too!
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=280676
mentioning it. My poor attempt at humour, heh. I forgot some exclamation marks too!
Ah, my apologies then, it's rather easy to miss that kind of humor in this medium.
Lame, I'm sorry but I don't accept his conclusion at all.
I think the word "Lame" should be reserved for responding to an essay on language, history, human genetics, sports, and culture with a one-word sentence that disagrees without reason or evidence. Lame.
Ok, how about expounding this way: Unevidenced, unfalsifiable hypothesis presented as an explanation, with all the rigor of an armchair Olympics viewer armed with a 6 pack. Lame.
Why?
I thought it was somewhat far-fetched, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was lame - it's an interesting idea at least.
The biggest time survival of the fittest comes into play is during a war. When a war happens, the people unfit to fight in the war get pruned out of the gene pool.
West Africa has a landscape that is different from most of the world - the bush. The bush is what happens when humans live near a jungle - they trim down the trees, and low vegetation tends to grow. In East Africa, you tend to have savannah and grasslands which can be walked through. You cannot walk through a bush.
West African wars have tradditionally been fought with machetes. Not with spears, not with guns, not with swords, but with Machetes. A machete is a proximity instrument, and the best way to defeat someone in a machete fight is to be the one to strike first.
A west African war looks this way - all the men paint themselves in black, and walk at night through the bushes till they are near a village. A village is usually cleared of grass and bush, so there is no cover. When a whistle is sounded, the men burst out of the bush and run at high speed towards the village, winning the war by force.
The men in the village have a few seconds to prepare, and they do so by grabbing their machetes and running as quick as possible away, then circling back.
Traditional west African wars are high speed dashes with heavy instruments, in the night, and with lots of fire. It's the perfect enviroment to have gene pool selection for dashes.
Contrast this with East Africa, where the savannag lead to Bows & Arrows and Spears being used as war weapons.