Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

101 - 104 of 104 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,187 Posts
Minstrel said:
This is the basis of eugenics, which is, at best, highly controversial and many consider it to be a discredited psuedo-science. Hitler believed in eugenics, and tried to breed a "master race" using only the brightest and strongest (and white, of course, but that's a different matter).

However, I've read statistics that show that these traits tend to regress to the mean. Two brilliant parents will likely produce a less intelligent child, two great athletes will most likely produce a less athletically gifted child. On the flip side of this, two people less intelligent than the mean are most likely to produce a child more intelligent than themselves.

Therefore, it's not possible to breed a race of "super-athletes" and I doubt slavery had a noticeable effect on the fitness of the African-American population. Through regression to the mean, whatever advantages the original slaves had were likely down to normal levels after all the generations of slavery.

I don't think you can compare the mixing and matching that Hitler did (and for how long?) to slavery, which was FAR more harsh, and far longer. If I recall correctly, more Africans died en route to America than there are blacks in the US today. Don't quote me on that, but just showing its a significant amount of people.

As for the statistics, I guess the easiest way to put it is this. A man with 160 IQ has a child with a woman with an IQ of 180, their child has an IQ of 140 which is less than both children, a less intelligent child, as you have said.

A man with an IQ of 110 has a child with a woman with an IQ of 100. They have a child with an IQ of 120. It's greater than the parents, but still less overall than the offspring of the two extremely intelligent parents.

I think after many generations there would be regression, but it apparently shows that there is a higher percentage that does have some (I never said it was a great effect, as many have implied that I said) roots in slavery.

It may be very minimal, but that doesn't mean it is non existent.
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,472 Posts
Tragedy said:
I don't think you can compare the mixing and matching that Hitler did (and for how long?) to slavery, which was FAR more harsh, and far longer. If I recall correctly, more Africans died en route to America than there are blacks in the US today. Don't quote me on that, but just showing its a significant amount of people.
I agree that the trip over was insanely arduous, and those that survived it were likely the hardiest. I have no doubts that the first generation of slaves were pretty powerful and hardy people.

It's the regression to the mean after the first generation that I think transformed that first group into a fairly normal population by the end of slavery.

As for the statistics, I guess the easiest way to put it is this. A man with 160 IQ has a child with a woman with an IQ of 180, their child has an IQ of 140 which is less than both children, a less intelligent child, as you have said.

A man with an IQ of 110 has a child with a woman with an IQ of 100. They have a child with an IQ of 120. It's greater than the parents, but still less overall than the offspring of the two extremely intelligent parents.
Agreed. Things don't equalize after a single generation. Michael Jordan's kid is certainly much more likely to be a superior athlete than the average kid. But he's also less likely to be the type of athlete Jordan, himself, was, even if the mother were a superior athlete too.

But the child of Jordan's child will be closer to the mean than Jordan's child was. On the average, of course. In any specific case, two gifted parents could have an equally or more gifted child. But that would be very rare and not a population-level effect.

I think after many generations there would be regression, but it apparently shows that there is a higher percentage that does have some (I never said it was a great effect, as many have implied that I said) roots in slavery.

It may be very minimal, but that doesn't mean it is non existent.
It's significant in the first generation, less so in the next generation, etc. By the end of slavery, it was probably at least minimal due to quite a few generations having passed by. By now, it is surely completely gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
they are only a little faster due to diffrent muscles,after years of having to outrun hyenas in the serenghetti,its evolution,whites came from cold climates where you had to spend time indoors thus slow twitch muscles.but it doesnt make them better athletes,if these turn coat white coaches didnt teach blacks all our strategies and training,they wouldnt be able to compete.without white people inventing the ball,black people would still be in the dark ages kicking a human skull around for fun.they were infatuated with whiteys balls,ahem...those two things were weapons of destruction against whites,the ball,and the guitar.you should be worshipping the guys who invented these things,not mlk.it lifted you out of poverty and made you rich,what the hell did mlk ever do?plus for every black pro athleete,you are stealing a great life from a white,whom by all rights should get priority,i mean after all blacks have their own colleges and political groups,why not sports leagues?they want to show up whitey,but the fact is,nobody carees about basketball or football in the world except usa,out of the worlds top 500 athletes only about 100 are black.blacks accomplish what they do because of whites,since blacks dont share their physical advantages with whites,why should we share our strategies and training regiments?that is our advantage yet we are always sharing something thats priceless.whites winning, builds white pride,this is something liberals despise and are using sports as their weapon to kill our pride by promoting negroes as super human.using white facilities and sports legues to make our children feel inferior.like i said,if they took a white athlete trained by a white coach and a black athlete trained by a black coach,i would put my money on the white,team sports too.but NOOOOOO,these white coaches take these blacks under their wing because of guilt or fear of being called racist,and steal away our advantages and strategies and betraying their kin,universities are run by leftists and they pay these white plantation owner coaches outrageous amounts to sell their race down the river.now we see a whole generation of whites who emulate blacks and think they are weaker,that is exactly what these hook nosed pieces of shit want.they run the media they run our universities. thats all im gonna say.but blacks need whites to compete.if it was up to me,there would be a more white presence in the leagues we created,what if whites dominated spear chucking leagues in africa?how would you feel?would you still have the same pride from a white winning?hell no,so why should whites sacrifice something thats priceless,for a bunch of bubble butted buggle eyed bo legged banana lipped ebonics bilingual boons,and give it to them?we shouldnt.
 
101 - 104 of 104 Posts
Top