Re: Race and Sports: Jay Gould

[Guest guest]

From: <Mcsiff@...>

Here is another article on the Race and Performance issue, this time

involving the renowned paleontologist, Jay Gould.

-------------------------

Do genes make jocks? Jay Gould joins non-contest on the question

9 April 2001

<http://news.bmn.com/news/story?day=010410 & story=3>

by Mertl,

BioMedNet News

There is no genetic connection between sports and race, argued

paleontologist Jay Gould at a public forum in New York on April 6. To

attribute a human trait such as speed to genes " is more than just a

permissible simplification. It's downright wrong, " he said.

The public disagrees with the oft-quoted scientist, to judge from a recent

poll conducted by the Gene Media Forum, the non-profit organization that

sponsored the event. Its poll showed that 43% percent of the American public

believes some races have a natural athletic advantage.

Thus, that argument would hold that genetic factors explain why Africans win

the vast majority of long-distance medals at the Olympics, and why athletes

from the Nandi Hills of Kenya, for example, excel at long-distance running.

Two-time Olympic champion Kip Keino, who was also present, argued otherwise.

The reason Kenya produces such good long distance runners, he said, is

because the Kenyans have a focused training program.

" It's keen interest and hard work, " Keino said at the symposium. The Kenyan

people and the government give runners a tremendous amount of support. " There

are no shortcuts, " he added.

" To be fair, " Gould said, " it's not ipso facto absurd to argue - if you have

a very particular group of highly inbred folks from one part of the world who

really do represent a very distinct entity - that they might on average

possess certain traits ... that predispose them to be better at certain

athletic activities. " It may be no more ridiculous than to argue that blacks

on average are better protected against sunburn, he added.

" But what's really and truly wrong ... is how it's reported, " said Gould.

Last November, an article by the Associated Press reported on research that

claimed to have found a " speed gene. "

" There may be a few discrete traits encoded by genes, but there are not very

many, " Gould said. It especially doesn't make any sense to contrast all

Africans with all Caucasians, he added. " There's incredibly very little

average difference between the so-called races.... For once, the cliché is

right: the differences are only skin deep. "

He went on to explain in detail the difficult concepts behind the

non-existence of race as a scientific concept: Eighty five percent of the

entire genetic variance of the species is contained in any one so-called

race, he said. To put it " dramatically, but not incorrectly, " he added, if

there were to be a holocaust after which only a tribe indigenous to the New

Guinea highlands was to survive, 85% of the entire human variation would

still be saved.

The reason, he said, is that the entire human race evolved in Africa about

200,000 years ago - a mere " geographic micro-second. " All non-African racial

diversity is only 100,000 years old, he added. " And that is the key point

....

There's more genetic diversity in all African people than the rest of the

people put together. "

" Finally and lastly, it's an issue of fairness, " Gould said. Attributing

personal achievement to some biological advantage degrades individual

achievement. " It's deeply offensive, " Gould said.

-------------

**** This to me, sums up the problem with Gould. He is more an idealogue

than a scientist at least as evidenced by his writing, and his biases often

show through rather evidently when reading his work. Especially when one

takes into account his politics, he is extremely predictable as to what

conclusions he will come to on a given topic, even before looking at the

evidence. His basic argument, summed up here, is that race is not a factor

at all in sports achievement, because it would be offensive to believe it

was a factor. One does not need to be a student of logic, to recognize the

fallacy.

Much of his argument, here and elsewhere, is a purely emotion based

argument, at its essence. He seems to be much more popular among his

leftist fellow travellers, than he is among scientists who are prominent in

the fields he covers.

It seems many in his field, are happy to go along with Gould because he is

such a steadfast opponent to many creationists, and Gould is a voice of

reason in that debate. However, evolutionary biologists do not seem to, at

least from what I have read and heard from those in the field, give him

much, if any, credit when it comes to evolutionary biology.

It does not degrade personal achievement to recognize that some athletes are

more gifted than others. It is not a simple either/or argument. The best

athlete at a given competition may NOT be the one who tried the hardest,

trained the hardest, or had the best character. Sometimes, that is true,

but sometimes it isn't. No matter who the athlete is, it does not degrade

their commitment to sport and their hard work to recognize that " God given "

talent may have played a part in their success, some more than others. It

is an egalitarian fiction to believe otherwise.

We share lots of similarities, across racial lines and gender lines for that

matter, but Gould's argument on this topic generally seems to be that it is

" offensive " to believe that racial differences have any meaning whatsoever

when talking about sports performance. Gould's fear of being " deeply

offensive " (his words) is particularly telling.

Whitney Richtmyer

Seattle WA