Stereotyping BAME player attributes - "pace and power"

[lycophilos]

???.

I haven't concluded anything with anything. Merely asking what it is we do with what we learn.

That was a question to someone else.

My reply to you came lower down.

 

[GoldenHorseshoe]

I have to ask, as a reasonably well educated and informed individual, what the heck is a SJW?

I thought that I was the only one not knowing. I had to Google for the answer.
To be honest I'm glad I didn't know and certainly will never use.

 

[lycophilos]

The way I think of race is the same way I think of gender. They are social constructs based on biological differences.

That's a good way at looking at it. (With the caveat that there really are some quite profound differences between the sexes.)

 

[Deleted member 5962]

That's a good way at looking at it. (With the caveat that there really are some quite profound differences between the sexes.)

Oh definately. There are more significant differences between a male and a female than between two ethnic groups.

 

[WickedWolfie]

In what way?



So you have enough knowledge to come to a firm conclusion about genes and environment? If so, you actually know more about the influence and interaction between environment and genes than any biologist does today. Continuing research makes it seem more and more complex.

For instance, it was once thought that environment could have no direct effect on the genome (only an indirect effect through natural selection). We now know this is not so. It has been found that for example, severe famine can affect not just the population of the time, but their descendants for generations to come, in a biological way, even though it does not appear to change the basic DNA. There is a whole branch of genetics called epigenetics which is involved in looking at this sort of phenomenon.

If you want me to speculate on the subject you are clearly interested in, I will make a guess, no more, and no less, based on the very imperfect evidence available at present. I will have to use the very misleading terms "Black" and "White", because that seems to be the sort of distinction which concerns most people, even though they actually have no scientific validity.

Are "whites" more intelligent than "blacks". Yes, they probably are. But only on average. That must be stressed - as it still means that there are many intelligent "blacks" and many stupid "whites". Incidentally there are also significant differences between different "white" groups, and between different "black" ones. For instance, according to some studies, Scots have a higher average IQ than English, who in turn score higher than Welsh and Irish - again all average differences. However Scots from the Outer Hebrides have the lowest average IQs in the British Isles.

What are these differences due to? Possibly genetics, possibly environment, most probably a bit of both.

Will these differences persist? Who can say - they may widen or they may disappear. Evolution is an ongoing process - any idea that Homo sapiens and all its varieties will be the same in a few hundred years, is as uncertain as is what the state of football and the standing of Wolverhampton Wanderers FC will be at that time.

As I've stressed all that is merely a guess on my part. It is, I hope, an informed guess, but is no more than that. And I don't honestly believe that anyone can come to any more certainty than that.

You talk about differences in IQ. If l hadn't seen your comments about educated or informed guesses l would ask if these differences were statistically significant.

 

[WickedWolfie]

Oh definately. There are more significant differences between a male and a female than between two ethnic groups.

Ethnic groups in general or two individuals from different ethnic groups?

 

[Contrarian]

That's cool, I was just checking.

People are simply fed up with SJW *******s that seems to be everywhere so you can't blame some for being a bit tetchy

They're mentioned in faux outrage all over the right wing media outlets, for sure. In real life, there are very few. I find avoiding the mainstream media, which is over 80% right wing in the UK, is the best way of avoiding reading continually about these "SJW" types. Most of it's probably made up anyway, like 90% if the things the Mail says the EU will ban or make compulsory were made up lies.

 

[ricki herberts moustache]

Like so many people, you confuse geographical variation, which is biological, with "race", which, whatever it meant originally, is now largely a social construct. T

Race and geography are two different things. I don't become an black african by moving to africa for example.

Race is genetic and biological

to say it is a social construct is pure politics and not science at all.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

Ethnic groups in general or two individuals from different ethnic groups?

Two random individuals of the same sex from different ethnic groups.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

Race and geography are two different things. I don't become an black african by moving to africa for example.

Race is genetic and biological

to say it is a social construct is pure politics and not science at all.

Ethnicity is biological, race is a social construct (as I understand it.) It works the same way in that sex is biological but gender is a social construct.

 

[thisisgil]

Most of it's probably made up anyway, like 90% if the things the Mail says the EU will ban or make compulsory were made up lies.

Whilst I accept that the Mail is not exactly the bastion of balanced and truthful reporting (although it would appear they were spot on about a European army) it's disingenuous to imply this is exclusively a symptom of right wing media. The Guardian is host to some of the most divisive, antagonistic and emotive journalism you'll read in this country. It uses exactly the same tricks to rile up the left as the Mail does on the right.

 

[sillytuna]

If you're this triggered now, you'll hate it when you figure out what 23andme is.

There are people on here who know very well indeed how 23andme works at a detailed level. The science does not support races. It's a complex and highly nuanced area, but the notion of race as used in common parlance is a social thing based primarily on appearance. The genetics are far more complicated than that.

AFAIK genetic testing with commercial companies is more about finding commonalities than establishing genetic history, even tho that is what gets implied.

I did 23andme BTW - it's quite interesting although I'm not sure how sound their science really is.

 

[ricki herberts moustache]

Ethnicity is biological, race is a social construct (as I understand it.) It works the same way in that sex is biological but gender is a social construct.

How can ethnicity be biological? Take the old Yugoslavia: the people were pretty much all the same race yet there were different ethnic groups within the country. Croats, Muslim, Serbs...yet all the same race.

The war in Yugoslavia was ethnic and religious...not racial.

 

[sillytuna]

So what if genetical and environmental factors tell us what we know or already suspect?....what should we then do with this info?

The science is done to establish facts as known at the time based upon the best evidence and studies at the time. Science can and does changes its mind as studies improve, something that non scientists can struggle to understand. Besides, science isn't tell you what you know, in this case you start out with a hypothesis and set out to prove/disprove out over a large number of well performed studies, then reach consensus on the results.

As for what to do, well that's not down to the scientists and is more social. For example, if science found that there seems to significant reason why people of colour perform worse at school genetically, then what we do with that is look at environmental factors - class, schooling, poverty, etc. Then see if we can improve the situation.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

How can ethnicity be biological? Take the old Yugoslavia: the people were pretty much all the same race yet there were different ethnic groups within the country. Croats, Muslim, Serbs...yet all the same race.

The war in Yugoslavia was ethnic and religious...not racial.

Muslim isnt an ethnicity, the socialist state of Yugoslavia falsely labelled it as such to separate them from the rest of the population.

 

[ricki herberts moustache]

Muslim isnt an ethnicity, the socialist state of Yugoslavia falsely labelled it as such to separate them from the rest of the population.

That's not my point though: the different ethnic groups in Yugoslavia were all the same race. That's my point. Ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with biology or genetics

 

[thisisgil]

There are people on here who know very well indeed how 23andme works at a detailed level. The science does not support races. It's a complex and highly nuanced area, but the notion of race as used in common parlance is a social thing based primarily on appearance. The genetics are far more complicated than that.

AFAIK genetic testing with commercial companies is more about finding commonalities than establishing genetic history, even tho that is what gets implied.

FWIW, I work within the field of genetics (non consumer grade) and I'd disagree with that to a large extent. Whilst we can argue that there are significant indicators of physical attributes not tied to "race", there are also key markers that directly relate to ethnicity.

Correlation is not causation, but to rule out any casual links between, for example, genes that produce proteins that aid muscle composition and the recurrence within specific ethnicities is in effect allowing an ideology to override raw data.

 

[ricki herberts moustache]

As for what to do, well that's not down to the scientists and is more social. For example, if science found that there seems to significant reason why people of colour perform worse at school genetically, then what we do with that is look at environmental factors - class, schooling, poverty, etc. Then see if we can improve the situation.

you mean try and make people of colour more like white people?

hell, why the need to try and make everyone conform? Why not just accept that different races have different strengths instead of forcing every race into the same mould (based on white ideas)?

 

[sillytuna]

They're mentioned in faux outrage all over the right wing media outlets, for sure. In real life, there are very few. I find avoiding the mainstream media, which is over 80% right wing in the UK, is the best way of avoiding reading continually about these "SJW" types. Most of it's probably made up anyway, like 90% if the things the Mail says the EU will ban or make compulsory were made up lies.

This is true but I will say there are a few extremely loud SJW types in social and actual media. They're usually very well meaning, and perhaps sometimes you need extreme voices to nudge society, but my god they can be blind to how alienating their approach is. Essentially everyone is guilty almost all of the time - which seems rather pointless and aggressive. It becomes almost impossible to speak, it's actually infuriating in person because whoever is 'offended' and a minority has priority regardless of intent etc. Sometimes this can be fair but they take it to extremes.

There's a few good journalistic pieces I found which discuss it from the point of view of reasonable liberal minded people. SJW types get extremely aggressive to these articles because their entire model of the world is created under their view of morality and criticism is not accepted almost by definition, and forgiveness/understanding of human nature is rarely present either.

You can also find people who used to call themselves SJW/woke who now try and speak up against the extremism they used to be part of, primarily because they got ostracised for not being perfect or suffered abuse and were prevented from speaking up.

However, randomly calling people SJWs, libtards etc is just name calling rubbish and it is also important to remember that SJW types are coming from a well meaning place, just going about it wrong. They're often quite young and inexperienced in the fallibilities of people and the complexities life throws at you.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

That's not my point though: the different ethnic groups in Yugoslavia were all the same race. That's my point. Ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with biology or genetics

If you use the traditional meanings of each word yea you're right. I was making a lighthearted joke regarding the BAME thing but it seems to have not gone down well.

 

[sillytuna]

FWIW, I work within the field of genetics (non consumer grade) and I'd disagree with that to a large extent. Whilst we can argue that there are significant indicators of physical attributes not tied to "race", there are also key markers that directly relate to ethnicity.

Correlation is not causation, but to rule out any casual links between, for example, genes that produce proteins that aid muscle composition and the recurrence within specific ethnicities is in effect allowing an ideology to override raw data.

But that's not what I said. You're twisting things.

 

[ricki herberts moustache]

However, randomly calling people SJWs, libtards etc is just name calling rubbish and it is also important to remember that SJW types are coming from a well meaning place, just going about it wrong. They're often quite young and inexperienced in the fallibilities of people and the complexities life throws at you.

Michael Moore is neither young nor inexperienced yet he is 100% a SJW

In fact plenty of SJW's are older folk.

 

[Contrarian]

Race is genetic and biological

Not according to science. The latest understanding is that in terms of genes and DNA, there is no such thing as "race". Just Google "DNA and race" and you'll find a ton of stuff on it.

Two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other.

 

[Mugwump]

As corny as it sounds, i dont see a players colour, i just see a footballer.

 

[Contrarian]

So what's the defining conclusion??
All I know is that at school in PE and on sports days the blacks would time and again conclusively whup the lily-white asses.... with the brown and yellow ones straggling in after.

When it came to academic performance the whole thing was generally reversed.

What should we then assume or not with this??

At my school we had exactly the same. Those who were best as sports were worst academically and vice-versa, with only 1 or 2 exceptions. However, my school was all white. Do we assume the same thing? There must be a nerd gene or something?

 

[lycophilos]

Race and geography are two different things. I don't become an black african by moving to africa for example.

Race is genetic and biological

to say it is a social construct is pure politics and not science at all.

Of course I was meaning geographical variation as a whole. Before the vast movement of "whites" to the new worlds, the connection of phenotype with geography would have been even more obvious, although even then there would have been individual exceptions. But the fact that the average Swede looks different from the average Nigerian doesn't mean that the definition of "race" isn't a result of human sociology rather than biology.

To say that is not a political statement but a scientific observation. A "black" race, in a biological sense, does not exist. Some "Black" Africans are genetically more similar to "Whites" and "Asians" than they are to other "Black" Africans. It is therefore scientifically meaningless to talk about "blacks", without defining what you mean. In fact, there is more genetic variation within "black" Africans than there is between all the other peoples of the world. This is only to be expected, as all people of European or Asian origin are descendants, in large part, of a comparatively small group of "black" Africans who left sub Saharan Africa before around 70,000 years ago or so. And incidentally these emigrants and their descendants remained "black" i.e. dark skinned, until about 10,000BC or later.

 

[lycophilos]

Whilst I accept that the Mail is not exactly the bastion of balanced and truthful reporting (although it would appear they were spot on about a European army) it's disingenuous to imply this is exclusively a symptom of right wing media. The Guardian is host to some of the most divisive, antagonistic and emotive journalism you'll read in this country. It uses exactly the same tricks to rile up the left as the Mail does on the right.

Many years ago I had a correspondence with the Guardian about an article I found grossly unfair. It is certainly not an unbiased source - but then none of the "rags" are. Moreover the circulation of the Guardian is far less than that of the Mail, let alone the Mail plus the Sun and the Express. So any harm it is doing is pretty insignificant compared with that from the Mail-Sun-Express brigade.

I don't subscribe to any of these rags, left or right, although I do sometimes browse them online, or in the Library, to see what lies, or worse, half-truths, they are peddling the public. And none of them - not even The Times - is to be wholly trusted where complex science is involved.

 

[lycophilos]

you mean try and make people of colour more like white people?

hell, why the need to try and make everyone conform? Why not just accept that different races have different strengths instead of forcing every race into the same mould (based on white ideas)?

Why not just accept that different individuals, whatever their "race", have different strengths instead of forcing every individual into the mould of the particular stereotype they are supposed to represent (based on "white",or any other, ideas)?

 

[ricki herberts moustache]

Why not just accept that different individuals, whatever their "race", have different strengths instead of forcing every individual into the mould of the particular stereotype they are supposed to represent (based on "white",or any other, ideas)?

So to you race does not exist?

 

[Deleted member 5962]

Why not just accept that different individuals, whatever their "race", have different strengths instead of forcing every individual into the mould of the particular stereotype they are supposed to represent (based on "white",or any other, ideas)?

I agree you shouldnt treat racial groups as a monolith, but I think most people when they talk about this are talking about averages over large groups rather than stating that an individual is guarenteed to have a set characteristic due to their racial group, they are merely observing that certain groups have a higher probability of displaying certain traits.

 

[lycophilos]

So to you race does not exist?

Depends on what you mean by "race". Does it exist as a social construct, which continues to cause great problems in many countries of the world? - of course it does. Does this social construct have a strong connection with certain biological features, almost entirely to do with physical appearance? - of course it does. In these senses "race" does of course exist. And as I have said, I admit that I am to an extent a "racist" - like the vast majority of humans - as I still tend to judge people initially partly by their physical appearance.

But individual genetic variation is far more than the tiny proportion of the genome which is concerned with physical appearance. So judging people by their "race", purely determined by their physical appearance, is inherently untrustworthy and unscientific. Of course if further studies do show that there are patterns, such as that people of West African origin have proportionately more fast twitch elements in their muscles, this would lead us to make a reasonable conclusion that people of such origin are more likely than those of other origins to win sprint races. But even here it is only a matter of probability, not of certainty. There will be many West Africans who are not good sprinters, and many of other origins who are. And this is a comparatively clear and well established case (which is not to say that as yet unknown complexities may not appear in future studies). There are very few other such cases. In particular studies of IQ and other such characteristics, have shown that these may have a very complex causation, not simply genetic - and that's even before consideration of whether IQ tells us about more than just a part of what intelligence is about.

In any case, as I have pointed out in a recent post, genetically speaking, such "races" as "whites", "Asians", and, especially "blacks", make no sense, as they include groups which are in many cases less closely related to each other, than they are to certain groups in the other "races". In biologically taxonomic terms "whites", "blacks" etc. would be described as "paraphyletic" and hence scientifically invalid.

Incidentally there may be less of an absolutely clear distinction between "ethnicity" and "race" than you suppose. For instance, I have read a few times that in Northern Ireland, many believe you can often tell Catholics and Protestants apart simply by their physical appearance.

 

[lycophilos]

I agree you shouldnt treat racial groups as a monolith, but I think most people when they talk about this are talking about averages over large groups rather than stating that an individual is guarenteed to have a set characteristic due to their racial group, they are merely observing that certain groups have a higher probability of displaying certain traits.

If all they are doing is "merely observing", that's indisputable.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

If all they are doing is "merely observing", that's indisputable.

Well, yea. If people take it beyond what it is, a difference in probability and use it to discriminate unfairly, then ofcourse there is an issue. I think this thread has been a great example of how issues that can be seen as uncomfortable can be discussed amicably and I would hope we could get more discussion like this than less. Like I said earlier in the thread, I beleive discussion is a better way to deal with racial tension than censorship.

 

[k-dog]

I wasn't arguing against discrimination I was saying it still exists. In fact you've kind of proved my point by rightly pointing out I discriminated against old school managers without realising it.

It does exist, I’ve heard things that make my blood boil and it needs eradicating, but to say someone has pace and power because they have pace and power isn’t where the problem lies, that’s just my opinion. Apologies if I came across abrupt.

 

[Guzeppi]

This is racist. Maybe. Probably.
But we all love it.

 

[WickedWolfie]

This is racist. Maybe. Probably.
But we all love it.

Teaching young kids good habits lol

 

[Mutchy]

An interesting thread with some knowledgeable contributions. Science is fine, but steer away from the political please.

 

[Deleted member 3573J]

You are entitled to your view. My view is that in terms of credibility it is approaching that of flat earthers and climate change deniers. I'm not keen on the video and the comments are dispicable, not even fit for the politics thread.

What are you two banging on about? Making out a poster somehow endorses the comments on a video he's linked is pretty low even for this forum. Ricki linked just the video to the forum, not the comments, so it's a complete irrelevance whether they are fit for the politics thread as they are not shown. Try some self control, it was your choice to go onto the youtube site to watch it, then scroll down to read the comments, so don't blame anyone else but yourself. It's despicable that you've had to stoop so low in an attempt to make a point.

 

[Meis_Corn]

Bringing it back to the football then, is this really a problem? Will BAME players and fans be significantly affected by these so called pundits spouting off crap, buzzword punditry? Will more diversity really bring about less unconscious bias or just move it to another area?

Honestly, I believe the BAME abbreviation is being abused here to talk about specifically a relatively minor, specifically Black issue. We should be focussing our efforts on such more important issues such as the lack of British Asian professional footballers of which we have next to none, despite them making up more than 6% of the population (for reference Black stands at 3-4%). When was the last time you saw a British Asian pundit?

Unfortunately BAME has come to mean Black to most, especially within football. BAME should be separated out if we are serious about any kind of social change.

 

[Deleted member 5910]

Race is entirely a social construct. Genes don't come into it.

Serena Williams is a bloody good tennis player but that's irrelevant to the colour of her skin. Calling her part of the 'black' race -is- a social construct and not a very useful one at that.

Interesting. If you believe race to be entirely a social construct, do you also believe then that one can be racially 'fluid' (as we see with proponents of non-binary genders)? Could a Footballer with common ancestry of the "white" Northern European majority of Britain, identify as a "black" minority in full or in part?

Rachel Dolezal: 'I identify as black'