"Race doesn't exist," and the myth is drowning blacks

[ApostateAbe]

I am done arguing with the forum staff. If they have any extra word in this thread, then that word will be the last, if I can restrain myself. They habitually target my ego and my patience, and it gets dangerous when I return fire. Instead, I will lay out the full case that has developed over the course of this thread, with links to all the math. If you disagree, then it is best done in terms of the math, as the argument from the math seems especially strong. Tell me how the physical arguments as presented are either wrong or irrelevant.

There are confirmed racial differences in drowning rates in America, per the OP.

There are confirmed significant differences in body densities between whites and blacks, per post #38.

These racial body density differences imply, for example, that one in 11 black men is like the average white man but wearing an extra five pounds of gold chains, which is 15 times as many blacks as whites, per the statistical calculations in post #63.

To compensate for five pounds, 2.1 liters of extra air must be inhaled, per post #199. The average extra air volume from forced inhalation is only 3.0 liters, proving that extra body density makes a big difference.

In conclusion, the racial body density differences are a strong explanation for the racial differences in drowning rates for having predictive power. Differences in drowning rates are directly expected from the data and the physics concerning body density. If the drowning rates between the races were somehow the same, then it would be unexpected and anomalous, in need of an explanation.

None of this is to claim that differences in average body density is the dominant explanation for any and all group differences. Differences in psychological swimming ability also have a significant effect, and they MAY have an effect on the racial drowning differences. But, if there exists differences in psychological swimming ability between the races, then differences in average body density would likewise predict that, too. And, regardless, any significance of such an explanation does not minimize the significance of the data concerning body densities and the physical predictions that follow.

Nah, you're arriving at the 5 lb extra downthrust by comparing unusually dense black men to averagely dense white men. What you actually find in post #63 is a 1.65 lb differential between average black and white men. Small enough to be rendered nugatory by positive buoyancy from inhalation. A good fart could make all the difference. For a 5 lb racial differential to explain differences in drowning rates, it'd have to be that drowning occurred mostly among unusually dense black men and averagely dense white men. Now it might be that drowning is concentrated among the unusually dense, but it would be for whites too, which would even out the buoyancy differential again. And there is - unsurprisingly - more density variation within than between groups.

It's not nothing, just near-nothing compared to acquired swimming ability in drowning terms. I needn't rattle on about what contrived bollocks this whole thing is as pretty much everyone seems to have noticed.

A small difference in the average and a small difference in the standard deviation always makes a bigger difference than commonly expected in the right tail ends. If you focus on only the difference in the average and nothing else, then, yeah, OK, 1.65 pounds of extra gold chains is not a big deal. But, drownings are expected to be concentrated at the right tail ends of the distributions with greater body densities. Again, 1 in 11 black men is like the average white man but wearing an extra five pounds of gold chains--not an insignificant fraction of black men--and this is 15 times as many as white men per capita--not an insignificant multiple! You don't think this would significantly affect differences in drowning rates? The higher standard deviation of body densities among blacks likewise makes a big difference. It may be counterintuitive to expect that such a small difference in averages or standard deviations could make such a large difference at the tail ends, but it is a principle well-known among those who work with statistics. For example, it fully explains why there many times more Ashkenazi Jews per capita who are Ivy League grads, chess masters, scientists, celebrities, Mensans, and billionaires than whites, in spite of having "only" a ten-point IQ advantage over whites on average (whatever the cause of the IQ difference may be).

 

[ApostateAbe]

You're welcome, but my point is that you have two sources of greater density each of which may plausibly count as a factor making it more difficult (all other things equal) for a person to stay afloat - namely, denser bones and smaller lungs -, but a source of greater density (namely, denser muscles) whose impact (all other things equal) on a person's ability to stay afloat is more difficult to assess. How those sources interact with each other (i.e., all other things are not equal) is also difficult to assess.

On the other hand, the parallels you make count entirely against a person's ability to stay afloat. The difference can be very significant.

For example, consider the following scenario:

Let's say Bob and Tom both know how to swim equally well, but Bob has extra density resulting from his denser bones, muscles, and smaller lungs, whereas Tom is carrying the gold chains you mentioned, and that equals their weight (they have the same height). Which one would you expect to survive for longer, before drowning?
It seems to me that Bob very probably would survive for longer, all other things equal (assuming Tom can't get rid of the chains, of course).

This does not imply you don't have a point regarding the contribution of race to drowning rates, but you seem to be going beyond what your evidence warrants with regard to the extent of the differences.

I do not have body density data for other races. Maybe the data is out there and I have not looked long enough. If you can find the average body density of Asian Americans, I absolutely will analyze it in relation to drowning rates.

I'm afraid I don't know the numbers, either, but the difference in length of legs and trunk would seem to predict bigger lungs in at least American aborigins.
Also, there are some studies showing difference in lung capacity based on ethnicity (e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9493668 )
Then again, I found a study that shows greater lung capacity in Caucasians than Chinese (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1955006 ), so that's not so clear to me.
I will withdraw that example, since it's unclear and the point I was trying to make is about your recommended policy with regard to Black people, and your claim about buoyancy (e.g., "Maybe you can be both black and buoyant.", etc.), can be made without it.

The sex differences are a very good point--boys are three times as likely to drown than girls--and I absolutely agree that the greater drowning risk for males should be a strong consideration. It means, at the very least, lifeguards should be informed of the average body density difference pay closer attention to boys than to girls. Parents should pay more attention to their sons than to their daughters in the swimming pool. I don't think most of us would have a problem with that proposal, right? Well, maybe the anti-sexists and those who don't want to give credit to the "racist" argument.

A similar proposal in the case of race would be that lifeguards should be informed and told to pay closer attention to Blacks than Caucasians. That's not the sort of proposal I was asking about, though. I was asking about the claim I quoted, and your recommended policy.

For example, you say:

Maybe you can be both male and buoyant. But, if you sink like a rock, then don't learn how to swim. Just trust your instincts and stay the hell away from the water.

A parallel would be:

Maybe you can be both male and buoyant. But, if you sink like a rock, then don't learn how to swim. Just trust your instincts and stay the hell away from the water.​

Even if Caucasians/females are less dense than Blacks/males, it doesn't follow that Caucasians/females are buoyant, but Blacks/males are not.
Moreover, even if Caucasians/females are less dense than Blacks/males, it doesn't follow that it's somehow detrimental for Blacks/males to learn how to swim. In fact, one can learn how to swim in a swimming pool in which one can walk, with the water at the level of the neck or the chest. There is problem with density in such cases, and learning how to swim can save a person's life in other situations (e.g., if they fall from a boat, or there is a flood, etc.), so learning how to swim remains advisable as far as I can tell.

Granted, avoiding swimming altogether, avoiding boats, etc., will reduce the risk of drowning (you can still get caught by a Tsunami or a flood or something, but it's much less likely), but that works for both males and females, and for all races, even if to different degrees. Moreover, the increased risk from Caucasians to Blacks is lesser than the increased risk from males to females, but you're not advocating that males refrain from learning how to swim - just that lifeguards should be informed, etc.

In any event, the risks involved do not seem to support the view that it's generally ill-advised for Blacks or males to, say, swim for fun, even in water deeper than their height. All healthy humans can learn to do that, and we often take some risks in activities that we like. Do you think this particular risk is too much for Blacks and/or males?

ETA: Actually, females have less lung capacity than males. But the main point is not about the differences in risk. The comparison of the Black/Caucasian differences with male/female difference and with other racial differences was meant to draw attention to the fact that an advantage when it comes to staying afloat is not sufficient to warrant the courses of action in question.

Angra Mainyu, that is all well-argued, and I don't have any more disagreement. I am ashamed to say I have been too hyperbolic. Though blacks are three times as likely to drown as whites, drowning is still a relatively rare occurrence in total. Fewer than five thousand American black drowning victims in ten years out of a population of 45 million. So, one in a thousand. Maybe that is a high risk in some contexts and still a reason to be given differential attention, but it is not nearly on par with juggling chainsaws, regardless of body densities within two standard deviations of the averages. I shouldn't be overblowing the risk.

 

[Malintent]

What are you calculating? "2.1 L of air would lift over 30 lbs of dead weight in salt water" doesn't mean anything unless you specify the density or the volume of the 30 lb object being lifted. All by itself, 2.1 L of air will lift 4.7 lbs of dead weight in salt water, which means the only way a 30-lb object is lifted by a 2.1 L balloon is if 25.3 lbs are being lifted by the water displaced by the object, which will only happen if the object is no more than 21% denser than water.

A standard birthday party balloon (made of sufficiently strong rubber) would lift a cinder block off the ocean floor and carry it to the surface in quite a hurry. This I have personally observed and is an exercise I have performed myself.

A standard birthday party balloon is a lot bigger than 2.1 L.

yes, weight alone is not enough to calculate lift force. I said a cinder block. Have you ever seen a cinder block? It weighs about 40 lbs and displaces about 10 lbs of water. That is 30 lbs of NEGATIVE buoyancy. when one uses the term "buoyant force", a positive value is assumed.

People are generally very close to neutrally buoyant. We are, what, 80% water, after all? All I am saying here with confidence and authority is that a normal set of lungs can EASILY overcome the slight negative buoyant force that some people may have. Therefore, differences in drowning rates cannot be explained by differences in body density alone.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Malintent, I won't claim that your authority is without value, but the physics would certainly be worth than your intuition on the matter. It is relatively easy math, and I have laid it all out in the links in post #206.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The amount of air needed to compensate for five pounds worth of extra density is simple, though I still made a mistake. This is the equation I gave:

2.26 kg/(1.065 kg/L) = 2.1 L

I need to make a correction, because I should NOT have divided by the density of the object, but the density of fluid. Small difference.

2.26 kg/(1 kg/L) = 2.3 L

The extra air intake above normal intake from extra inhalation is 3 liters, an intermediate portion of which is typically necessary to achieve positive buoyancy. The 2.3 L loss is a significant cut.

 

[Bomb#20]

What are you calculating? "2.1 L of air would lift over 30 lbs of dead weight in salt water" doesn't mean anything unless you specify the density or the volume of the 30 lb object being lifted. All by itself, 2.1 L of air will lift 4.7 lbs of dead weight in salt water, which means the only way a 30-lb object is lifted by a 2.1 L balloon is if 25.3 lbs are being lifted by the water displaced by the object, which will only happen if the object is no more than 21% denser than water.


A standard birthday party balloon is a lot bigger than 2.1 L.

yes, weight alone is not enough to calculate lift force. I said a cinder block. Have you ever seen a cinder block? It weighs about 40 lbs and displaces about 10 lbs of water.

That's not a cinder block -- that's a normal weight concrete masonry unit. (Assuming you're talking about a standard 8x8x16.)

That is 30 lbs of NEGATIVE buoyancy. when one uses the term "buoyant force", a positive value is assumed.

You're the one using "buoyant force" in a nonstandard (though hardly unusual) sense, not ApostateAbe. And, terminology aside, you did not lift a 30-lbs-heavier-than-water block off the ocean floor with 2.1 liters of air. To lift that much you'd need a 13.3+ liter party balloon (which is easily obtainable and I presume what you used.)

People are generally very close to neutrally buoyant. We are, what, 80% water, after all? All I am saying here with confidence and authority is that a normal set of lungs can EASILY overcome the slight negative buoyant force that some people may have. Therefore, differences in drowning rates cannot be explained by differences in body density alone.

According to the U. of Georgia figures cited upthread, the "slight negative buoyant force" averages about 7% of body weight*. That's typically 9 to 15 pounds, which means it takes 4 to 7 liters of air to compensate. Most people can't easily inhale that much.

(* In freshwater. Yes, it's easier to stay afloat in seawater; but then 90% of drownings are in freshwater.)

 

[exodiasrightleg]

That's why people should be taught how to swim.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Nah, you're arriving at the 5 lb extra downthrust by comparing unusually dense black men to averagely dense white men. What you actually find in post #63 is a 1.65 lb differential between average black and white men. Small enough to be rendered nugatory by positive buoyancy from inhalation. A good fart could make all the difference. For a 5 lb racial differential to explain differences in drowning rates, it'd have to be that drowning occurred mostly among unusually dense black men and averagely dense white men. Now it might be that drowning is concentrated among the unusually dense, but it would be for whites too, which would even out the buoyancy differential again. And there is - unsurprisingly - more density variation within than between groups.

It's not nothing, just near-nothing compared to acquired swimming ability in drowning terms. I needn't rattle on about what contrived bollocks this whole thing is as pretty much everyone seems to have noticed.

A small difference in the average and a small difference in the standard deviation always makes a bigger difference than commonly expected in the right tail ends. If you focus on only the difference in the average and nothing else,

Not what I'm doing

then, yeah, OK, 1.65 pounds of extra gold chains is not a big deal.

Indeed not, and that's about the difference you can expect if you chuck random black and white guys in water. It's also the typical additional buoyancy requirement of good swimmers.

But, drownings are expected to be concentrated at the right tail ends of the distributions with greater body densities. Again, 1 in 11 black men is like the average white man but wearing an extra five pounds of gold chains--not an insignificant fraction of black men--and this is 15 times as many as white men per capita--not an insignificant multiple! You don't think this would significantly affect differences in drowning rates? The higher standard deviation of body densities among blacks likewise makes a big difference. It may be counterintuitive to expect that such a small difference in averages or standard deviations could make such a large difference at the tail ends, but it is a principle well-known among those who work with statistics.

And this is called assuming your conclusion. No, I don't expect drownings to be concentrated in the right tails except maybe slightly. I expect a few people might drown because they're very dense while most drown because they can't swim or can't swim well enough. That, if you recall, is what's under dispute. All this tells you is that blacks would likely be overrepresented in the subset of people who drowned because they're unusually dense. Not how big it is. You wouldn't even know from that whether per-capita drowning was higher among blacks or whites

For example, it fully explains why there many times more Ashkenazi Jews per capita who are Ivy League grads, chess masters, scientists, celebrities, Mensans, and billionaires than whites, in spite of having "only" a ten-point IQ advantage over whites on average (whatever the cause of the IQ difference may be).

which remains moot until it's established that density is to drowning as IQ is to academic attainment. Bog standard 'scientific racism' : assumed conclusion, data picked accordingly and extrapolated fallaciously.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The amount of air needed to compensate for five pounds worth of extra density is simple, though I still made a mistake. This is the equation I gave:

2.26 kg/(1.065 kg/L) = 2.1 L

I need to make a correction, because I should NOT have divided by the density of the object, but the density of fluid. Small difference.

2.26 kg/(1 kg/L) = 2.3 L

The extra air intake above normal intake from extra inhalation is 3 liters, an intermediate portion of which is typically necessary to achieve positive buoyancy. The 2.3 L loss is a significant cut.

Nor should you have used 2.26 kg since the average black/white difference is 0.7 kg - which also happens to be the typical additional buoyancy requirement of strong swimmers. Bugger all, apparently.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Canard Dujour, you say your are not focusing on only the difference in the average and nothing else. But, then, you focus on only the difference in average and nothing else, either ignoring or dismissing what's happening at the right tail ends of the body distributions. Let's make this simple.

(1) Tell me whether you not disagree with the following:

1 in 11 black men is like the average white man but wearing an extra five pounds of gold chains, and this is 15 times as many as white men per capita.

(2) If you disagree, then explain why. If you agree, then explain why this would not affect drowning rates.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Canard Dujour, you say your are not focusing on only the difference in the average and nothing else. But, then, you focus on only the difference in average and nothing else, either ignoring or dismissing what's happening at the right tail ends of the body distributions.

Quite the contrary - I'm putting the little bit you want to focus on in context.

Let's make this simple.

(1) Tell me whether you not disagree with the following:

1 in 11 black men is like the average white man but wearing an extra five pounds of gold chains, and this is 15 times as many as white men per capita.

I don't know and don't think it much matters for reasons stated. You apparently aren't to be trusted but they're not worth checking. Pretend they're defining issues if you want but no one's buying.

(2) If you disagree, then explain why. If you agree, then explain why this would not affect drowning rates.

What I said. It might have some effect, just relatively insignificant next to acquired swimming ability. Certainly nothing supporting the idea that skepticism about the biological validity of race is "drowning blacks"

 

[ApostateAbe]

Five extra pounds of gold chains would mean cutting 2.3 liters of advantage out of the 3.0 liters of the typical extra inhalation of air in the lungs, a portion of which a typical person needs to achieve positive buoyancy. Do you not find that value significant?

 

[Canard DuJour]

FFS, I've addressed this several times..

It's the difference between averagely dense whites and unusually dense blacks. Why choose that? Significant to what? Drowning rates? To conclude that, I'd first need to know the significance of density in drowning rates. I couldn't cite it as the latter unless I had a poor grasp of science or were bending over backwards to push some point. Simply put, evidence of denser black people is not evidence of denser drowned people.

Before drawing the inference you draw, common sense would lead most people to look at obvious confounders like swimming ability. Direct evidence for or against your inference doesn't seem to be available but we can compare against non-race density variances like age. Human body density apparently drops off a bit during early infancy then increases from pubity, reaching a peak at 25 - 30 yrs old. Here are the drowning rates per capita :



By far the most at risk group is under 5 yr olds - by definition the least experienced swimmers. And, bugger me, it turns out that white infants are more likely to drown than black ones. Are they more dense? No, they're more likely to have access to pools. The difference is even starker for pool drownings specifically : (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m6319a2f2.gif image too big apparently)

The differential then reverses as less experienced infants play catch up and, lo-and-behold, pretty much evens out as humans reach peak body density.

To arrive at your conclusion from the cherry-picked factoid you want to push, you really have to be some kind of obsessive. And that's putting it politely. Any more repetition or arrant nonsense from you will be duly ignored. Bilby had it right, early on.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Ravensky noted this ages ago.

 

[ApostateAbe]

FFS, I've addressed this several times..

It's the difference between averagely dense whites and unusually dense blacks. Why choose that? Significant to what? Drowning rates?

No, I am comparing unusually dense blacks to unusually dense whites. There are 15 times as many blacks as whites who have an extra five-pound density disadvantage. Do you expect it would make a difference in racial drowning rates?

 

[RavenSky]

I'm of the opinion that ApostateAbe is really arguing against skinny, muscular people swimming. Everyone knows that fat floats, so it is obvious (by Abe's "reasoning") that we really should encourage Michael Phelps to stay far away from the pool lest he drown immediately. Chris Cristie, otoh, should be able to win the Olympics with no problem.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I won't be arguing with mods any longer, as a reminder.

 

[Canard DuJour]

FFS, I've addressed this several times..

It's the difference between averagely dense whites and unusually dense blacks. Why choose that? Significant to what? Drowning rates?

No, I am comparing unusually dense blacks to unusually dense whites.

Nope, the alleged 5 lb racial differential (the "it" under discussion) is precisely what I said.

There are 15 times as many blacks as whites who have an extra five-pound density disadvantage. Do you expect it would make a difference in racial drowning rates?

I think it might make a difference to the racial composotion of the subset of drowners who drown due to unusual body density. I think trying to reverse-extrapolate that into anything else, despite all the evidence, says more about you than anything else.


ETA : I think I''ve also posted several serious efforts in response to the same one-liners you keep coming with back with. Much more serious than any of it deserves. That's it - bye bye

 

[RavenSky]

I won't be arguing with mods any longer, as a reminder.

Good thing I am not posting as "a mod".

Throughout this thread, you have continuously refused to acknowledge the fact that your racial bone density idea fails on every test of science, logic and rational thinking. Instead, you *remind* us that you are ignoring us. That's fine. I don't care if you respond or not. I will keep pointing out how fatally flawed (& bigoted) your position is.

 

[RavenSky]

Almost all people - black, white, Asian, Indian, male or female - are positively or neutrally buoyant if their lungs are filled with air.

Young children are more dense than adults.

Muscular people are more dense than fatter people.

All people float better in salt water vs fresh water.

None of these factors make any significant difference to whether a person will drown or not.

The number one most important factor is ABILITY TO SWIM. Following that in importance is extenuating circumstances, such as the temperature of the water.

Body density is not a factor.