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

[ApostateAbe]

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.

Ok, that's a respectable position. The point that body density differences would affect drowning differences (not to claim that it is the ONLY effect on differences, far from it) is a point I take to follow strongly from a simple understanding of physics and logic. If you drop a thousand random people in a lake a mile from the shore, random except a subset of them have an extra five pounds of platinum strapped to their bodies, then, yeah, it would affect drowning probabilities for sure between the two groups of people. It seems to do a lot explain not only the racial differences but the sex differences. Between the two sexes, the variables would be much fewer than between the two races, but the sex difference in drowning is threefold or fourfold. The downer is that such a hypothesis concerning the effect of body density on drowning probability of any sort is not even acknowledged in the academic literature, let alone as a proposed cause of race differences or sex differences, perhaps because data does not exist that relates drowning to body density, one way or the other, as the collection of such data would be very difficult. Maybe the hypothesis would be either confirmed or falsified when there is an easy way to observe body density as a typical part of one's medical check-up or whatever.

 

[Canard DuJour]

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.

Ok, that's a respectable position.

Then yours isn't.

The point that body density differences would affect drowning differences (not to claim that it is the ONLY effect on differences, far from it) is a point I take to follow strongly from a simple understanding of physics and logic. If you drop a thousand random people in a lake a mile from the shore, random except a subset of them have an extra five pounds of platinum strapped to their bodies, then, yeah, it would affect drowning probabilities for sure between the two groups of people. It seems to do a lot explain not only the racial differences but the sex differences. Between the two sexes, the variables would be much fewer than between the two races, but the sex difference in drowning is threefold or fourfold. The downer is that such a hypothesis concerning the effect of body density on drowning probability of any sort is not even acknowledged in the academic literature, let alone as a proposed cause of race differences or sex differences, perhaps because data does not exist that relates drowning to body density, one way or the other, as the collection of such data would be very difficult. Maybe the hypothesis would be either confirmed or falsified when there is an easy way to observe body density as a typical part of one's medical check-up or whatever.

..has nearly nothng to do with why yours isn't.

 

[RavenSky]

The downer is that such a hypothesis concerning the effect of body density on drowning probability of any sort is not even acknowledged in the academic literature, let alone as a proposed cause of race differences or sex differences, perhaps because data does not exist that relates drowning to body density, one way or the other, as the collection of such data would be very difficult.

Or maybe because at the end of the day body density does not matter one whit to whether a person drowns or not. Inability to swim, panic, and external circumstances do.

If body density made the difference, Michael Phelps would drown instead of being an Olympic medal winner.

 

[ApostateAbe]

If anyone has any other thoughts on the matter, I would be happy to hear them.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Why, you've haven't liked any so far?

 

[PyramidHead]

Mt general thought is that most of your threads make a deductive leap that I am not fully convinced is valid. It is one thing to say that there are genetic markers that influence a trait. It is quite another thing to say that those genetic markers are distributed amongst the human population in a manner that just so happens to coincide with facial appearance, skin color, and the handful of other traits that are loosely categorized as a 'race'. That seems to be something that would happen very infrequently unless all races were strictly inbred, a situation that is far removed from reality. I work with mouse strains for vaccine research, and even under strict breeding conditions it's often quite difficult to maintain the simplest gene insertion or deletion over several generations. The genotype of homo sapiens is so diversified at this point in history that, beyond the simple visual cues that group people colloquially and socially, the distribution of phenotypes is much more likely to resemble massively nested, overlapping, interlocking Venn diagram of phenotypes that crisscross geographic boundaries, not a set discrete islands that conform to visible features. This is why it's easy to find greater differences within races than between races for so many traits.

Suppose, for a moment, that the genetic layout of our species were exactly the same as it is in reality, except for one thing: we all have typically Asian skin color and features. Every other genetic trait, from susceptibility to certain diseases to lactose intolerance, is distributed just as it is today. Would it make sense to carve up the population along racial lines? If everybody looked similar enough that you couldn't tell by looking at someone where their ancestors probably were born, would the idea of races as a meaningful genetic category persist? What other test would we use to tell which race someone was? Is it your opinion that there would be an identifiable population of individuals with the least intelligence and the densest bones, and that if they were returned to their original appearance they would all have dark skin? Or is your categorization biased by the convenience of identifying people based primarily on their appearance? These are serious problems with scientific racism.

Once you have addressed them, it still remains to be demonstrated that they should form the basis of public policy. As a scientist, I often encounter research that describes a statistically significant difference and stops there. Statistical significance only tells you that two samples are probably not from the same population with regard to a certain observable phenomenon. It does not say how large the difference is; thus, it is perfectly common for there to be a highly significant difference between two variables that, despite this, only accounts for less than 1% of the observed change in what you're studying. I think it is abundantly clear that this is the case with your bone density story.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Mt general thought is that most of your threads make a deductive leap that I am not fully convinced is valid. It is one thing to say that there are genetic markers that influence a trait. It is quite another thing to say that those genetic markers are distributed amongst the human population in a manner that just so happens to coincide with facial appearance, skin color, and the handful of other traits that are loosely categorized as a 'race'. That seems to be something that would happen very infrequently unless all races were strictly inbred, a situation that is far removed from reality. I work with mouse strains for vaccine research, and even under strict breeding conditions it's often quite difficult to maintain the simplest gene insertion or deletion over several generations. The genotype of homo sapiens is so diversified at this point in history that, beyond the simple visual cues that group people colloquially and socially, the distribution of phenotypes is much more likely to resemble massively nested, overlapping, interlocking Venn diagram of phenotypes that crisscross geographic boundaries, not a set discrete islands that conform to visible features. This is why it's easy to find greater differences within races than between races for so many traits.

Suppose, for a moment, that the genetic layout of our species were exactly the same as it is in reality, except for one thing: we all have typically Asian skin color and features. Every other genetic trait, from susceptibility to certain diseases to lactose intolerance, is distributed just as it is today. Would it make sense to carve up the population along racial lines? If everybody looked similar enough that you couldn't tell by looking at someone where their ancestors probably were born, would the idea of races as a meaningful genetic category persist? What other test would we use to tell which race someone was? Is it your opinion that there would be an identifiable population of individuals with the least intelligence and the densest bones, and that if they were returned to their original appearance they would all have dark skin? Or is your categorization biased by the convenience of identifying people based primarily on their appearance? These are serious problems with scientific racism.

Once you have addressed them, it still remains to be demonstrated that they should form the basis of public policy. As a scientist, I often encounter research that describes a statistically significant difference and stops there. Statistical significance only tells you that two samples are probably not from the same population with regard to a certain observable phenomenon. It does not say how large the difference is; thus, it is perfectly common for there to be a highly significant difference between two variables that, despite this, only accounts for less than 1% of the observed change in what you're studying. I think it is abundantly clear that this is the case with your bone density story.

Yes, I certainly don't mean to imply that genetic differences among the races are anything but probabilistic and fuzzy. The fuzziness of races absolutely must follow from the theory of evolution, inbreeding or not, and the fuzziness of races has always been commonly recognized among biologists both before Darwin (when the racial fuzziness was observed) and after Darwin (when the racial fuzziness became a theoretical requirement). As public policy typically requires absolute divisions, it would follow that the biology of race should generally be left out of public policy. In our everyday living, intermediate probabilities play an essential role. As a lifeguard, who do you pay more attention to: the white female teen or the black male teen? The black male teen is about nine times more likely to drown. Not that we should completely ignore the white female teen.

 

[ApostateAbe]

"...thus, it is perfectly common for there to be a highly significant difference between two variables that, despite this, only accounts for less than 1% of the observed change in what you're studying. I think it is abundantly clear that this is the case with your bone density story."

There are three apparent physiological racial differences that would cause differences in total body density: bone density, muscle mass and lung size. Two of these differences seemingly amount to the measured 1% body density differences (lung size, it turns out, was subtracted from the body density equations). It is a 1% difference with respect to zero. However, the relevant baseline is NOT zero, but the relevant baseline would be the typical density of water (1 g/mL), which means more like a 15% difference. Such differences magnify at the right-tail ends of the body density distributions, where it follows that 15 times as many black men as white men have an extra 5-pound gravity disadvantage (1 in 11 blacks vs. 1 in 170 whites).

 

[Malintent]

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.

^this^

Although I would say, far more important than 'ability to swim', is 'ability to stay afloat'... which is more a function of calmness than fitness. ability to swim aids self-rescue. Ability to float aids rescue of any kind.

 

[ApostateAbe]

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.

^this^

Although I would say, far more important than 'ability to swim', is 'ability to stay afloat'... which is more a function of calmness than fitness. ability to swim aids self-rescue. Ability to float aids rescue of any kind.

So, maybe only if there were group differences in staying afloat after taking in a full breath of air, then it would affect differences of group drowning rates?

 

[RavenSky]

^this^

Although I would say, far more important than 'ability to swim', is 'ability to stay afloat'... which is more a function of calmness than fitness. ability to swim aids self-rescue. Ability to float aids rescue of any kind.

So, maybe only if there were group differences in staying afloat after taking in a full breath of air, then it would affect differences of group drowning rates?

No, because if they have the ability to stay afloat, they aren't drowning.

If they do drown, there were other circumstances involved - panic (most likely), water temperature, knocked unconscious when they fell off the boat, etc.

 

[Canard DuJour]

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.

Ok, that's a respectable position.

Then yours isn't.

The point that body density differences would affect drowning differences (not to claim that it is the ONLY effect on differences, far from it) is a point I take to follow strongly from a simple understanding of physics and logic. If you drop a thousand random people in a lake a mile from the shore, random except a subset of them have an extra five pounds of platinum strapped to their bodies, then, yeah, it would affect drowning probabilities for sure between the two groups of people.

Nope, any such effect might well be statistically invisible. The few it affects wouldn't necessarily drown while far more poor/non-swimmers would be far more likely to drown regardless of body density. The ill, the intoxicated and victims of other accidents would be far more likely to drown. Indeed, when we compare known body density variation by age against drowning rates, there's no correlation or even a slight negative one. And the most at-risk group per capita is actually white.

It seems to do a lot explain not only the racial differences but the sex differences. Between the two sexes, the variables would be much fewer than between the two races, but the sex difference in drowning is threefold or fourfold.

Not at all. Most men and women attain positive buoyancy simply by inhalation, beyond which any additional mechanical effort required to stay afloat is nugatory. Anyone who wasn't desperate to push some point would expect more men than women to drown for same reason more men die in motorbike or moutaineering accidents.

The downer is that such a hypothesis concerning the effect of body density on drowning probability of any sort is not even acknowledged in the academic literature, let alone as a proposed cause of race differences or sex differences, perhaps because data does not exist that relates drowning to body density, one way or the other, as the collection of such data would be very difficult. Maybe the hypothesis would be either confirmed or falsified when there is an easy way to observe body density as a typical part of one's medical check-up or whatever.

It isn't in the academic literature because it sounds like a parody of something you'd post on the internet.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Very well, Canard, that will be the last word between you and me.

 

[GeorgeGEB]

My experience

If anyone has any other thoughts on the matter, I would be happy to hear them.

I am part black (My dad was black).

I grew up in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles. Was given a couple swimming lessons at a swim school as a child and had a neighbor with kids and a swimming pool that I was in often. I was bumped ahead from 2nd to 3rd grade so thereafter I was generally a year younger than everybody else in my grade level. I was also nearly the smallest in my grade.

In grade school I and another kid could do the most pull ups. Going into junior high summer school I remember a class where all the boys arm wrestled each other and I could beat everybody.

In junior high every year for gym period they gave us running and sit-up tests and divided us all into 3 classes based upon the results. I always easily qualified for the top of the 3 classes. And despite having asthma and like I said generally being the smallest in that class I was among the best middle distance runners.

When we rotated around to where the class was doing swimming though it was a whole different story. When it came to speed in swimming laps I was at the bottom of the class, along with all the black kids (almost all of whom were bused in).

A couple years out of college I signed up for a wind surfing class. We were required to go to a pool ahead of time and get signed off that we could tread water for a certain amount of time (My memory is hazy, but I believe it was for 2 minutes). I could not pass this simple test.

A buddy of mine used to recount a story of his Navy boot camp. They had one test where they were all required to jump into a pool. He says all the white boys jumped in and bobbed right up to the top. The black boys jumped in and sunk to the bottom.

A liberal cannot deny that on average, for example, Samoans are much bigger and taller than Japanese. But for some reason when it comes to differences that are not apparent to the eye, such as buoyancy, they do mental gymnastics to argue against any of the differences possibly being racially based. Somehow to them despite races evolving separately their arguments assume that the bell curves in any area are somehow magically the same, with differences being attributable only to "environment", "upbringing" and "culture" etc.

 

[ApostateAbe]

If anyone has any other thoughts on the matter, I would be happy to hear them.

I am part black (My dad was black).

I grew up in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles. Was given a couple swimming lessons at a swim school as a child and had a neighbor with kids and a swimming pool that I was in often. I was bumped ahead from 2nd to 3rd grade so thereafter I was generally a year younger than everybody else in my grade level. I was also nearly the smallest in my grade.

In grade school I and another kid could do the most pull ups. Going into junior high summer school I remember a class where all the boys arm wrestled each other and I could beat everybody.

In junior high every year for gym period they gave us running and sit-up tests and divided us all into 3 classes based upon the results. I always easily qualified for the top of the 3 classes. And despite having asthma and like I said generally being the smallest in that class I was among the best middle distance runners.

When we rotated around to where the class was doing swimming though it was a whole different story. When it came to speed in swimming laps I was at the bottom of the class, along with all the black kids (almost all of whom were bused in).

A couple years out of college I signed up for a wind surfing class. We were required to go to a pool ahead of time and get signed off that we could tread water for a certain amount of time (My memory is hazy, but I believe it was for 2 minutes). I could not pass this simple test.

A buddy of mine used to recount a story of his Navy boot camp. They had one test where they were all required to jump into a pool. He says all the white boys jumped in and bobbed right up to the top. The black boys jumped in and sunk to the bottom.

A liberal cannot deny that on average, for example, Samoans are much bigger and taller than Japanese. But for some reason when it comes to differences that are not apparent to the eye, such as buoyancy, they do mental gymnastics to argue against any of the differences possibly being racially based. Somehow to them despite races evolving separately their arguments assume that the bell curves in any area are somehow magically the same, with differences being attributable only to "environment", "upbringing" and "culture" etc.

Thanks for sharing, and welcome to the forum. Did you find this thread by doing a Google search? Are you interested in racial differences?

I have talked about this topic elsewhere on the Internet. It is always the white liberal groups, especially atheists, who react most strongly against this argument, or against talk of racial differences of any sort. This forum is to be commended for allowing such discussions, albeit restricted to the "Pseudoscience" poisoned well. The more common reactions of white liberals are not just venomous hatred but also censorship. They don't budge in their opinions even in the face of a strong mathematical physical argument, but this argument in their minds qualifies as just as bad as all the other "racist" arguments, if not worse (I have elsewhere argued with them about racial intelligence differences). It doesn't matter if the hypothesis would save black lives if it were correct, because to them that is just a cheap thin mask. My generation of whites was raised that way from a young age: all races are the same on the inside, and anyone who makes a point about racial differences beneath the skin is gullible, stupid and/or evil, like the KKK and the Nazis. Any apparent lack of stupidity must be accounted for by an increase in evil. The white liberals should be corrected for their error but not hated: ideology is a part of the human condition, something they did not choose, like any epidemic. They almost certainly will not change their minds, but they have not been completely useless. They helped me fully develop my own argument, and they helped me bring it to moderacy (I no longer think the chainsaw analogy is a good one).

So, I am aware of how this argument tends to be received among whites, but I am unsure of how it is received among blacks. Would it tend to be received with a similar level of hatred, in your opinion? Or would it be accepted as obvious? Or something else?

 

[exodiasrightleg]

The endgame of this being "Blacks shouldn't be swimming anyway". Funny how the endgame of "racial differences" is always "non-whites should be barred from doing something". Every. Single. Time.

 

[RavenSky]

Given that he claims to be half-"black", he has provided as much anecdotal support to your racist claim that blacks can't swim as he has to the idea that whites can't swim.

 

[exodiasrightleg]

A liberal cannot deny that on average, for example, Samoans are much bigger and taller than Japanese.

That doesn't seem to prevent the Japanese from forming good volleyball teams - taller and more capable than any Samoan team.