3 ms·
I agree that a more fine-grained classification is more useful. However, the fact that all the greatest long-distance endurance runners are of Kalenjin descent
by airgapstopgap 4y ago
I agree that a more fine-grained classification is more useful. However, the fact that all the greatest long-distance endurance runners are of Kalenjin descent (Nilotic race) tells us next to nothing about any other trait. All the best sprinters are also Africans – but predominantly of Bantu ancestry, pretty diverse in this case. As are most NBA stars, and the great proportion of other athletes defined by a rather obvious subset of physical excellences linked to fast-twitch muscle fibers. At the same time, somehow no Bantu group excels in swimming.
So using this method of yours, we derive that a great deal of a people belonging to a major race can have a similar ability profile in sports. Not too good for your argument.
If you have to refer to non-central examples, this only shows that your actual case is weak.
- tchaffee 4y agoIt's not that more fine-grained classification is useful, it's that race is not a useful biological classification. To build upon your own example, neither skin color nor running ability nor what continent you came from can be used to tell us about other traits. But I'll let Princeton sociologist Dalton Conely explain to you what you're getting wrong about the science. https://nautil.us/what-both-the-left-and-right-get-wrong-about-race-236629/ https://nautil.us/what-both-the-left-and-right-get-wrong-abo...