Should we even talk about this?

[GabonX]

For the record the picture of the white guy you posted shows him utilizing slow twitch muscle fibers as opposed to fast twitch muscle fibers.
You can read about the difference here.

I'm sorry (not really), but the statement "It is well established that people of African descent have a greater proportion of fast twitch muscle fibers," is wrong, and painfully obviously so. Even just the way you state these things makes it clear that you still don't know what the f*ck you are talking about.

Yes, it is well established that black people have a higher proportion of fast twitch muscle fibers. I'm surprised that someone who claims to be as knowledgeable on the topic of genetics doesn't know this..
Link 1
Link 2

The science thus far says the following: the differences between races as contributed by genetics are negligible. Black people are naturally darker, but white people can tan. The differences between the races are so minor that they can be, and should be, ignored for consideration in everyday life. The only time these differences are really noticed is at the very extremes of human possibility. If environmental conditions in Kenya for some reason contribute to long-distance running ability, then the best Kenyan runner might be able to consistently beat the best European or Asian distance runners, as well as other races from Africa, but by a margin that is exceedingly slim. The smartest Asian might be able to get a few points on whatever aptitude test on the smartest white guy (or gal), but it won't be much, and it won't mean jack shit for the rest of the race. Most people are average people, and we aren't as different from each other as you obviously enjoy thinking. As humans, we share all these genes amongst ourselves, and the limitations of our genes are not as great as you want them to be.

The problem is that your position is based off of opinion and speculation as opposed to non biased observation of history or science. People (yourself included) have an emotional reaction to this subject which clouds their ability to consider things rationally. There is an entire field of science (anthropology) which has mountains of data which shows that there are profound differences among peoples.

As for me wanting the differences between these groups to be greater than they are because I am racist as opposed to interpreting them for what they are, I'm going to refer you to a post I made some time ago:

I believe that most people never reach their potential in any given discipline. Most people would be excellent at most disciplines if they were to approach their potential in any one.

While the extent of a person's potential may be influenced by genetics and genetics follow the lines of race, there are individuals whose potential exceeds that of most people of their race.

Where my opinion differs from the Politically Correct perspective, is that I do not believe that all groups have the same general attributes as one another. This does not mean that one race is better at all things than another, but rather that most individuals of a given race may be more inclined to a particular discipline than most members of another. While a group may generally have lower potential than another in a given thing, they may be better at something else.

This is not completely relevant because individuals can defy the trends of their race and by the fact that bi-racial people exist.

Racial trends exist and there is a science devoted to the study of them:
Anthropology
More specifically Biological Anthropology

You should check this stuff out..If you think you can handle it :

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&start=30

[Neoteny]

For the record the picture of the white guy you posted shows him utilizing slow twitch muscle fibers as opposed to fast twitch muscle fibers.

lol quoted for posterity, from the quy pretending he knows what he's talking about.

I'm on my way out for the evening, so I can't reply in full. I'll get back to this treasure trove (assuming the rest is like the above) tomorrow.

[GabonX]

[Snorri1234]

For the record the picture of the white guy you posted shows him utilizing slow twitch muscle fibers as opposed to fast twitch muscle fibers.

[AAFitz]

This is a 89 Degree slope, on a glacier, on a rainy day.

If nothing else it will be interesting to see how it is handled.

I think the obvious problem with any study like this, is one...of course there will be differences found with different races.

The important thing, to always remember, is that a situation as it seems, is never strictly cause and effect. The environment, on any person, or any race, will always be important, and sometimes the most important factor.

I know more about the scientific world, and universe than any single person that lived 300 years ago. I certainly am not more intelligent than them, and know that a great many would be able to perhaps understand the data much quicker after being exposed, but unless they have access to the information, I will always know more than them. Nearly any person alive today, will know more than people that lived 300 years ago.

That does not mean we are more intelligent than people from 300 years ago, just better informed, possibly have better nutrition, and certainly have more time to spend and more access to information than they did.

This analogy will correlate to different races in a very real way.

At the same time, genes do obviously make every person somewhat more suited for one activity or another. One person is much better suited at birth to becoming a musician, and another a wrestler. It is ridiculous to suggest that at birth these two people could have switched their lives enough, and taken the other's place. Certainly some could possibly do it, but there's no way every musician ever had a chance at being a wrestler, and theres no chance every wrestler ever had a real chance at being a great musician.

People are genetically more inclined to some skills at birth, and no amount of socialization, education or nutrition can change that. Does that mean that some races, as a great whole might have some genetic advantage over others in some fields, the same way two individuals might have genetically different advantages???

Well, I guess thats the question they are trying to answer. However, I think that since on an individual basis, all the other factors will matter so much, that its simply dangerous to suggest it is because of the race that provides these advantages, because compared to the other factors, on an individual basis....any advantage will be vastly determined by the individual, and the environment, and since these factors cannot be truly eliminated...it does seem a glacier Im not about to jump on, because Im positive ill lose my footing, and that water below looks awfully cold.

[Neoteny]

I know it's been a while, but I found this in my saved drafts and figured I should finish it. If for no other reason than to explain to you that this beast is using fast-twitch fibers.

For the record the picture of the white guy you posted shows him utilizing slow twitch muscle fibers as opposed to fast twitch muscle fibers.
You can read about the difference here.

Magnus ver Magnussen is pulling a shit ton of weight. He is using fast-twitch fibers, or do you think he could do that for an hour without wearing down too much?

I'm sorry (not really), but the statement "It is well established that people of African descent have a greater proportion of fast twitch muscle fibers," is wrong, and painfully obviously so. Even just the way you state these things makes it clear that you still don't know what the f*ck you are talking about.

Yes, it is well established that black people have a higher proportion of fast twitch muscle fibers. I'm surprised that someone who claims to be as knowledgeable on the topic of genetics doesn't know this..
Link 1
Link 2

Were those links supposed to demonstrate that black people have a higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers? Because they don't... I'm all about reading some actual peer-reviewed papers though. So if the authors of those articles have something published, or can point you to someone who has (so you can show me), I'd be happy to look into that.

The science thus far says the following: the differences between races as contributed by genetics are negligible. Black people are naturally darker, but white people can tan. The differences between the races are so minor that they can be, and should be, ignored for consideration in everyday life. The only time these differences are really noticed is at the very extremes of human possibility. If environmental conditions in Kenya for some reason contribute to long-distance running ability, then the best Kenyan runner might be able to consistently beat the best European or Asian distance runners, as well as other races from Africa, but by a margin that is exceedingly slim. The smartest Asian might be able to get a few points on whatever aptitude test on the smartest white guy (or gal), but it won't be much, and it won't mean jack shit for the rest of the race. Most people are average people, and we aren't as different from each other as you obviously enjoy thinking. As humans, we share all these genes amongst ourselves, and the limitations of our genes are not as great as you want them to be.

The problem is that your position is based off of opinion and speculation as opposed to non biased observation of history or science. People (yourself included) have an emotional reaction to this subject which clouds their ability to consider things rationally. There is an entire field of science (anthropology) which has mountains of data which shows that there are profound differences among peoples.

I don't know where you got the idea that the field of anthropology supports your opinion that there are differences among peoples that can be scientifically generalized into races. It's fair enough to take my opinions as pure opinion and speculation as opposed to non-biased observation of history or science; you don't know what I do. Conveniently, I live with an anthropologist, however, she isn't really interested in explaining this to you. However, I have found a couple statements from prominent anthropological societies on race. I can predict your response (it's not science, it's based on politics), but I'm obligated to post them anyway. Give them a read.

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
http://www.physanth.org/association/pos ... ts-of-race

As for me wanting the differences between these groups to be greater than they are because I am racist as opposed to interpreting them for what they are, I'm going to refer you to a post I made some time ago:

I believe that most people never reach their potential in any given discipline. Most people would be excellent at most disciplines if they were to approach their potential in any one.

While the extent of a person's potential may be influenced by genetics and genetics follow the lines of race, there are individuals whose potential exceeds that of most people of their race.

Where my opinion differs from the Politically Correct perspective, is that I do not believe that all groups have the same general attributes as one another. This does not mean that one race is better at all things than another, but rather that most individuals of a given race may be more inclined to a particular discipline than most members of another. While a group may generally have lower potential than another in a given thing, they may be better at something else.

This is not completely relevant because individuals can defy the trends of their race and by the fact that bi-racial people exist.

Racial trends exist and there is a science devoted to the study of them:
Anthropology
More specifically Biological Anthropology

You should check this stuff out..If you think you can handle it :

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&start=30

Simply put, physical anthropology is not devoted to the study of racial trends. It's devoted to studying the broader context of the development of our species. This includes variation within our species. PA did, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, consider the study of race to be an important part of its field, but when it was determined that races are biologically irrelevant, they obviously stopped doing that. The important thing is that the consensus (not that you respect that anyway) is that race is a purely social construct (relegated to the field of "cultural anthropology," or, as I call them, sociologists). Your bastardization of anthropology to justify your flawed worldview is purely wishful thinking. You can claim political correctness all you want, but until you can actually show me studies (I'll take a statement from a scientific organization in their place), I have to side with the mainstream view on this one. In before Mankind Quarterly

[PLAYER57832]

You take ANY group of people, look hard enough and its highly likely you will find several traits that they share in common, simply by pure chance.

To be a valid racial criteria, you have to find distinct characteristics that are found within the group or that are more highly evident within the group than outside. However, in truth, there are almost no or even no traits that really apply in any consistant way to race, outside the probability of pure chance.

In other words, the characteristics ascribed to particular races can be explained by chance, rather than any real difference between them and other groups.