95LawAg said:

---

What test was used to measure intelligence of that population? How was it designed to account for cultural, socioeconomic, and other factors?

Again, what is the minimum requirement for the US military? The ASVAB is not an IQ test. The AFQT is not an IQ test, but it is roughly correlated to an average intellgence range. The bottom 10% of AFQT takers are considered ineligible for military service based upon that exam. Any correlation of the results of an unrelated exam given to a group of sub-Saharan Africans to the results of a group of mostly Americans taking the ASVAB is wading far into speculative territory.

Do I disagree that individuals below a certain intelligence level aren't suitable, or even appropriate for military service? Of course not. Our military needs certain standards, and I also don't want it to be become a mechanism to dispose of low IQ members of our population.

That video talks nothing about race or genetics. So, I won't address that relative to the video.

So, moving away from the video, how does measuring a population in one part of the world (dominated by poverty, drought, disease, conflict, poor education, etc.) demonstrate a lower average IQ for the entire race? If race is the case, then middle and upper class Africans and their descendents living in places like England, Canada, Sweden, Italy, and the US with better access to education, better healthcare, less disease, less frequent war, should also test poorly on IQ exams. Otherwise, you are measuring environmental factors and not genetics or race.

---

Of course but the ASVAB, SAT, LSAT, MCAT and other standardized test are correlated to the average intelligence of the test taker. It is why when schools admit lower scoring students based on race they largely underperform their classmates. Surely, you experienced this in law school? Especially if you attended an elite law school.

As to the bolded, their IQs are still lower than their white, asian, and jewish counterparts even in western nations. But they are higher in western nations because of environmental factors and self selection, and because of those factors are closer to actualizing their potential, but their ceiling is still lower than the other aforementioned groups due to heredity.

And the black population still has scorers on the right side of the bell curve and those unsurprisingly tend to be the upperclass representatives of their race but as a population they score lower than other races due to heredity.

Obviously IQ is heredity based not race based but heredity is strongly enough correlated with heredity to be used as close proxy. But we are talking populations, not individuals. There are idiots and geniuses in every race.

I have a huge Indian family and getting the group to do something at a set time is a huge struggle.

Again, great people, but just two different mindsets. Thankfully, a couple of uncles and the younger cousins have a more Western sense of time and they round up everyone, albeit often hours late.

Watching the video it reminded me of buying some ebony wood in the market. I bought a raw block of it about 3" x 5" x 12". I aslo bought a carved piece made roughly out the same size block. It must have taken hours upon hours to carve.

The price of the raw and finished blocks we the exact same. The seller put no value on his time (or skill).

some very interesting reading from Univeristy of Delaware
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

Section 11: Mean RaceIQ Differences and Human Origins
The currently most commonly accepted view of human origins, the "Out-of-
Africa" theory, posits that Homo sapiens arose in Africa about 150,000 years ago,
expanded northward beyond Africa about 100,000 years ago, with a European
East Asian split about 41,000 years ago (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994; Stringer &
McKie, 1996). In Cavalli-Sforza's (2000) maximum likelihood tree devised on
the basis of molecular genetic markers, the most distant group was the Africans,
with Europeans and Asians being closer. Cavalli-Sforza observed, "All world
trees place the earliest split between Africans and non-Africans, which is expected
given that all humans originated in Africa" (p. 72). This is also the conclusion of
other reviewers (e.g., Risch et al., 2002).
Evolutionary selection pressures were different in the hot savanna where Africans lived than in the cold northern regions Europeans experienced, or the
even colder Arctic regions of East Asians. These ecological differences affected
not only morphology but also behavior. It has been proposed that the farther north
the populations migrated out of Africa, the more they encountered the cognitively
demanding problems of gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, making
clothes, and raising children successfully during prolonged winters (Rushton,
2000). As these populations evolved into present-day Europeans and East Asians,
the ecological pressures selected for larger brains, slower rates of maturation, and
lower levels of testosteronewith concomitant reductions in sexual potency,
aggressiveness, and impulsivity; increases in family stability, advanced planning,
self-control, rule following, and longevity; and the other characteristics listed in
Table 3. The fact that the three-way pattern in IQ, brain size, and other traits is not
unique to the United States but occurs internationally is consistent with a single,
general (geneticevolutionary) theory, whereas culture-only theory must invoke a
number of highly localized, specific explanations.


https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

I had a prof at A&M who had worked for some governmental agency that was trying to "win hearts" during the Vietnam War aftermath or during it, I don't recall. But his team brought a new strain of rice that tripled harvests and had a much shorter growing season. Meaning they wouldn't be nearing starvation until the next harvest arrived.

They convinced a few villages to try the new rice strain. The rice performed as expected by the villagers became completely discombobulated. Their festivals and culture were centered on planting and harvesting seasons. They were not culturally equipped to do that three times a year each. Weddings and other social events were scheduled during the original down time between planting and harvest. Those periods of time were also contracted.

They were not starving but culturally, just could not make that adjustment back then.

While we are on the subject of Africa, the AIDs epidemic there was a similar example of culture. Use of condoms during sex was not culturally acceptable for a very long time. No cure nor very effective treatments back then, so prevention was the only way to short circuit the progress of the disease. That didn't work well.

I think it is simpler than that. Every $10 of aid, $9 goes to the aid agency (for internal distribution. i.e. payoffs), $0.99 goes the the local war lords (etc) and $0.01 goes to the people who need it (if they are lucky)

doubledog said:

---

I think it is simpler than that. Every $10 of aid, $9 goes to the aid agency (for internal distribution. i.e. payoffs), $0.99 goes the the local war lords (etc) and $0.01 goes to the people who need it (if they are lucky)

---

You are likely correct.

Your post again makes assumptions not supported by any evidence. I can just as easily say, and believe, that the differences in standardized testing aren't due to genetics or race, but environmental factors like education, socioeconomics, culture, etc.

Please provide me some evidence that shows race, and not environmental factors, is even a basis, let alone the basis, for the difference in average scores.

I know you want real hard for this to be true, so I'm counting on you to bring some real, credible scientific evidence to the table. Otherwise, you're just waving your hands and being loud. Sometimes that works in court, with the right jury and poor opposing counsel, but not in credible science.

Apollo79 said:

---

White tried to civilized but got kicked out

---

Did "white" try to educate how to write correctly?

Obligstory

YOU LIVE IN A DESERT!!!!!

This study has also been widely discredited for several reasons. Rather than regurgitate them, I'll just provide this citation as one of the rebuttals.

Richard E. Nisbett & Colleagues (2009) Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments

Earl Hunt, mentioned in the video posted earlier, also rebuts their assertions in his Human Intelligence book.

Tom Fox said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

What test was used to measure intelligence of that population? How was it designed to account for cultural, socioeconomic, and other factors?

Again, what is the minimum requirement for the US military? The ASVAB is not an IQ test. The AFQT is not an IQ test, but it is roughly correlated to an average intellgence range. The bottom 10% of AFQT takers are considered ineligible for military service based upon that exam. Any correlation of the results of an unrelated exam given to a group of sub-Saharan Africans to the results of a group of mostly Americans taking the ASVAB is wading far into speculative territory.

Do I disagree that individuals below a certain intelligence level aren't suitable, or even appropriate for military service? Of course not. Our military needs certain standards, and I also don't want it to be become a mechanism to dispose of low IQ members of our population.

That video talks nothing about race or genetics. So, I won't address that relative to the video.

So, moving away from the video, how does measuring a population in one part of the world (dominated by poverty, drought, disease, conflict, poor education, etc.) demonstrate a lower average IQ for the entire race? If race is the case, then middle and upper class Africans and their descendents living in places like England, Canada, Sweden, Italy, and the US with better access to education, better healthcare, less disease, less frequent war, should also test poorly on IQ exams. Otherwise, you are measuring environmental factors and not genetics or race.

---

Of course but the ASVAB, SAT, LSAT, MCAT and other standardized test are correlated to the average intelligence of the test taker. It is why when schools admit lower scoring students based on race they largely underperform their classmates. Surely, you experienced this in law school? Especially if you attended an elite law school.

As to the bolded, their IQs are still lower than their white, asian, and jewish counterparts even in western nations. But they are higher in western nations because of environmental factors and self selection, and because of those factors are closer to actualizing their potential, but their ceiling is still lower than the other aforementioned groups due to heredity.

And the black population still has scorers on the right side of the bell curve and those unsurprisingly tend to be the upperclass representatives of their race but as a population they score lower than other races due to heredity.

Obviously IQ is heredity based not race based but heredity is strongly enough correlated with heredity to be used as close proxy. But we are talking populations, not individuals. There are idiots and geniuses in every race.

---

He might have lived in Law Hall at A&M...

Or not...

95LawAg said:

---

Your post again makes assumptions not supported by any evidence. I can just as easily say, and believe, that the differences in standardized testing aren't due to genetics or race, but environmental factors like education, socioeconomics, culture, etc.

Please provide me some evidence that shows race, and not environmental factors, is even a basis, let alone the basis, for the difference in average scores.

I know you want real hard for this to be true, so I'm counting on you to bring some real, credible scientific evidence to the table. Otherwise, you're just waving your hands and being loud. Sometimes that works in court, with the right jury and poor opposing counsel, but not in credible science.

---

Read publications from clinical psychologists like Jordan Peterson. Hell read the bell curve. Virtually everyone agrees that heredity is a component of IQ, they just differ on the amount.

I'll make it easy for you, search LSAT score distributions by race. SAT, MCAT, GMAT, GRE. How many blacks score a 170+ on the LSAT? It is shockingly low.

Here are profs from my law school alma matter lamenting the problem. Anyone with eyes knows the truth but there is not money to be made researching this anymore because they will be labeled racists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/georgetown-law-professor-under-fire-comments-about-black-students-performance-n1260559

Just curious, where did you attend law school?

6 months from now doesn't matter as much when your problem solving tacitc for your present circumstances leans towards "stop being in this spot." That is a consequence of the environment of Africa where drought kills crops, rainy season kills crops, and there is no significant winter.

Mom is stupid, because she had poor nutrition as a child, and her mom had poor nutrition when she carried her, and her mate had poor nutrition when he inseminated her, and on and on. It's exacerbated by culture/opportunity/the fact that everyone around them had the same issues. The mean global IQ is estimated to be around 70 in 1920, it rose because more people went from being malnourished to not malnourished.


My guess is, if AI is as real as the people that praise it say it is, that Africa's mean IQ will rise as a consequence due to better access to nutrition and education and the western world's IQ will fall as a consequence due to offloading more of their intellectual demands to computers.

chico said:

---

Rwanda has done quite well since the genocide of 1994 (after receiving financial assistance afterward, which helped with their recovery). I visited in 2014, actually biking border-to-border. The roads were clean and safe. Little crime to speak of (I certainly always felt safe throughout). There are many genocide memorials and signs and reminders to younger people today about the atrocities. They welcome many eco-tourists. Their economy isn't western Europe, but it's certainly better than many of their neighbors. edit - and their coffee and pineapples are terrific (it's the volcanic soil like in Hawaii).

---

You might want to do some googling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo%E2%80%93Rwanda_conflict_(2022%E2%80%932025)

https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/violence-democratic-republic-congo

95LawAg said:

---

Let me know when y'all can provide credible scientific evidence to support your position that race and genetics are responsible for different levels of intelligence. The Holiday Inn Express approach is lacking.

Shocking that rural Africans might not pass an intelligence exam designed by Americans to be taken by Americans for measuring suitability for joining an American military organization. Can you tell me about the design and contents of that exam? And how it accounts for cultural, language, and other biases?

---

Stating the obvious based on verifiable, visual and physical facts is not racist, it is reality, whether you like it or not. Substantially all of non-Arab Africa is a s***hole, and not just by happenstance, but due to lack of law and order, work ethic, nuclear families, caring for your children and working to give them a better life, respect for human dignity, equal rights for women and minorities, minimal emphasis on education, general lack of scientific inquiry, etc., as opposed to laziness, greed, corruption, lust, apathy/indifference to their state of affairs, etc.

Call it whatever you want, like it or not, but that does not change reality. There are certain cultures in other parts of the world and even this country that are the same.

Not saying my or the average American ethos and morals and general outlook and viewpoint are better, but it damned sure leads to a more comfortable life and pleasurable existence.

95LawAg said:

---

This study has also been widely discredited for several reasons. Rather than regurgitate them, I'll just provide this citation as one of the rebuttals.

Richard E. Nisbett & Colleagues (2009) Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments

Earl Hunt, mentioned in the video posted earlier, also rebuts their assertions in his Human Intelligence book.

---

Is the domination of short sprints by people of western African descent in no way due to genetics? What about overrepresentation in the world's strongest man competitions of men from Iceland or Nordic countries?

I understand that it is distasteful to many people to contemplate the idea that there are inherent differences at the margins among ethnic groups. That does not mean it is impossible that intellectual capacity, like lifting heavy things and running fast, also have a genetic component. In fact, it could be argued that it is fairly likely to be the case to at least some extent. Of course, even if true, this is not an excuse to judge an individual based on statistical distributions among a group to which he belongs.

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

This study has also been widely discredited for several reasons. Rather than regurgitate them, I'll just provide this citation as one of the rebuttals.

Richard E. Nisbett & Colleagues (2009) Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments

Earl Hunt, mentioned in the video posted earlier, also rebuts their assertions in his Human Intelligence book.

---

Is the domination of short sprints by people of western African descent in no way due to genetics? What about overrepresentation in the world's strongest man competitions of men from Iceland or Nordic countries?

I understand that it is distasteful to many people that there are inherent differences at the margins among ethnic groups. That does not mean it is impossible that intellectual capacity, like lifting heavy things and running fast, also have a genetic component. In fact, it could be argued that it is fairly likely to be the case to at least some extent. Of course, even if true, this is not an excuse to judge an individual based on statistical distributions among a group to which he belongs.

---

The answer is obvious.

Genetics is the main driver of IQ, how can people not know this?

Perhaps they could use an expert on Africa and fiscal policy. I understand this renowned economist is job hunting.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/timely-topics/women-in-economics/lisa-cook

Quote:

---

She talks with Maria Hasenstab, senior media relations specialist at the St. Louis Fed, about discovering economics while climbing Mount Kilimanjaro. Cook also discusses how she overcame biases she faced as a woman and as an African-American, and her research showing GDP could be higher if more women and African-Americans were involved at the beginning of the innovative process.

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Perhaps they could use an expert on Africa and fiscal policy. I understand this renowned economist is job hunting.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/timely-topics/women-in-economics/lisa-cook

Quote:

---

She talks with Maria Hasenstab, senior media relations specialist at the St. Louis Fed, about discovering economics while climbing Mount Kilimanjaro. Cook also discusses how she overcame biases she faced as a woman and as an African-American, and her research showing GDP could be higher if more women and African-Americans were involved at the beginning of the innovative process.

---

---

She's now free to go innovate.

Yikes




In short, NOTHING. Raising IQ is not really a thing, but you can stop it from dropping

Blacks scoring lower on exams doesn't mean they are scoring lower because they are black. That is an assumption that overrides multiple environmental factors previously mentioned.

I have not read The Bell Curve, but my understanding is thst it is based on studies I have read which have been widely rebutted by other studies, some of which I have read. Despite that, I understand that the book only asserts that race, absent other factors, could be a factor, but that the issue remains unresolved. So, even this book concedes that the authors' opinion is just that.

The authors' primary sources, Ruston and Lynn, who I have read, are generally regarded as biased and their studies have been discredited, as discussed previously.

I will concede that, while race has not been conclusively shown to be a factor in intellgence, and also has not been definitively ruled out. That's largely because proving either premise may remain nearly impossible due to the vast range of environmental factors that would have to be ruled out. Until race can be shown conclusively as factor in intelligence, I'll carry on with the belief that those of other races are as capable of high intellgence as whites. That seems like a much better way to live life than to assume my race makes me better than others.

I went to Baylor Law.

this section in your first study demonstrates they are doing some gymnastics to prove a point. They had just finished a section talking about socioeconomic status and its effect on IQ and how only once you get to upper ses can you see the difference genetics plays in IQ. But then they drop this and try to explain it away

Another way to estimate the
relative importance of genes and environment is to com-
pare the correlation between adopted children's IQ and that
of their birth parents with the correlation between adopted
children's IQ and that of their adoptive parents. The former
correlation is generally higher than the latter, sometimes
much higher. Many have concluded on the basis of such
findings that environments are relatively unimportant in
determining IQ, since variations in the environments of
adoptive families are not very highly associated with vari-
ation in children's IQ. But work by Stoolmiller (1999)
shows that estimates of the relative contributions of genes
and environment may be very sensitive to the inclusion of
disadvantaged populations in a given study. Adoption stud-
ies may tend to underestimate the role of environment and
overstate the role of genetics due to the restricted social
class range of adoptive homes. Adoptive families are generally of relatively high SES. Moreover, observation of
family settings by the HOME technique (Home Observa-
tion for Measurement of the Environment; Bradley et al.,
1993; Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Crane,
1998) shows that the environments of adoptive families are
much more supportive of intellectual growth than are those
of nonadoptive families. The restriction of range (as much
as 70% in some studies; Stoolmiller, 1999) means that the
possible magnitude of correlations between adoptive par-
ents' IQ and that of their children is curtailed.


Not only that, but to your point about them rebutting the source i cited. it is only tangentially mentioned as having tried to replicate an earlier study, which they determined was inconclusive.

95LawAg said:

---

What test was used to measure intelligence of that population? How was it designed to account for cultural, socioeconomic, and other factors?

Again, what is the minimum requirement for the US military? The ASVAB is not an IQ test. The AFQT is not an IQ test, but it is roughly correlated to an average intellgence range. The bottom 10% of AFQT takers are considered ineligible for military service based upon that exam. Any correlation of the results of an unrelated exam given to a group of sub-Saharan Africans to the results of a group of mostly Americans taking the ASVAB is wading far into speculative territory.

Do I disagree that individuals below a certain intelligence level aren't suitable, or even appropriate for military service? Of course not. Our military needs certain standards, and I also don't want it to be become a mechanism to dispose of low IQ members of our population.

That video talks nothing about race or genetics. So, I won't address that relative to the video.

So, moving away from the video, how does measuring a population in one part of the world (dominated by poverty, drought, disease, conflict, poor education, etc.) demonstrate a lower average IQ for the entire race? If race is the case, then middle and upper class Africans and their descendents living in places like England, Canada, Sweden, Italy, and the US with better access to education, better healthcare, less disease, less frequent war, should also test poorly on IQ exams. Otherwise, you are measuring environmental factors and not genetics or race.

---

Uhhh….you might start your explanation by the fact that that "part of the world is dominated by poverty, drought, disease, conflict, poor education, etc."…and it's homogenous.

No one says your race makes you better because you are conflating individuals vs populations. But it is obvious that heredity plays a significant role in IQ and heredity is correlated with race.

The same as other genetic traits like athletic ability. You can try to pretend it does not exist but it will not simply go away and will be definitively proven as science advances.

But even that doesn't address what we do about it, if anything.

Now is the time where someone brings up the book guns germs, and steel.

most of his assertions are demonstrably wrong. For example there's not an animal in Africa that can be domesticated. And on top of that, there's no reason to domesticate animals because nobody had invented the wheel.

But on at least three occasions, people have tamed zebras in a single generation to pull carts.


His arguments about rivers are ridiculous and don't stand up to examination


I don't recall his argument for why it's not Africa's fault that they never invented a written language, but I do recall it being ridiculous

We can go a step further and just point out that whites don't have the highest IQ. So if it was really a racist system, that would have a different outcome.

Tom Fox said:

---

No one says your race makes you better because you are conflating individuals vs populations. But it is obvious that heredity plays a significant role in IQ and heredity is correlated with race.

The same as other genetic traits like athletic ability. You can try to pretend it does not exist but it will not simply go away and will be definitely proven as science advances.

But even that doesn't address what we do about it, if anything.

---

This is exactly right. I have a feeling 95LawAg would have no problem making the RACIST statement that black people are, on average, more athletically gifted than the average white person. That's true across the world. If asked, it would be impossible for him to explain it on any basis other than genetics and heredity. But IQ? Somehow that just can't be true…despite it playing out exactly the same way across the world.

It's obvious that Native Americans and blacks are inferior in this regard. If they weren't, they wouldn't have been living like it was 5000 B.C. at a time when Western Europe had running water and indoor plumbing. They also wouldn't have been taken over by those same people.

Africa is the most resource rich continent in the planet, and yet…

And Jimmy The Greek was ostracized for saying the truth.

95LawAg said:

---

Let me know when y'all can provide credible scientific evidence to support your position that race and genetics are responsible for different levels of intelligence. The Holiday Inn Express approach is lacking.

Shocking that rural Africans might not pass an intelligence exam designed by Americans to be taken by Americans for measuring suitability for joining an American military organization. Can you tell me about the design and contents of that exam? And how it accounts for cultural, language, and other biases?

---

If the reason sub Saharan Africans all do poorly on IQ tests is because they are designed by Americans, then why are the highest average scores found in the Far East?

Last time I checked, they aren't Americans.

The average IQ score in Sub Saharan Africa is below 70.

There are A LOT of these result, which have been reproduced many times over, by many different respected organizations in the field.

They are easy to find if you're really interested. I'm not doing it for you.

But you will just claim they don't count for whatever reason.

If you have a functioning set of eyeballs and can breathe, you can see the truth validated all around you.

You're just offended by the truth, for whatever reason.

Everything you mentioned in there is about culture. Your take on their culture from the perspective of your own culture. I can almost guarantee you that the people of North Sentinel Island want no part of our culture, and vice versa for most Americans. You can point to seemingly objective measurements like lifespan or frequency of conflict, but those elements my have different significance in other cultures. Staying on Earth as long as possible isn't as important in some cultures, or staying on Earth in their current form. Better to get to heaven or to come back in some better form. Participating in conflict is critical to some cultures for hierarchy, divine recognition, etc. Thankfully, peace is generally more important to our culture. This isn't condoning things like rape, pedophilia, etc. Those things are abhorrent to me. But, should we invade and overtake North Sentinel Island if we discover they marry at 13? The response to that is likely predictable based upon people's belief in Christianity and our role in spreading perceived "universal morals" to the world.

Regardless of your thoughts on all that, none of what you said is about "racial genetics" to the exclusion of cultural factors. That being black, no matter where you are born, into what class, or with whatever access to healthcare and education, you are inherently less likely to have the same intelligence capability as white people because of genetics.

Regarding genetics, and I meant to address this earlier, there are verifiable genetic traits that limit intellectual ability. We can trace those to known genetic deficiencies or defects, or to substance use or injuries. Those related to genetic causes can be and frequently are hereditary. We have not identified any genetic deficiency in other races that causes lower intellectual ability. Given the vast, vast similarities in DNA amongst all humans, I believe that is highly unlikely, which is part of my position in this discussion.

I always just assumed it was stolen by some combination of thugs and politicians. I know for a fact some of it does some good tho because I witnessed it when I worked in Equatorial Guinea. Oil companies provided good jobs for some locals and also distributed anti-malarial medications.

samurai_science said:

---

Genetics is the main driver of IQ, how can people not know this?

---

Genetics is the main driver of every physical trait we have as human beings.

I think everybody here agrees that genetics determines all kinds of things amongst the races.

Height, bone structure, lung size, disease resistance...

Literally nobody I've ever met argues this.

So what I'd like to know is why does heredity and genetics determine every single aspect of our physical being EXCEPT IQ?

The answer is that does indeed contribute the greatest influence to IQ and brain development.

Unless that reality makes you feel funny and you just simply don't want to believe it.

Jack Boyette said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

No one says your race makes you better because you are conflating individuals vs populations. But it is obvious that heredity plays a significant role in IQ and heredity is correlated with race.

The same as other genetic traits like athletic ability. You can try to pretend it does not exist but it will not simply go away and will be definitely proven as science advances.

But even that doesn't address what we do about it, if anything.

---

This is exactly right. I have a feeling 95LawAg would have no problem making the RACIST statement that black people are, on average, more athletically gifted than the average white person. That's true across the world. If asked, it would be impossible for him to explain it on any basis other than genetics and heredity. But IQ? Somehow that just can't be true…despite it playing out exactly the same way across the world.

It's obvious that Native Americans and blacks are inferior in this regard. If they weren't, they wouldn't have been living like it was 5000 B.C. at a time when Western Europe had running water and indoor plumbing. They also wouldn't have been taken over by those same people.

Africa is the most resource rich continent in the planet, and yet…

---

Yeah, if I see one more Ethiopian or Kenyan in the 100m Olympic finals, I'm throwing out my tv.

And all those black high jump medalists? Crazy. Everybody knows white men can't jump.

Don't get me started on all the Irish QBs in the NFL. Cause almost all QBs are white. See how absurd this starts to get?

Sprinters are mostly from West African heritage. Not many from the countries I mentioned. If it's just race, why aren't blacks from all countries especially fast? Why aren't whites from all countries good at American football? As for high jumpers, that's more closely related to Jimmy the Greeks dumbass comment. There aren't many black swimmers, but it's not because they can't swim or wouldn't be good at it. It's because, like high jumping, you don't find a big priority placed on swimming pools or high jumping pits in poor countries or poor neighborhoods. Swimming pools are expensive to staff, maintain, and operate. And, if you find one in a lower income neighborhood, coaching up the best swimmer isn't what its used for. It's a social gathering place. It's not a part of the typical lower income culture culture.

We're seeing the same issue is American soccer where the USMNT is largely populated by middle and upper class kids who can afford soccer camps, traveling soccer clubs, and tournament fees. Thst has been acknowledged and there is an effort to balance things out with scholarships and waivers, but it remains an issue. In America, and admittedly some other wealthy countries, "the world's sport" is played mostly by those with the means rather than those who might be better but dont have access. (And yes, this clearly isn't the only factor affecting global success for US Soccer, but it is a significant one.)