Army of GOD wrote: BigBallinStalin wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?
Is it a coincidence that the American basketball team always dominates all the non-American teams during the Olympics? I think not; therefore, the Americans are intrinsically more athletic than non-Americans.
Let me introduce you to my friend logical fallacy. I think you two would make a great pair. I'm sure you've already met.
Aren't you homogenizing individuals, who might not share the exact same (or general set of) characteristics, into one group (e.g. "black" or "white")?
I used "American" v. "Non-American." You used "black" v. "white." Obviously, mine is false, but by analogy, the black v. white is false for similar reasons.
So... what does it mean to be "black" (or, "American")? Is it some set of genes? Is it merely skin color? Or is there such an exact thing?
If it's genetic, then what type of genes are generally held by whites and by blacks (Am. v. Non-Am, and etc.)?
(Then what about children from interracial couples? How shall they be lumped into the homogenous groupings of black v. white?)
If you can't answer these, then you should be skeptical about your hypothesis, and this criticism applies to the following as well:
And how does the black v. white causal relationship account for other important causes, e.g. culture, upbringing, etc.?
(Your explanation does not. It simply serves as a cover-all without explaining the variance caused by important variables. It's just as 'useful' as my "American" v. "Non-American" explanation. All you can factually say is that there's more blacks than whites who play professional basketball. But as soon as you stress that causal relationship, you have to be able to account for the causes.)
For example, compared to white kids, what proportion of black kids grow up playing basketball while having black, athletic role models in mind? Is this self-reinforcing among the homogenous group of "black"? If so, then this would disproportionally expand the pool of potentially professional, black basketball players. (so, it may not be the case that blacks are intrinsically more suited to performing better in basketball due to some alleged, physical advantage. It may be simply be the case that more blacks apply to the basketball profession).
Then there's the broader issue of how the youth of either group perceive expected profits (monetary and psychological) compared to the relative opportunities. If white kids in general have more perceived opportunities for advancing themselves in whatever fashion compared to black kids, then it should be no surprise that there's less white kids striving to become professional basketball players.
The econometric project would have to hold constant income bracket of the families, geographic regions, genetic make-up, skin color, expectations, etc., etc.
If your hypothesis can't explain the above, then we can reasonably doubt its veracity or simply discard it.