www.slate.com/.../
In a nutshell
"Anthropometric measurements of large populations show that systematic differences exist among blacks, whites and Asians. The published evidence is massive: blacks have longer limbs than whites, and because blacks have longer legs and smaller circumferences (e.g. calves and arms), their center of mass is higher than that in other individuals of the same height. Asians and whites have longer torsos, therefore their centers of mass are lower.
These structural differences, they argue, generate differences in performance. Using equations about the physics of locomotion, they analyze racing as a process of falling forward. Based on this analysis, they conclude that having a higher center of body mass in a standing position is advantageous in running but disadvantageous in swimming."
So if I am to do a study on melanoma risk, should I just look at everyone and take an average? Never mind the fact that there are dark skinned African Americans and pale skinned Irish Americans in the study. But they live in the same area, so I guess we should group them all together.
No, you treat each patient individually. Their ethnic heritage is just one aspect to look at. Depending on the condition you might need to inquire into their diet, whether or not they smoke, etc.
I am feeling like this discussion belongs in the same place as the one about Immigration in Arizona--taken down by the moderators. Should we even get in to the discussion about how "science" is as socially constructed as any other discipline and is impacted by the thinking of the time, etc.?
Enough already.
The problem is not in the discussion, it is in the uncivilized reactions from a minority. Reactions from people who either don't understand the topic well or who are trying to prove their "I'm not racist"ness. In the case of Lefty, probably a little of both.
Your comment on science being socially constructed is interesting. You were probably trying to make the point that we shouldn't believe everything science says. Has it occurred to you that you might, in fact, be doing exactly what you are criticizing? Discounting a scientific finding based on your social consciousness? Science in its purest form looks at facts, uses statistical methods to determine the significance of findings, and disregards the fact that the results may upset someone.
If a study shows black children to be at lower risk for urinary tract infections (kids in the same population by the way), should this information be kept in a vault so as not to piss off the Lefties in this world? Should we never mention the higher melanoma risk to caucasians? I'm not even sure what is being argued here anymore. This is like discussing whether the earth is round or flat.
I am curious on how others 400M compares to their 100LCM and whether your built like a runner or swimmer according to the study referenced in this article (high or low center of mass). My run was 5 seconds slower and I have a high center of mass.
For the record I don't think you're a racist, taruky, and I realize this is largely a question of semantics. Absolutely differences in people exist and need to be recognized. My only issue is with trying to group people into races. You mentioned Filipinos and African Americans. Are these races or ethnic groups? I prefer to think of them as the latter.
Former Member
There is plenty of relevance to putting people into "finite buckets". So if I am to do a study on melanoma risk, should I just look at everyone and take an average? Never mind the fact that there are dark skinned African Americans and pale skinned Irish Americans in the study. But they live in the same area, so I guess we should group them all together.
How about a blond, straight haired patient comes to me with severe back pain. Am I supposed to be color-blind and give strong consideration to the possibility that he is having a sickle cell crisis? Because he lives in the same population as African Americans.
Or how about a child who is neurologically degenerating. Is the fact that he is of Ashkenazi Jewish background irrelevant?
exactly
We are clearly getting away from what is really important in this discussion: my sperm count of 965,000,000 and what the women of USMS can do to help increase it.
Obviously certain genes and disease processes are more prevalent within different ethic groups, and clinical trials must reflect this. The point is that the concept of race as we know it is not a scientifically sound way to categorize humans and has been abused throughout our history (eg the Aryan race).
You are a prime offender of this very thing, mocking me for my love of the NASCAR race. Shame on you.
We are clearly getting away from what is really important in this discussion: my sperm count of 965,000,000 and what the women of USMS can do to help increase it.
Why not shoot for a billion?
For most men, women tend to decrease sperm count. At least temporarily.
Back to the real topic. Here is another take on running vs. swimming:
www.latimes.com/.../la-he-swimming-20100719,0,6313213.story
For most men, women tend to decrease sperm count. At least temporarily.
www.latimes.com/.../la-he-swimming-20100719,0,6313213.story
Ah, but the anticipation of women increases it. Especially those who we in the animal husbandry world refer to as novelty stimulus females, who are capable of inducing the Coolidge Effect:
One day the President and Mrs. Coolidge were visiting a government farm. Soon after their arrival they were taken off on separate tours. When Mrs. Coolidge passed the chicken pens she paused to ask the man in charge if the rooster copulates more than once each day. "Dozens of times" was the reply. "Please tell that to the President," Mrs. Coolidge requested. When the President passed the pens and was told about the rooster, he asked 'Same hen every time?" "Oh no, Mr. President, a different one each time." The President nodded slowly, then said, "Tell that to Mrs. Coolidge."
--A possibly true, possibly apocryphal anecdote widely related as a joke in the 1950's.
... In the 1940's and early 1950's, animal husbandry researchers trying to improve artificial insemination techniques in cattle made an interesting discovery. While attempting to increase semen production in prize-winning bulls, they learned what countless farmers had no doubt observed firsthand for millennia--that a bull apparently exhausted by sex will immediately find his vigor and sperm count restored to full potency if he is given a fresh cow to mate with. By continually bringing in new mates as soon as the bull's interest in a given cow begins to flag, the researchers could stimulate the bull into intromitting for days. This same behavior was soon found to exist in a host of mammalian species, from goats to rats to chimpanzees.
Originally, the phenomenon was known in the scientific literature as the Novelty Effect. But in the early 50's, two experimental psychologists, inspired by the famous presidential anecdote, casually referred to it at a scientific meeting as the Coolidge Effect. They expected to stimulate some laughter or at least some curiosity from their stolid peers. But evidently, everyone had heard the story already, and not so much as an eyebrow was raised by what must have seemed to them all a perfectly apt neologism. The term Coolidge Effect thereafter slipped quietly into the literature where it has remained ever since--a curious, and, at least to thinking mammals like me, somewhat depressing biological fact of bestial life.
{From my article, Do Men Need to Cheat, published in Glamour Magazine, 1987.} Short Answer: Probably not, but if given much encouragement, real or imaginary, then probably yes.
For the record I don't think you're a racist, taruky, and I realize this is largely a question of semantics. Absolutely differences in people exist and need to be recognized. My only issue is with trying to group people into races. You mentioned Filipinos and African Americans. Are these races or ethnic groups? I prefer to think of them as the latter.
Knelson, the problem with grouping as ethnic groups is this. Ethnic groups can consist of different races. Pele and Kaka might both consider themselves ethnically Brazilian, but the chance that Pele would carry the sickle cell trait is much higher. Race is a broader term that loosely defines certain physical characteristics. Another example; an African American and an immigrant from Nigeria might have little in common ethnically. But going back to the sickle cell example, they are both at risk to carry the trait. An Irishman and a Chechen might both be blond and blue eyed but have little in common ethnically. However, medically there are some risks they share as caucasians. I suppose if you have a homogeneous ethnic group then you can use ethnicity. A good example would be Ashkanazi Jews, who have many genetic disorders because historically they tended not to intermarry.
I understand the connotation of race. The word causes people to shudder. Keep in mind, though, that studies are not trying to force people into categories. They are simply observations about risk factors in people who share certain characteristics; physical in some cases, social in others. Some of these risk factors continue when the the particular subject relocates, some do not and may be more a function of environment. But studies today are very well designed, especially when published in reputable journals. They account for environment.
