yes you are probably a philosopher and like to dwell on definitions.. people who have to make decisions in the real world dont.

So teaching counts entirely as 'not work' because I thoroughly enjoy it?

lol

If you say so. Some of study those decisions and how you should make decisions. Furthermore, some of us think that knowing what words mean is a good thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100712...20100712165904

"Scientists have found the reason why blacks dominate on the running track and whites in the swimming pool"

These scientists didn't get the memo.

Or, um, maybe you didn't.

The characterizations they use in the study are "white", "black", and "Asian", and also "western European" as a subset of "white" and "west African" as a subset of "black". They describe these groups in terms of geographic origin and shared heritable characteristics. They can say that they aren't talking about "race" all they want, while at the same time repeatedly using the same generalizations for which that word is historically used. The PC disclaimer doesn't negate the actual language they used.

The color of our skin is one of the many characteristics we have, just like our height, the shape of our heads, intelligence, etc. As one poster pointed out "color of skin" is just 8% of our genetic difference with others, there is a 92% that has nothing to with that.

If you want to create categories using that 8% feel free to do so, because the difference is there but you cant say that you didnt arbitrarily chose a characteristic to divide people, black and white people are different just as tall and short people are.


What it is true is that the color of our skin is highly correlated with our sociocultural background, thats where the concept of race came from imo but its not biology its more of a sociological definition.

I suggest you read the original article, particularly the figure that shows where the base data were generated from. (Hint: military physical measurements from multiple countries, not grouped into races. Racial classification is used as post hoc shorthand.)

Also, http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...2&postcount=37.

This rhetorical game that scientists play is ridiculous. "No, we aren't talking about races, which are social constructs, because that would be racist! We are talking about population groups, a scientifically valid concept with a biological basis! Oh, and the population groups that we are interested in happen to correspond almost perfectly to racial groups, but that is just a coincidence."

Races are simply large population groups. What is so difficult to understand about this?

So "American" is a race?

Not entirely.

Still mostly so.

Says the guy who apparently has never developed and taught a college-level course?

Grrr. Not at you though.

Still, stfu.

Reality begs to differ.

I have to 'wtf' this comment too...wtf?

Sorry if it came across as dickish, but anyone who believes that developing and teaching even a passably good course isn't work, can't be doing it very well. It doesn't matter how much of a content matter expert you are.

I was saying that the prep work is fun and that you do the prep (beyond the minimal necessary level, whatever that it) because you love teaching or the subject.

http://www.constructal.org/

The link above leads to the site Adrian Bejan, one of the authors of the study.

On his site he has a pdf of the study he conducted of the differences in centers of gravity in different athletes.

I am reading the paper and will need some time to digest it.

The study seems to be a clever hook to attract interest to his Constructal theory.

BS. The concept of race is explicitly used throughout the study report and in fact forms the basis for their thesis and conclusions. They even use tables with the column "Race" and entries for white, black, and Asian, but you picked the single ancillary table that isn't in that format. Here's the full published report:

http://www.constructal.org/en/art/TH...0ATHLETICS.pdf

This makes their "race" disclaimer in paragraph three laughable and absurd, as it contradicts everything they wrote. They say it isn't about race, but they can't describe their results using anything except the language of race. Somebody made them edit that disclaimer in and it is totally out of place and ridiculous in context. Throughout the study it is a comparison of "white" vs "black" vs "Asian" and they repeatedly call those groups "races" in the study.

A typical passage is this one:

"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 [16–18], 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 [14, 17]. Asians and whites have longer torsos, therefore their centers of mass are lower."

These rhetorical games are so pointless.

+1

The study is not about genetics but about centers of gravity. We still have to contend with the idea of clines.

So, Western African is a race in your worldview? Yeah or nay?

:facepalm

Close a few tables and write a complete sentence.

At this point, with lines like "the study is not about genetics but about centers of gravity" I don't think you deserve complete sentences.

You are evidently too married to your denialist position to be potentially influenced by this thread.