So if its ok to research and recognize physical differences between Africans and Europeans then why do people lose their minds when we try to investigate cognitive differences?

Cognitive differences are predicted by social factors such as socio-economic status rather than genetics. Socio-economic status is related to race in the US. Race APPEARS to be associated with aptitude when in fact it isn't. Whites do not have a special gene that make them more likely to matriculate into Harvard. Besides any two individuals are 99.9% genetically identical -- believe it or not.

There are NO REAL physical differences between blacks and whites -- that's bogus, they belong to the same species. What does it mean to "black" or "white" anyways -- let's define that and then move forward. Black and white are social assignments -- not biological ones.

"Besides any two individuals are 99.9% genetically identical"

True but this point under-emphasizes the extent to which small differences in genetics can contribute to large variations between individuals physiologically and cognitively. For instance, it only takes a mutation in a single gene to cause Hemophilia in males.

As for the statement that blacks and white have no physical differences because they are the same species? Not much need to comment there.

funny how proponents of the "master race" theory, always used to say that the superior race would be superior both physically and mentally until jack johnson destroyed all the white boxers in the 1920s and the 1936 olympics shut Hitler's choir up. now that black physical prowess has roared unto the stage after long being denied, the "master racers" try to switch the meter solely to mental aptitude.

i prefer to believe that there are no racial differences of significance. culture i believe is more important than anything else in determining what humans become. how come west african nations do not fare so well at track and field.

a more realistic argument would be that, artificial selection went on in the slaving colonies and a few individuals of hardier genetic stock survived the brutalities of the trans atlantic slave trade. also blacks were bred like animals for physical qualities, further refining the genetic pool to meet harsh criteria.

i wager if you gave me 10 million whites, to work and do with as i pleased for 300 or so years. i could make world class runners from their stock too.

...and why is it that Jimmy the Greek and Al Campanis said essentially the same thing years ago (American black slaves were bred to be stronger) and lost their jobs for it. The truth hurts.

They were fired because they inferred that African-Americans lacked the mental prowess necessary to play quarterback, coach in any sport, or run an organization. I believe one of them even implied there were buoyancy issues that contributed to the lack of world-class African swimmers. The more accurate statement is gross generalizations and implied mental inferiority hurts.

that is a damn good point. maybe they can isolate the gene that gives blacks the disposition to rob convenience stores.

'funny how proponents of the "master race" theory, always used to say that the superior race would be superior both physically and mentally until jack johnson destroyed all the white boxers in the 1920s and the 1936 olympics shut Hitler's choir up.'

another damn good point. the last black man who could have taught obama how to deal with the germans was joe louis and the german was max schmeling.

'So if its ok to research and recognize physical differences between Africans and Europeans then why do people lose their minds when we try to investigate cognitive differences?'

yes. perhaps a country that is described as 'third world' has something to do with the type of people who live in them.

a study is needed.

it's strange that jamaicans can run so fast when jamaica is a place where there is no place to go in a hurry.

we are going to find there are both physical and cognitive differences between races that are related to our genetic make up as time goes by. What we need to do is get past the racism and crap that that makes that matter so we can find ways to improve all of us.The first step is to stop demonizing any scientist that dares to make an hypothesis. There does seem to be a double standard when it comes to genetic research on physical characteristics and cognitive ones. This is understandable since so many racists have used the argument that blacks or irish or chinese are mentally inferior in the past.

It is also important to note that in the US ethnic differences are often less because we have a high incidence of inter-racial breeding. Over time the genes are diluted or reinforced depending upon the people who fell in love despite the barriers.

a race of subservient ant-people. Stick that one in your opium pipe and smoke it, Mr Chang.

The biological evidence cited in this article is pathetic. Jamaicans apparently are 10 percentage points more likely to have a couple of minor speed benefits than John Q American Slob. So what. This cannot possibly explain 45 track medals at the Olympics.

More likely, the reason Jamaicans are good at track for the same reason they are bad at rowing or 3-day eventing i.e they have the opportunity to do it.

The research discussed by Slate on the genetic basis of Jamaican sprinting ability is severely flawed. They didn't do an exhaustive interview of geneticists or scientists who do work in this area, certainly no one called me to comment on this claim. In 2005 I wrote about genetic claims related to African ancestry and track & field (in The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America) and this year I have 3 articles on race in sports in The Encylopedia of Race and Racism.

The first flaw results from the idea that sprinting (a complex athletic ability) can be reduced to the differences in one specific genetic locus (even one that contributes to muscle fiber type.) We don't have extensive surveys of even this locus in world populations, so we can't say that Jamaica is the only country that has high frequencies of this gene. For example, even with the reported frequencies in the article, the United States should have produced far more world class sprinters than Jamaica, due to population size alone. The article's argument also relied on muscle fiber type measurements (the Quebec study) that were by no mean inclusive and we again simply don't know about the distribution of these frequencies with any accuracy across the world. I also reviewed the literature on hormone levels and showed similar flaws with regard to how these are related to supposed sprinting ability.

What is most interesting about this question is why does it always result when some group of African derived people excel in track and field, when at the same time no one is making a genetic argument over Michael Phelps 8 gold medals in swimming? The same muscle groups that are used by runners are used in swimming. The dialog has been located on Phelps coaching, the dedication of his mother, his training schedule, and to some degree his feet size, but no one is searching for genetic variants accounting for these. This reveals the inherent racial ideology behind claims of genetic difference accounting for the supposed greater athleticism of Africans and their supposed limited cognitive potential.

I quite agree. Ten years ago I read several articles that gave genetic explanations for why all the heavyweight boxing champions were African American.

Now they're all Russians, and the "genetic" explanations have dried up.

'Or the gene that makes the Chinese

a race of subservient ant-people. Stick that one in your opium pipe and smoke it, Mr Chang.'

that is another damn good point. we little yellow persons are the purveyors of all the bird flu, the swine flu, the hong kong flu and various other pathogens that spread throughout the world. those things are from god to keep the population in check but globalism has spread them like a white mans flea infested blanket did the souix.