And let's not even get started about Asians, I really believe they have suffered odiously under (negative) athletic stereotypes and that their time is coming soon in the world of athletics when those stereotypes are going to be shattered. A Chinese man was recently the world record holder in the 110m hurdles. Manny Pacquiao (fillipino) is possibly the greatest pound for pound boxer of all time. Enough said.
The more I have learned about sports the more I think that ethnicity has virtually nothing to do with anything, and that the keys to success are 1) which communities have the good coaches and development programs for a particular sport; 2) which communities are using the best doping for a particular sport; 3) which communities perceive themselves as being the best at a particular sport; 4) another thing I can't think of right now because I'm tired.
For example, fifteen years ago there were many boxing afficionados who said there would never be another white heavyweight champion. In fact, almost all of them said that. In fact, even ten years ago almost all of them said that. But today almost all the top heavyweight champions are white. What happened is that a lot of good Eastern European heavyweights came onto the scene who didn't have the same feelings of inferiority traditionally suffered by white heavyweights in the west, and they completely shattered all those stereotypes about black people being better boxers.
Sprinting is perhaps the most extreme example of a seeming racial advantage in a sport. Only people of west african descent have ever run the 100m in less than 10 seconds. BUT a white sprinter from West Germany ran the 100m in 10.0 seconds way back in 1960. Are we really meant to believe that in the ensuing 50 years, plus with modern doping, there has never been a white man capable of running faster than that German sprinter? That would be almost inconceivable, but what has happened is that the stereotype of white athletes not being as fast at sprinting has become pervasive and for several decades the top white athletes have been funneled into middle and longer distances instead of sprints. Just like with a teacher, a coach imprints their stereotypes onto their pupils, and the athletes under a given coach tend, more often than not, to live up (or down) to that coach's expectations.
Once again, with old technology (slower tracks, etc) and without the benefit of modern doping, a white German man ran the 100m in 10.0 seconds in 1960, is it really reasonable to believe that there is some genetic defficiency in white people that has caused no white person in the ensuing fifty years to ever run that fast again, or is it not reasonable to assume there have been other factors invovled which have prevented the talent potential of white sprinters from being developed as it should be?
Only a few years ago there were all kinds of articles about how Kenyans were genetically superior at long distance running than everyone else in the world, of course this same "genetic trait" was only noticed during a period when Kenya had developed an exceptional marathon tradition and had a golden age of great marathon runners from Kenya, but it was an absurdity, a white English woman is the women's marathon world Champions, and even in the men's races only one Kenyan has ever held the world record and within the past twenty years an Australian, an Englishman, a Portuguese, a Brazilian, a Moroccan, and two Ethiopians have also held the marathon world record.
Black people are supposed to be worse at weight lifting and swimming, but I do not doubt that the same applies in those cases, and it is simply a matter of people living up or down to the stereotypes of the day, and a function of which communities have the good coaching, good doping, and good talent development in those particular sports.
Nice advertising for the place with the octopus, I'm sure it's pretty easy to figure out some additives that the octopus likes better and then put these on the side you expect to win the game, with a little bit of luck you become world famous for how 'smart' your octopus is.
It's not a stereotype you dummy, HIV and AIDS rates are much higher among gay males than the rest of the human population -- fact. It is sort of like if a study was on type 2 diabetes and they said that the person resistant to the disease was a morbidly obese African American male, well the fact he is morbidly obese and African American and male does have some epidemiological signifigance, sorry if that offends your righteous sense of political correctness.
ran into the car in front of him repeatedly after he got frustrated waiting in line? acts like Donald Duck, looks like Donald Duck, is named Donald Duck -- it must be Donald Duck.
With law schools this is not as ridiculous as it sounds, because they generally grade on a hard curve, so the important thing is knowing a student's position relative to the rest of their class. As much as raising the curve is a question of giving students an edge, it is also a big disadvantage for students who go to schools that set the curve lower than average. I once attended a law school like that and a big part of their career services centered around helping you explain to potential employers why your GPA was so low -- not kidding. This is relatively easy to explain to law firms, who sort of understand the game, however...
If someone is working outside of the legal field, for example, an employer still might ask what their law school GPA was, and if they went to Loyala (lol! lowest set curve I have ever heard of) they would have to say 2.66 (haha) and the employer would think they were a slacker or a moron, not taking the time to realize that Loyola has a 'special' system and that 2.66 there is average in a pretty smart and competetive class of students. It's basically irresponsible for a school to set their curve lower than the average, if their administrators are unusually stupid they may believe they are standing on some kind of principle, but all they are doing is disadvantaging their students, just like an undergraduate professor with an unusually harsh grading standard.
Is there a way to rate these down? So much uber-boring 'post-modern art' rubbish gets posted here... Isn't it just spam? It feels like there is an underlying commercial agenda with many of these 'art' posts that don't seem to be particularly noteworthy/newsworthy/remarkable projects. For example, if someone discovered a cache of old Van Gogh paintings that were lost, that is the sort of thing I would expect to be posted here, or the post about artists' pallette's from before, that was super cool. "Artist X is doing project Y" sure seems like just plain old spam.
Really, I haven't found that to be the case with The Daily Mail; they are prurient and sensationalistic, but factually -- usually accurate to the extent they pretend to report facts. For example, they include a quote from a trade expert, those quotes are rarely if ever made up, although they are often mischaracterized. To compare it to American tabloids with fictional stories is misleading.
So-called tabloids like The Daily Mail do a large part of the investigative reporting in the west which mainstream journalists have largely abandoned, and these papers break a lot of important and notable stories.
The critics here are apparently unable to rebut the article's facts, but attacking the messenger passes for their idea of 'elevated' debate.
For example, fifteen years ago there were many boxing afficionados who said there would never be another white heavyweight champion. In fact, almost all of them said that. In fact, even ten years ago almost all of them said that. But today almost all the top heavyweight champions are white. What happened is that a lot of good Eastern European heavyweights came onto the scene who didn't have the same feelings of inferiority traditionally suffered by white heavyweights in the west, and they completely shattered all those stereotypes about black people being better boxers.
Sprinting is perhaps the most extreme example of a seeming racial advantage in a sport. Only people of west african descent have ever run the 100m in less than 10 seconds. BUT a white sprinter from West Germany ran the 100m in 10.0 seconds way back in 1960. Are we really meant to believe that in the ensuing 50 years, plus with modern doping, there has never been a white man capable of running faster than that German sprinter? That would be almost inconceivable, but what has happened is that the stereotype of white athletes not being as fast at sprinting has become pervasive and for several decades the top white athletes have been funneled into middle and longer distances instead of sprints. Just like with a teacher, a coach imprints their stereotypes onto their pupils, and the athletes under a given coach tend, more often than not, to live up (or down) to that coach's expectations.
Once again, with old technology (slower tracks, etc) and without the benefit of modern doping, a white German man ran the 100m in 10.0 seconds in 1960, is it really reasonable to believe that there is some genetic defficiency in white people that has caused no white person in the ensuing fifty years to ever run that fast again, or is it not reasonable to assume there have been other factors invovled which have prevented the talent potential of white sprinters from being developed as it should be?
Only a few years ago there were all kinds of articles about how Kenyans were genetically superior at long distance running than everyone else in the world, of course this same "genetic trait" was only noticed during a period when Kenya had developed an exceptional marathon tradition and had a golden age of great marathon runners from Kenya, but it was an absurdity, a white English woman is the women's marathon world Champions, and even in the men's races only one Kenyan has ever held the world record and within the past twenty years an Australian, an Englishman, a Portuguese, a Brazilian, a Moroccan, and two Ethiopians have also held the marathon world record.
Black people are supposed to be worse at weight lifting and swimming, but I do not doubt that the same applies in those cases, and it is simply a matter of people living up or down to the stereotypes of the day, and a function of which communities have the good coaching, good doping, and good talent development in those particular sports.
If someone is working outside of the legal field, for example, an employer still might ask what their law school GPA was, and if they went to Loyala (lol! lowest set curve I have ever heard of) they would have to say 2.66 (haha) and the employer would think they were a slacker or a moron, not taking the time to realize that Loyola has a 'special' system and that 2.66 there is average in a pretty smart and competetive class of students. It's basically irresponsible for a school to set their curve lower than the average, if their administrators are unusually stupid they may believe they are standing on some kind of principle, but all they are doing is disadvantaging their students, just like an undergraduate professor with an unusually harsh grading standard.
So-called tabloids like The Daily Mail do a large part of the investigative reporting in the west which mainstream journalists have largely abandoned, and these papers break a lot of important and notable stories.
The critics here are apparently unable to rebut the article's facts, but attacking the messenger passes for their idea of 'elevated' debate.