A talk about what works. Please participate.

Discussion in 'Self Defence' started by Combat Sports, Nov 13, 2012.

  1. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    I feel you man. I stopped going around punching boulders as a kid and stuck with concrete slabs since the boulders were just a lot more dense and felt a lot harder when I hit them. . . . . . . .

    I doubt your nerves are capable of defining the hardness and density of anything on impact past a vague awareness of "this is hard, this is not." :p
     
  2. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    I'm not quite sure about what you're asking me exactly. In the U.S. the topic of race is a lot more intense then what I've experienced or read about in other countries (taking the entire population as a whole into account). Because of this I'm more willing to believe either the funding or the scientists themselves were biased from the start.
     
  3. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    So it was a study on race therefore it must be biased?

    Any study on race has the possibility of being hijacked for controversial purposes but I think assuming studies on race are biased until proven otherwise is a little short-sighted.

    Would you of made the claim of bias if the study came up with no significant difference? Probably not. I appreciate that such a topic is tender and we're all very nervous about seeing people take minor findings in scientific research and running away with them to enforce distasteful poltics but I don't think we should jump the gun here.
     
  4. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    I would have made the same accusation if it found that white people had more bone density, or intelligence, or any other list of traits if that makes any difference. I'm always cynical before I am trusting, and even then I'm still cynical :eek:

    Edit: Replaced "conclusion" with accusation.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2013
  5. Kave

    Kave Lunatic

    How about racial susceptability to certain diseases, or are you operating from the idea that race is purely a social construct and has no basis in hard science?
     
  6. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    I don't quite think you are understanding the pointlessness of implying that all studies on race are biased unless proven otherwise.
     
  7. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    I think you're not understanding that I was talking about one specific study that I think is rather lacking in coming up with any sort of legitimate conclusion. You're blanketing my response to cover ANY study based on race. If you look a few posts past you'll see my response to John R. Gambits multiple studies posted (some I still feel are a bit lacking) and my response was a bit different.

    I'll admit I'm lacking in information on studies providing evidence that there are differences between races in ways that make one race superior physically to another. There seems to be a much more overwhelming amount of study (I posted some) suggesting race has nothing to do with much of anything.
     
  8. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    Would it be more exact to replace "race" with "people descendant or from a certain region?"
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2013
  9. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    "The Human Anvil" John Ferraro sure has a tough skull.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. John R. Gambit

    John R. Gambit The 'Rona Wrangler

    When I wrote my previous reply I didn't have a chance to address this, but yes, this is absolutely true. Often there are more shared traits in the genome of a "black" student in a class compared to a "white" student than when comparing traits from classmates of the same skin tone.

    A few of us privately discussed the studies I found that supported this bone density by "race" topic and the precise method used to quantify ethnic background was a concern as well the fact that all the studies seemed to be based in the California area of the US. You would need a much broader sample size before concluding bone density is universally harder in some "races" versus others. And of course you'd need to scientifically quantify the criteria for racial selection in a way universally accepted through the academic disciplines. I am entirely ignorant on how this is traditionally done as the whole notion of ethnicity is such a nebulous concept, genetically speaking.
     
  11. Kave

    Kave Lunatic

    No, that would be less exact. Ancestry Informative Markers or AIMs are the genetic markers used in science to determine ancestry (essentially they are a way to identify race from genetic information). There are many studies on how AIMs affect response to disease, physiology, and on many other factors. There are significant effects, and this is not controversial.

    Of course the science can be used in controversial ways, but the science itself is fairly irrefutable, the quantity and quality of data available is significant. I am aware that among arts majors race may be considered a social construct, but among geneticists it is clear that ancestry is shown in DNA, and the genes that are markers for ancestry are also markers for physiological traits.

    I don't know if you have access to any database of scholarly journals, but if you do then a search on "Ancestry Informative Markers" could prove informative.

    One example of the many articles of this type would be:

    Julian, C., Wilson, M., Lopez, M., Yamashiro, H., Tellez, W., Rodriguez, A., & ... Moore, L. (2009). Augmented uterine artery blood flow and oxygen delivery protect Andeans from altitude-associated reductions in fetal growth. American Journal Of Physiology. Regulatory, Integrative And Comparative Physiology, 296(5), R1564-R1575. doi:10.1152/ajpregu.90945.2008

    Part of the abstract reads:
     
  12. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    Thankyou Kave. I want to be up at 1:08AM, Sat. morning looking up Ancestry Informative Markers. While I am interested in the subject, I am not happy you sparked my interest at this time at night/morning :yeleyes:.
     
  13. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    Substitute the word 'racial' with the word 'genetic' and it makes sense, i.e. there is genetic susceptability to certain diseases. For example, sickle cell anaemia is more common in black people than white people because they are more likely to have inherited the genes from common ancestors of African origin. But it doesn't really have anything to do with the colour their skin.

    Genetics have a basis in hard science, but I don't think that 'race' does. What is race? Traditional definitions of 'race' concentrated on a small number of outward charecteristics, such as skin colour. But one person could have far more African ancestry than another one and yet have much whiter skin, to take one example.
     
  14. LilBunnyRabbit

    LilBunnyRabbit Old One

    Maybe they were simply more used to it?

    I don't think that from one supposed attack you can make sweeping generalisations about an entire genetic line.

    It could also be that you weren't used to being attacked (if it happened) and so your punches weren't thrown with full technique and power due to the panic reaction.

    There are many, many possible explanations - bone density seems almost an insane one to leap to.
     
  15. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    A study was brought up in which two factors were mentioned. 1. The study showed that people of a certain ethnicity had more muscle mass and higher bone density. 2. The author was African American.

    You have still to provide any justification for how you thought that these 2 factors led you to the conclusion that this study was being conducted with an ulterior motive.
     
  16. God'sGift

    God'sGift Valued Member

    That could very well be right. My fights with blacks, were after all, some of my earliest fights and so maybe I simply wasn't used to being attacked by these people.
     
  17. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    If they were among your earliest fights then you weren't used to being attacked by anyone!

    You really ought to be fighting people from a wide range of backgrounds on a regular basis if you are going to build up a proper database of comparative bone densities and so forth. It's called SCIENCE.
     
  18. God'sGift

    God'sGift Valued Member

    True. I simply assumed it was bone density because I had always been taught that blacks had greater bone density to begin with. Perhaps this is ignorance on my part. :bang:
     
  19. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    Never assume. Always ask people about their bone density before they attack you.
     
  20. Kave

    Kave Lunatic

    Race is really just a collection of physical characteristics that indicate common ancestry. We can now track the genetic markers that quite clearly show ancestry. We are not just talking about individual genes, but instead groupings of genes that are indicative of certain ancestral origins. We can even use genes to track the migration of populations.

    When we are talking about genetically distinct populations from specific geographic areas it is obviously relevant to talk about race. This concept of racial heritage obviously differs from the idea of race that was enforced by tools such as the infamous South African "pencil test". The modern conception of race is a scientific concept of genetic grouping rather than a sociological construct used to oppress the "other". The idea of race allows us to carry out epidemiological research on populations, and to draw distinctions between cultural and genetic influences. Of course any research that shows differences between groups can be misused, but pretending that the differences aren't there can also be highly counter-productive.
     

Share This Page