A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Black pro riders?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old May 4th 04, 08:49 AM
Robert Chung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Black pro riders?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

Interestingly, there is a historian that speaks about bikes, and one
of the effects of the bike in the late 1800s, early 1900s was to widen
the marriage pool available. Cultures that are primarily 'afoot' tend
to intermarry more than those that have a wider range (in several
senses) of choice.


I'm a fan of the transformative role that bicycles can play in society;
still, it's hard for me to believe that many serious historians think
this. I suspect that increasing population density (and all the things
that came from that) are more important. One branch of social network
analysis traces its roots to Sauvy's theory of "marriage pools" or
"marriage circles;" Sauvy was also the guy who coined the term "Third
World."



Ads
  #122  
Old May 4th 04, 08:49 AM
Robert Chung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Black pro riders?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

Interestingly, there is a historian that speaks about bikes, and one
of the effects of the bike in the late 1800s, early 1900s was to widen
the marriage pool available. Cultures that are primarily 'afoot' tend
to intermarry more than those that have a wider range (in several
senses) of choice.


I'm a fan of the transformative role that bicycles can play in society;
still, it's hard for me to believe that many serious historians think
this. I suspect that increasing population density (and all the things
that came from that) are more important. One branch of social network
analysis traces its roots to Sauvy's theory of "marriage pools" or
"marriage circles;" Sauvy was also the guy who coined the term "Third
World."



  #123  
Old May 4th 04, 09:34 AM
gwhite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Black pro riders?

"Robert Chung" wrote in message ...
gwhite wrote:

The most common marriage pattern world-wide is still today first
cousin,


I'm not sure this is true, nor am I sure that this has applied for quite a
while.


I don't know. I'm repeating what a professor in a human sexuality
course explicitly said in lecture and later tested us upon.

The "ideal" or preferred marriage pattern may be cross-cousin, but
there's a fair amount of research that suggests that in the real world the
demographic rates are such that these preferred marriage types are limited
by the supply of appropriately aged, appropriately crossed, unmarried,
first-cousin targets (of the appropriate sex). The supply of such
appropriate targets is determined in part by high fertility rates in your
parent's generation combined with low mortality rates in your generation,
so it's only during periods with high population growth rates when this
preferred marriage type could be "most common."


Okay, then why wouldn't, or perhaps I should say "couldn't," it be
true? High population growth -- implying fertile first cousin
availability -- would seem to be in the non-Western culture, exactly
what the prof said. (He said it was *not* the most common pattern in
Western culture, which means "somewhere else" was making up the
difference.)

although not as common in Western culture. In earlier
pre-history times, some anthropologists state that bands of humans got
about as large as 150 or so, and that was it.


Yes, but that is part of a fissioning story. Bands of that size were
almost surely not in stable equilibrium.


I don't know. Maybe large bands were bands formed in less scarce
times, which would tend to "fission" as you say, in bumper years.
Maybe harder times "made" smaller bands and the penalty for breaking
away larger, or certainly more risky. It's probably time for me to
stop speculating and read what a few specialists in the field has to
say about it.
  #124  
Old May 4th 04, 09:34 AM
gwhite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Black pro riders?

"Robert Chung" wrote in message ...
gwhite wrote:

The most common marriage pattern world-wide is still today first
cousin,


I'm not sure this is true, nor am I sure that this has applied for quite a
while.


I don't know. I'm repeating what a professor in a human sexuality
course explicitly said in lecture and later tested us upon.

The "ideal" or preferred marriage pattern may be cross-cousin, but
there's a fair amount of research that suggests that in the real world the
demographic rates are such that these preferred marriage types are limited
by the supply of appropriately aged, appropriately crossed, unmarried,
first-cousin targets (of the appropriate sex). The supply of such
appropriate targets is determined in part by high fertility rates in your
parent's generation combined with low mortality rates in your generation,
so it's only during periods with high population growth rates when this
preferred marriage type could be "most common."


Okay, then why wouldn't, or perhaps I should say "couldn't," it be
true? High population growth -- implying fertile first cousin
availability -- would seem to be in the non-Western culture, exactly
what the prof said. (He said it was *not* the most common pattern in
Western culture, which means "somewhere else" was making up the
difference.)

although not as common in Western culture. In earlier
pre-history times, some anthropologists state that bands of humans got
about as large as 150 or so, and that was it.


Yes, but that is part of a fissioning story. Bands of that size were
almost surely not in stable equilibrium.


I don't know. Maybe large bands were bands formed in less scarce
times, which would tend to "fission" as you say, in bumper years.
Maybe harder times "made" smaller bands and the penalty for breaking
away larger, or certainly more risky. It's probably time for me to
stop speculating and read what a few specialists in the field has to
say about it.
  #125  
Old May 4th 04, 10:45 AM
Robert Chung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Black pro riders?

gwhite wrote:
"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
gwhite wrote:

The most common marriage pattern world-wide is still today first
cousin,


I'm not sure this is true, nor am I sure that this has applied for
quite a while.


I don't know. I'm repeating what a professor in a human sexuality
course explicitly said in lecture and later tested us upon.

The "ideal" or preferred marriage pattern may be cross-cousin, but
there's a fair amount of research that suggests that in the real world
the demographic rates are such that these preferred marriage types are
limited by the supply of appropriately aged, appropriately crossed,
unmarried, first-cousin targets (of the appropriate sex). The supply
of such appropriate targets is determined in part by high fertility
rates in your parent's generation combined with low mortality rates in
your generation, so it's only during periods with high population
growth rates when this preferred marriage type could be "most common."


Okay, then why wouldn't, or perhaps I should say "couldn't," it be
true? High population growth -- implying fertile first cousin
availability -- would seem to be in the non-Western culture, exactly
what the prof said. (He said it was *not* the most common pattern in
Western culture, which means "somewhere else" was making up the
difference.)


Well, the places with the highest growth rates would also have to have the
right kind of inheritance system -- so what we're talking about,
basically, is the Indian sub-continent and a few parts of sub-Saharan
Africa (other areas of the world either have the right growth rates but
the wrong inheritance system or the right inheritance system but the wrong
growth rates--at least, now they do). In order for cross-first cousin
marriage to be the most common type "world-wide" means that there have got
to be a *lot* of cross-first cousin marriages in India and Africa, and
that doesn't appear to be happening. In certain areas of India and Africa
cross-first cousin marriage is clearly the *ideal* type--but that's like
saying that the ideal living arrangement is owning your own home. Not
everyone is able to attain it, and the window of potential acquisition for
one's home is a lot wider than the window of opportunity for acquiring a
spouse. BTW, you can sort of see an indicator of consanguinity in the
marriage market by looking at spousal age differences: when cross-cousin
marriage is an important condition for mate selection, spousal age
differences tend to be larger, which is why you see, on average, the
largest spousal age differences in India and Africa (well, largest next to
Hollywood) and even then the consanguinous link appears to be attentuated
beyond cousins of the first degree.

although not as common in Western culture. In earlier
pre-history times, some anthropologists state that bands of humans got
about as large as 150 or so, and that was it.


Yes, but that is part of a fissioning story. Bands of that size were
almost surely not in stable equilibrium.


I don't know. Maybe large bands were bands formed in less scarce
times, which would tend to "fission" as you say, in bumper years.
Maybe harder times "made" smaller bands and the penalty for breaking
away larger, or certainly more risky. It's probably time for me to
stop speculating and read what a few specialists in the field has to
say about it.


The fissioning story is about the supportable population density in
neolithic (pre-agricultural, hunter-gatherer) times. Bands of that size
(or smaller) are not in long-term stable equilbrium, so they must either
grow and fission when the supportable density gets exceeded, or else they
die out (e.g., merge or get absorbed). The mathematics of growth and
extinction of populations was developed in the middle of the 19th C. by
Bienayme and subsequently and independently by Galton (the developer of
regression and Darwin's first cousin (!)) and Watson; sadly, its most
well-known usage occurred some decades later when it was used to describe,
model, and plan the chain reactions in the fissioning of the atomic bomb.



  #126  
Old May 4th 04, 10:45 AM
Robert Chung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Black pro riders?

gwhite wrote:
"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
gwhite wrote:

The most common marriage pattern world-wide is still today first
cousin,


I'm not sure this is true, nor am I sure that this has applied for
quite a while.


I don't know. I'm repeating what a professor in a human sexuality
course explicitly said in lecture and later tested us upon.

The "ideal" or preferred marriage pattern may be cross-cousin, but
there's a fair amount of research that suggests that in the real world
the demographic rates are such that these preferred marriage types are
limited by the supply of appropriately aged, appropriately crossed,
unmarried, first-cousin targets (of the appropriate sex). The supply
of such appropriate targets is determined in part by high fertility
rates in your parent's generation combined with low mortality rates in
your generation, so it's only during periods with high population
growth rates when this preferred marriage type could be "most common."


Okay, then why wouldn't, or perhaps I should say "couldn't," it be
true? High population growth -- implying fertile first cousin
availability -- would seem to be in the non-Western culture, exactly
what the prof said. (He said it was *not* the most common pattern in
Western culture, which means "somewhere else" was making up the
difference.)


Well, the places with the highest growth rates would also have to have the
right kind of inheritance system -- so what we're talking about,
basically, is the Indian sub-continent and a few parts of sub-Saharan
Africa (other areas of the world either have the right growth rates but
the wrong inheritance system or the right inheritance system but the wrong
growth rates--at least, now they do). In order for cross-first cousin
marriage to be the most common type "world-wide" means that there have got
to be a *lot* of cross-first cousin marriages in India and Africa, and
that doesn't appear to be happening. In certain areas of India and Africa
cross-first cousin marriage is clearly the *ideal* type--but that's like
saying that the ideal living arrangement is owning your own home. Not
everyone is able to attain it, and the window of potential acquisition for
one's home is a lot wider than the window of opportunity for acquiring a
spouse. BTW, you can sort of see an indicator of consanguinity in the
marriage market by looking at spousal age differences: when cross-cousin
marriage is an important condition for mate selection, spousal age
differences tend to be larger, which is why you see, on average, the
largest spousal age differences in India and Africa (well, largest next to
Hollywood) and even then the consanguinous link appears to be attentuated
beyond cousins of the first degree.

although not as common in Western culture. In earlier
pre-history times, some anthropologists state that bands of humans got
about as large as 150 or so, and that was it.


Yes, but that is part of a fissioning story. Bands of that size were
almost surely not in stable equilibrium.


I don't know. Maybe large bands were bands formed in less scarce
times, which would tend to "fission" as you say, in bumper years.
Maybe harder times "made" smaller bands and the penalty for breaking
away larger, or certainly more risky. It's probably time for me to
stop speculating and read what a few specialists in the field has to
say about it.


The fissioning story is about the supportable population density in
neolithic (pre-agricultural, hunter-gatherer) times. Bands of that size
(or smaller) are not in long-term stable equilbrium, so they must either
grow and fission when the supportable density gets exceeded, or else they
die out (e.g., merge or get absorbed). The mathematics of growth and
extinction of populations was developed in the middle of the 19th C. by
Bienayme and subsequently and independently by Galton (the developer of
regression and Darwin's first cousin (!)) and Watson; sadly, its most
well-known usage occurred some decades later when it was used to describe,
model, and plan the chain reactions in the fissioning of the atomic bomb.



  #127  
Old May 5th 04, 01:38 AM
Lordy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Black pro riders?

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:33:22 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:

Sonarrat wrote:
In article ,
Top Sirloin wrote:


Sonarrat wrote:


The fact that the second definition of each word is the same speaks to how
thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am calling it racist to
be on the safe side and to put out a warning flag.

Why, are you the Usenet police?

It's well known that different races have many
differences physiologically besides skin color,
some of which accounts for the dominance of
certain racial groups in specific sports.

Does the recognition of reality make me a racist?



"Race" is entirely a social construct, which has nothing to do with
physiology whatsoever. Consider this: the dove and the pigeon are
identical, the exact same species with the same biology, and they can
produce fertile offspring. But they segregate themselves, just like we
humans do, because they look different...


We're going to segregate you from the smart peopele b/c you are a
****ing moron. Race is entirely a social construct? Take your PC
bull**** and cram it up your socially constructed bung.

Lyle


Ive head this too - on a program that was definitely NOT trying to be PC.

At the genetic level the various traits are relatively independant.
They generally get propogated together because of demographics and
cultural bonding.

On a social level if a white and a
black person have a child. They are very likely referred to as mixed-race
or black but hardly ever white.

[Arguments about dominant genes here]

If that person had a child with a white person again - there would be
reluctance for their offspring to be considered white unless the clearly
had NO external genetic traits commonly associated with "black" people.

This is the social aspect.

I've seen news reports in the BBC where some people are described as black
when they are clearly and visibly ""mixed-raced"" and then they cut to the
mother who is white.

Sounds like the ole "one-drop" rule.

Even going back to the original argument

It's well known that different races have many
differences physiologically besides skin color,
some of which accounts for the dominance of
certain racial groups in specific sports.


We'll weve discuseed almost every year now - but these are not "racial"
differences. Genetic trails certainly - but often limited to a small
subset (demographically) of the "race". For white people I think the
Danes(?) are routinely very tall and good middle distance runners.

To contine the argument you would have to define "race". Maybe list them.
It will be easier to do "socially" than "genetically".

Lordy
  #128  
Old May 5th 04, 01:38 AM
Lordy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Black pro riders?

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:33:22 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:

Sonarrat wrote:
In article ,
Top Sirloin wrote:


Sonarrat wrote:


The fact that the second definition of each word is the same speaks to how
thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am calling it racist to
be on the safe side and to put out a warning flag.

Why, are you the Usenet police?

It's well known that different races have many
differences physiologically besides skin color,
some of which accounts for the dominance of
certain racial groups in specific sports.

Does the recognition of reality make me a racist?



"Race" is entirely a social construct, which has nothing to do with
physiology whatsoever. Consider this: the dove and the pigeon are
identical, the exact same species with the same biology, and they can
produce fertile offspring. But they segregate themselves, just like we
humans do, because they look different...


We're going to segregate you from the smart peopele b/c you are a
****ing moron. Race is entirely a social construct? Take your PC
bull**** and cram it up your socially constructed bung.

Lyle


Ive head this too - on a program that was definitely NOT trying to be PC.

At the genetic level the various traits are relatively independant.
They generally get propogated together because of demographics and
cultural bonding.

On a social level if a white and a
black person have a child. They are very likely referred to as mixed-race
or black but hardly ever white.

[Arguments about dominant genes here]

If that person had a child with a white person again - there would be
reluctance for their offspring to be considered white unless the clearly
had NO external genetic traits commonly associated with "black" people.

This is the social aspect.

I've seen news reports in the BBC where some people are described as black
when they are clearly and visibly ""mixed-raced"" and then they cut to the
mother who is white.

Sounds like the ole "one-drop" rule.

Even going back to the original argument

It's well known that different races have many
differences physiologically besides skin color,
some of which accounts for the dominance of
certain racial groups in specific sports.


We'll weve discuseed almost every year now - but these are not "racial"
differences. Genetic trails certainly - but often limited to a small
subset (demographically) of the "race". For white people I think the
Danes(?) are routinely very tall and good middle distance runners.

To contine the argument you would have to define "race". Maybe list them.
It will be easier to do "socially" than "genetically".

Lordy
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Riders Amaze, Pittsburgh Astonishes, Omaha & Columbus Next Cycle America General 1 July 14th 04 10:31 AM
Ghent Six Day Excursion Ilan Vardi Racing 8 November 30th 03 09:03 PM
Doping or not? Read this: never_doped Racing 0 August 4th 03 01:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.