NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Sports » Athleticism is Irreducible to Biology: A Systems View of Athleticism

Athleticism is Irreducible to Biology: A Systems View of Athleticism

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 223 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

Charles Darwin

Denis Noble

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

1550 words

Reductionists would claim that athletic success comes down to the molecular level. I disagree. Though, of course, understanding the molecular pathways and how and why certain athletes excel in certain sports can and will increase our understanding of elite athleticism, reductionist accounts do not tell the full story. A reductionist (which I used to be, especially in regard to sports; see my article Racial Differences in Muscle Fiber Typing Cause Differences in Elite Sporting Competition) would claim that, as can be seen in my article, the cause for elite athletic success comes down to the molecular level. Now, that I no longer hold such reductionist views in this area does not mean that I deny that there are certain things that make an elite athlete. However, I was wrong to attempt to reduce a complex bio-system and attempt to pinpoint one variable as “the cause” of elite athletic success.

In the book The Genius of All of Us: New Insights into Genetics, Talent, and IQ, David Shenk dispatches with reductionist accounts of athletic success in the 5th chapter of the book. He writes:

2. GENES DON’T DIRECTLY CAUSE TRAITS; THEY ONLY INFLUENCE THE SYSTEM.

Consistent with other lessons of GxE [Genes x Environment], the surprising finding of the $3 billion Human Genome Project is that only in rare instances do specific gene variants directly cause specific traits or diseases. …

As the search for athletic genes continues, therefore, the overwhelming evidence suggests that researchers will instead locate genes prone to certain types of interactions: gene variant A in combination with gene variant B, provoked into expression by X amount of training + Y altitude + Z will to win + a hundred other life variables (coaching, injuries, etc.), will produce some specific result R. What this means, of course, What this means, of course, is that we need to dispense rhetorically with thick firewall between biology (nature) and training (nurture). The reality of GxE assures that each persons genes interacts with his climate, altitude, culture, meals, language, customs and spirituality—everything—to produce unique lifestyle trajectories. Genes play a critical role, but as dynamic instruments, not a fixed blueprint. A seven- or fourteen- or twenty-eight-year-old is not that way merely because of genetic instruction. (Shenk, 2010: 107) [Also read my article Explaining African Running Success Through a Systems View.]

This is looking at the whole entire system: genes, to training, to altitude, to will to win, to numerous other variables that are conducive to athletic success. You can’t pinpoint one variable in the entire system and say that that is the cause: each variable works together in concert to produce the athletic phenotype. One can invoke Noble’s (2012) argument that there is no privileged level of causation in the production of an athletic phenotype. There are just too many factors that go into the production of an elite athlete, and attempting to reduce it to one or a few factors and attempt to look for those factors in regard to elite athleticism is a fool’s errand. So we can say that there is no privileged level of causation in regard to the athletic phenotype.

In his paper Sport and common-sense racial science, Louis (2004: 41) writes:

The analysis and explanation of racial athleticism is therefore irreducible to
biological or socio-cultural determinants and requires a ‘biocultural approach’
(Malina, 1988; Burfoot, 1999; Entine, 2000) or must account for environmental
factors (Himes, 1988; Samson and Yerl`es, 1988).

Reducing anything, sports included, to environmental/socio-cultural determinants and biology doesn’t make sense; I agree with Louis that we need a ‘biocultural approach’, since biology and socio-cultural determinants are linked. This, of course, upends the nature vs. nurture debate; neither “nature” nor “nurture” has won, they causally depend on one another to produce the elite athletic phenotype.

Louis (2004) further writes:

In support of this biocultural approach, Entine (2001) argues that athleticism is
irreducible to biology because it results from the interaction between population-based genetic differences and culture that, in turn, critiques the Cartesian dualism
‘which sees environment and genes as polar-opposite forces’ (p. 305). This
critique draws on the centrality of complexity, plurality and fluidity to social
description and analysis that is significant within multicultural common sense. By
pointing to the biocultural interactivity of racial formation, Entine suggests that
race is irreducible to a single core determinant. This asserts its fundamental
complexity that must be understood as produced through the process of
articulation across social, cultural and biological categories.

Of course, race is irreducible to a single core determinant; but it is a genuine kind in biology, and so, we must understand the social, cultural, and biological causes and how they interact with each other to produce the athletic phenotype. We can look at athlete A and see that he’s black and then look at his somatotype and ascertain that the reason why athlete A is a good athlete is conducive to his biology. Indeed, it is. One needs a requisite morphology in order to succeed in a certain sport, though it is quite clearly not the only variable needed to produce the athletic phenotype.

One prevalent example here is the Kalenjin (see my article Why Do Jamaicans, Kenyans, and Ethiopians Dominate Running Competitions?). There is no core determinant of Kalenjin running success; even one study I cited in my article shows that Germans had a higher level of a physiological variable conducive to long-distance running success compared to the Kalenjin. This is irrelevant due to the systems view of athleticism. Low Kenyan BMI (the lowest in the world), combined with altitude training (they live in higher altitudes and presumably compete in lower altitudes), a meso-ecto somatotype, the will to train, and even running to and from where they have to go all combine to show how and why this small tribe of Kenyans excel so much in these types of long-distance running competitions.

Sure, we can say that what we know about anatomy and physiology that a certain parameter may be “better” or “worse” in the context of the sport in question, no one denies that. What is denied is the claim that athleticism reduces to biology, and it does not reduce to biology because biology, society, and culture all interact and the interaction itself is irreducible; it does not make sense to attempt to partition biology, society, and culture into percentage points in order to say that one variable has primacy over another. This is because each level of the system interacts with every other level. Genes, anatomy and physiology, the individual, the overarching society, cultural norms, peers, and a whole slew of other factors explain athletic success not only in the Kalenjin but in all athletes.

Broos et al (2016) showed that in those with the RR genotype, coupled with the right morphology and fast twitch muscle fibers, this would lead to more explosive contractions. Broos et al (2016) write:

In conclusion, this study shows that a-actinin-3 deficiency decreases the contraction velocity of isolated type IIa muscle fibers. The decreased cross-sectional area of type IIa and IIx fibers may explain the increased muscle volume in RR genotypes. Thus, our results suggest that, rather than fiber force, combined effects of morphological and contractile properties of individual fast muscle fibers attribute to the enhanced performance observed in RR genotypes during explosive contractions.

This shows the interaction between the genotype, morphology, fast twitch fibers (which blacks have more of; Caeser and Henry, 2015), and, of course, the grueling training these elite athletes go through. All of these factors interact. This further buttresses the argument that I am making that different levels of the system causally interact with each other to produce the athletic phenotype.

Pro-athletes also have “extraordinary skills for rapidly learning complex and neutral dynamic visual scenes” (Faubert, 2013). This is yet another part of the system, along with other physical variables, that an elite athlete needs to have. Indeed, as Lippi, Favalaro, and Guidi (2008) write:

An advantageous physical genotype is not enough to build a top-class athlete, a champion capable of breaking Olympic records, if endurance elite performances (maximal rate of oxygen uptake, economy of movement, lactate/ventilatory threshold and, potentially, oxygen uptake kinetics) () are not supported by a strong mental background.

So now we have: (1) strong mental background; (2) genes; (3) morphology; (4) Vo2 max; (5) altitude; (6) will to win; (7) training; (8) coaching; (9) injuries; (10) peer/familial support; (11) fiber typing; (12) heart strength etc. There are of course myriad other variables that are conducive to athletic success but are irreducible since we need to look at it in the whole context of the system we are observing.

In conclusion, athleticism is irreducible to biology. Since athleticism is irreducible to biology, then to explain athleticism, we need to look at the whole entire system, from the individual all the way to the society that individual is in (and everything in between) to explain how and why athletic phenotypes develop. There is no logical reason to attempt to reduce athleticism to biology since all of these factors interact. Therefore, the systems view of athleticism is the way we should view the development of athletic phenotypes.

(i) Nature and Nurture interact.
(ii) Since nature and nurture interact, it makes no sense to attempt to reduce anything to one or the other.
(iii) Since it makes no sense to attempt to reduce anything to nature or nurture since nature and nurture interact, then we must dispense with the idea that reductionism can causally explain differences in athleticism between individuals.


38 Comments

  1. King meLo says:

    An insufficient cause is still a cause

    P2 is nonsensical.

    Liked by 1 person

    • King meLo says:

      Lol, why?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Because of the interaction of the numerous variables I discussed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • King meLo says:

      An effect can have more than one cause RR. That doesn’t mean you can’t explore the influence that each one has. It isn’t wrong to say that genes cause athleticism, it’s just vacuous.

      Liked by 1 person

    • RaceRealist says:

      Sociocultural factors cause athleticism too. Biology affects athleticism. They interact. Therefore one can’t reduce athleticism to any one factor. The Kalenjin prove the point.

      Liked by 1 person

    • King meLo says:

      But who attempts to do that?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      It’s a general complaint. I think Rushton was a reductionist here in R, B, E.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      R B E?

      I feel most HBDers would agree that other factors contribute to phenotypic expression besides genes I think the disagreement is more about what has the largest effect ceteris paribus.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      R, E, B* (Race, Evolution, and Behavior)

      I don’t think there is a “largest effect”, as I’ve argued.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Well at first I meant larger effect in reference to explaining observed variation. That’s not the same as separating the cause.

      But now I’m thinking you could use temporal distance as a proxy to differentiate what factors have the largest effect.(proximate vs distal). This wouldn’t contradict a systems view of biology.

      Liked by 1 person

    • RaceRealist says:

      Can you elaborate?

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Of course, but I’m working right now. I’ll respond in a few hours.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Interactionism may not necessarily imply that there is no “privileged” level of causation. Clearly there is a temporal(time) order of mechanisms catalyzing an effect. For example, muscles contracting and my arm extending would be a proximate cause to me lifting a weight. While the neurophysical events in my brain that represent the intention to lift the weight and trigger the motor response would be distal.

      Another thing to consider is that fact that plasticity is relative among traits. Some take millions of years to change while some take only a few generations. Obviously the interactions are also relative in magnitude.

      Liked by 1 person

    • RaceRealist says:

      Good examples, but it doesn’t go over the argument I made here. What can you pinpoint as a privliged cause in regard to athleticism? A? B? C? D? E? Why not N? Z? Or do A, B, C, D, E, N, and Z all interact and you can’t pinpoint one as the cause of the athletic phenotype? You need the right morphology for the sport. But you need the right physiology. But you need the will to win. But you need great coaching. But you need to bust your ass in practice, etc etc. This is why the biocultural view of athleticism is so strong.

      Liked by 1 person

    • King meLo says:

      It depends on how we define “privileged”. Obviously proximate causes are temporally privileged.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I define “privileged” the same way Noble (2012) does.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Ok?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Due to the interaction of the multitude of factors I’ve provided, one cannot privilege any one variable as a cause of athletic success since every variable is involved with athletic success.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      But obviously there is a temporal privilege to causation. I haven’t seen you refute this yet. How does Noble define privilege?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      What one variable over another causes athletic success?

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Ah, so he’s defining it as ignoring other causes. So our disagreement is semantic. Nevermind then.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Is there one variable over another that one can point to that we can say definitively causes athletic success? Or does the whole system interact with myriad variables? See eg Broos et al (2016).

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Well of course the system is holistic but that doesn’t contradict me. Hence why it’s semantics not conceptual, it really just boils down to how I’m defining privilege.

      So you think time is not an inherent factor in causation? Or does the cause happen at the exact same time as it’s effect?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      OK we agree with the premise “the system is holistic.” We disagree with the premise “since the system is holistic we cannot privilege one variable over another.”

      All variables coalesce to make the system, in this case the athletic phenotype. Thus, we cannot point to one variable and say that’s the cause of athletic phenotype P, since all of the variables interact.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Right all the variabls interact and therefore all are causes, but some causes are temporally closer to the effect than others. This is “Temporal privilege”.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Pick out one cause out of the myriad variables that make up the athletic phenotype.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Gripping the dumbbell.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Drive, motivation, gym access etc. There is no one cause, as I would know.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Right they are allowing causes but is there not a temporal order to causes and their effects?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      If one doesn’t have motivation, they won’t have the ability to push themselves. The same with drive. If one had no access to a gym, they won’t be as good as someone who has access to a gym, etc etc.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      I’m not sure how that contradicts what I’m saying.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Add that to the twelve points I cited in my article.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Ok? Causation is temporally linear.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      What’s the temporal cause of sprinting success?

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Many things. 12 of which you already named. A cause is more privileged depending on it’s temporal proximity to the effect in question.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Right. And my claim is that since the 12 variables (and countless more) interact, then we cannot privilege one variables as the cause of the athletic phenotype.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      All*

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Jean Baptiste Lamarck

Eva Jablonka

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 598,743 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com
%d bloggers like this: