Did humans evolve into separate races that differ in mental traits?

[Over 9000]

I've just come off a 7 day block for supposed lack of civility (perhaps complaining about argument by repetition from Arete, endlessly repeating that <0.5 Fst invalidates taxa?) and "not understanding biology", presumably for correcting one of your "experts". It would be nice if you could point out my most uncivil comments so I can avoid this in future. I'm sure this was the actual reason I was banned, and not because mods here don't like my opinion.

I notice this thread has been locked very recently.

"The thread is now repeating arguments and rehashing old discussion"

Totally false. We seem to have overcome the race denial hurdle and were at the point of discussing behavior genetic studies. I pointed out to your "expert" Arete that he'd cherry picked a study (Turkheimer 2003) on which he'd based his argument, so he learned something there. Then there was an extended discussion where a poster tried to imply that I was a Nazi. Was this my civility issue? Posters are bringing up the theory of multiple intelliegences vs. IQ. This has not been covered. The thread is just getting interesting. There is an interesting idea here from biology expert Arete that we apply the same methodology that we use to detect genetic differences in geographically separated stickleback fish to the racial IQ question. I certainly have something to say about that, the least of which being how it makes an iota of sense.

Of course, I do not expect it to be unlocked.

If James Watson can be fired pour encourager les autres for saying "testing suggests Africans don't have the same intelligence as us" or something similar, what hope can an Internet poster have? I mean imagine if one of you got associated with similar comments. You'd be fired, right? Much safer to say "race doesn't exist" or "but the environment though", or simply demand mathematical proof for one hypothesis and failing which assume the opposite based on nothing. Meanwhile you can ban anyone who disagrees on trumped up charges so you don't have to suffer the cognitive dissonance and public embarassment of your shoddy logic.

It's just sad that on a so-called science forum we still have to toe the PC line. It's embarassing that mods here pretend to be "scientific" while doing that though.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Over 9000

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I have just realised that you must not have noticed one direct question which was asked of you - would you confirm that you have not posted here before as mikemikev ? If you have already denied that you are Mikemikev then I apologise for not seeing this denial.

 

[StringJunky]

I've just come off a 7 day block for supposed lack of civility (perhaps complaining about argument by repetition from Arete, endlessly repeating that <0.5 Fst invalidates taxa?) and "not understanding biology", presumably for correcting one of your "experts". It would be nice if you could point out my most uncivil comments so I can avoid this in future. I'm sure this was the actual reason I was banned, and not because mods here don't like my opinion.

 

I notice this thread has been locked.

 

"The thread is now repeating arguments and rehashing old discussion"

 

Totally false. We seem to have overcome the race denial hurdle and were at the point of discussing behavior genetic studies. I pointed out to your "expert" Arete that he'd cherry picked a study (Turkheimer 2003) on which he'd based his argument, so he learned something there. Then there was an extended discussion where a poster tried to imply that I was a Nazi. Was this my civility issue? Posters are bringing up the theory of multiple intelliegences vs. IQ. This has not been covered. The thread is just getting interesting. There is an interesting idea here from biology expert Arete that we apply the same methodology that we use to detect genetic differences in geographically separated stickleback fish to the racial IQ question. I certainly have something to say about that, the least of which being how it makes an iota of sense.

 

Of course, I do not expect it to be unlocked.

 

If James Watson can be fired for saying "testing suggests Africans don't have the same intelligence as us" or something similar, what hope can an Internet poster have? I mean imagine if one of you got associated with similar comments. You'd be fired, right? Much safer to say "race doesn't exist" or "but the environment though", or simply demand mathematical proof for one hypothesis and failing which assume the opposite based on nothing.

 

It's just sad that on a so-called science forum we still have to toe the PC line. It's embarassing that mods here pretend to be "scientific" while doing that though.

What does such a discussion, by amateurs like yourself, not skilled in statistical analysis and genetics, achieve in the end that is not negative?

[Over 9000]

What does such a discussion, by amateurs like yourself, not skilled in statistical analysis and genetics, achieve in the end that is not negative?

 

I've pointed out the failures of your so-called experts. Your comment is nothing more than empty slander. Would you be surprised to learn that I'd been trained in genetics and statistical analysis? Perhaps that would affect your authority argument, which is detached from any points I engaged in. Please explain to us where my statistics and genetics was incorrect? You are a liar.

 

We seem to have achieved one thing, which is establishing that this board is scientifically weak. That's a positive for any but the regulars.

Can anybody recommend an actual science forum without biased ignorant self-righteous moderators, whining about the supposed "tone" of certain posters they happen to disagree with for career reasons, where we can continue the discussion?

 

Anyway, thanks for the little hosting you provided. Enjoy.

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by Over 9000

[DrKrettin]

 

Can anybody recommend an actual science forum without biased ignorant self-righteous moderators, whining about the supposed "tone" of certain posters, where we can continue the discussion?

 

Yes, I can, but it is full of amateurs not skilled in statistical analysis and genetics, so you would not like it.

[Over 9000]

 

Yes, I can, but it is full of amateurs not skilled in statistical analysis and genetics, so you would not like it.

 

Do they at least have the ability to not cherry pick studies and endlessly repeat the same debunked fallacies?

 

If you're implying my statistics or genetics is incorrect please show us where.

 

Unless you are slandering me.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Over 9000

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Over 9000

 

Stop accusing the membership of slander and stop branding them liars. This is not a request it is an instruction; your continued participation is contingent on your compliance.

 

I note with interest that you have not answered my fairly simple question above - I know you saw the post as you neg-repped it. Please deny that you are Mikemikev.

[Over 9000]

!

Moderator Note

 

Over 9000

 

Stop accusing the membership of slander and stop branding them liars. This is not a request it is an instruction; your continued participation is contingent on your compliance.

 

You're biased.

 

This comment

 

"What does such a discussion, by amateurs like yourself, not skilled in statistical analysis and genetics, achieve in the end that is not negative?"

 

is about as uncivil as it gets. Especially with no explanation of why that's the case. But me complaining about this comment is sanctioned? How entirely dishonest. Naturally this is an excuse to ban me, because you don't like my scientific opinion.

 

Sorry to have stepped on the toes of "the membership". I'll leave you to your sad little echo chamber.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Over 9000

[Raider5678]

 

You're biased.

 

This comment

 

"What does such a discussion, by amateurs like yourself, not skilled in statistical analysis and genetics, achieve in the end that is not negative?"

 

is about as uncivil as it gets. Especially with no explanation of why that's the case. But me complaining about this comment is sanctioned? How entirely dishonest. Naturally this is an excuse to ban me, because you don't like my scientific opinion.

If you don't want to get banned, then follow the mods instructions. Here, I'll type it out, say:

I am not MikeMikeV.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Raider5678

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

You still haven't denied you are Mikemikev.

 

I try to be disinterested but I know I will fail to an extent. I disagree with your judgment of the civility of Stringjunky's post and with your appraisal of DrKrettin's post - neither are uncivil, neither are slanderous, and neither of them give grounds to brand the author a liar.

 

Surely you must realise that if we wanted to ban you for your opinions we would have done that many posts ago? We tolerate scientific discord and disagreement - we will not tolerate insulting behaviour, brow-beating, incivility in posts, and belittling members.

 

[Over 9000]

!

Moderator Note

 

Surely you must realise that if we wanted to ban you for your opinions we would have done that many posts ago?

 

 

I've been banned for the last 7 days. My guess is you don't have the authority to ban me yet without mod consensus. Doubtless as people turn up today you'll get that soon.

!

Moderator Note

 

I try to be disinterested but I know I will fail to an extent. I disagree with your judgment of the civility of Stringjunky's post and with your appraisal of DrKrettin's post - neither are uncivil, neither are slanderous, and neither of them give grounds to brand the author a liar.

 

 

If they cannot explain their accusations then they are slander and must be redacted. They can show one place where I got something wrong in genetics or statistics. What hypocrisy! I've been contradicting your so-called experts all over the place, as detailed in the OP. If they can explain them I will redact my charges of slander.

 

Edit: emphasis added above for the hard of reading/intentionally obtuse below.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Over 9000

[Raider5678]

 

I've been banned for the last 7 days. My guess is you don't have the authority to ban me yet without mod consensus. Doubtless as people turn up today you'll get that soon.

 

If they cannot explain their accusations then they are slander and must be redacted. They can show one place where I got something wrong in genetics or statistics. What hypocrisy! I've been contradicting your so-called experts all over the place, as detailed in the OP. If they can explain them I will redact my charges of slander.

Better question, please point out a post inside that entire discussion you had where you completely and utterly contradicted them.

[Ophiolite]

 

If they cannot explain their accusations then they are slander and must be redacted. They can show one place where I got something wrong in genetics or statistics. What hypocrisy! I've been contradicting your so-called experts all over the place, as detailed in the OP. If they can explain them I will redact my charges of slander.

You seem to be missing the point that, regardless of the accuracy of your scientific points, or the excellence of your scientific education in relevant subjects, if you behave like an arrogant, self satisfied asshole, then your posts will be unwelcome.

 

Some of your points may actually be sound. The manner in which you are going about embedding them in vitriolic posts is seriously counter productive. Three possibilities come to the top of the list as to why you are doing this:

 

1. You are an aggressive fool, looking for an argument.

2. You are a troll, looking for an argument.

3. It has genuinely never occurred to you how aggressive and obnoxious your posting style appears to others.

 

I hope it is number 3, in which case you now know and amend your posting style accordingly.

[Over 9000]

You seem to be missing the point that, regardless of the accuracy of your scientific points, or the excellence of your scientific education in relevant subjects, if you behave like an arrogant, self satisfied asshole, then your posts will be unwelcome.

 

Some of your points may actually be sound. The manner in which you are going about embedding them in vitriolic posts is seriously counter productive. Three possibilities come to the top of the list as to why you are doing this:

 

1. You are an aggressive fool, looking for an argument.

2. You are a troll, looking for an argument.

3. It has genuinely never occurred to you how aggressive and obnoxious your posting style appears to others.

 

I hope it is number 3, in which case you now know and amend your posting style accordingly.

 

4. I'm actually rather self composed in the face of ad nauseam dishonesty and posters trying to make out that I'm a "Nazi" and insulting me personally about my competence while I contradict them making zero errors, but my POV is unpopular so they use subjective and hypocritical charges of "civility" to ban me because they failed to contradict me on the science angle.

 

I can believe that my posting is "obnoxious". That's because I'm the "bad guy". I don't post that we're "all equal". So if I call people a "fool" or a "troll" or "obnoxious" or whatever it looks worse. When you do it, it's ok. Nausea is subjective. Sometimes people experience nausea when they are pulled out of their bubble.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Over 9000

[Memammal]

Posters are bringing up the theory of multiple intelliegences vs. IQ.

FWIW, I get the feeling that you might have missed the context in which it was dealt with. I suggest that you read that paper, or the excerpts thereof, again. I am not convinced that it attempted to draw comparisons between Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences and IQ per se.

[Over 9000]

FWIW, I get the feeling that you might have missed the context in which it was dealt with. I suggest that you read that paper, or the excerpts thereof, again. I am not convinced that it attempted to draw comparisons between Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences and IQ per se.

 

You wrote ""The paper does not deal with the Flynn effect per se, but it points to the development of (multiple types of) intelligence in order to cope with our changing environment."

 

I wrote "posters are bringing up the theory of multiple intelligences"

 

So now you think the paper is not about multiple intelligences? I would like to take a look at it and offer an opinion.

 

The relevant point really is that the discussion has moved to the measurement of intelligence. Which contradicts the closer's claim that we are rehashing the same point (ie. "race does not exist").

Going through the thread after I was banned it appears to be an extended discussion of whether or not to call the hereditarian hypothesis "racist".

 

Very important question.

 

*facepalm*

Edited November 10, 2016 by Over 9000

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Thread Locked.

 

I asked that no continuation of the previously locked thread be attempted.

 

Do not open another thread to moan about this decision nor to continue the discussion of the previously locked thread