Unfair closure of race and intelligence thread

[Mikemikev]

Then if you can make a sound argument to reopen the thread then PM the moderator who closed the thread and then other moderators will look at the thread. (They probably are looking at it now anyway)

 

 

You must remain civil, be careful about claims regarding specific groups of people, and do ones best to remain in accepted science. I don't want to discuss specifics of your thread here, that would be wrong.

 

My OP here is perfectly sound. The abuse is transparent. If your forum does not allow discussion of race differences then it is your forum that is outside science.

[ajb]

My OP here is perfectly sound. The abuse is transparent. If your forum does not allow discussion of race differences then it is your forum that is outside science.

It is not a subject I am knowledgeable in: as you can tell by the fact that I did not post in your thread.

 

You can use the search feature to look for other discussions on this subject. I am not sure myself what has been discussed.

[Mikemikev]

It is not a subject I am knowledgeable in: as you can tell by the fact that I did not post in your thread.

 

You can use the search feature to look for other discussions on this subject. I am not sure myself what has been discussed.

 

I meant the OP in this thread. Also there was nothing unscientific in the race thread. Anyway, thanks for your input, you have been reasonable.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Besides the barely concealed racist undertones, you made it pretty apparent that you weren't there for genuine discussion the moment you began responding to members by insulting them. Why should I have waited for you to do that again before I closed it, exactly?

 

Our forum allows discussion of most things, provided that they do not go against the rules. Your posts did. You made it very apparent that this wasn't going to change. Your thread got closed.

 

I hope that clarifies it for you.

[Mikemikev]

Besides the barely concealed racist undertones, you made it pretty apparent that you weren't there for genuine discussion the moment you began responding to members by insulting them. Why should I have waited for you to do that again before I closed it, exactly?

 

Our forum allows discussion of most things, provided that they do not go against the rules. Your posts did. You made it very apparent that this wasn't going to change. Your thread got closed.

 

I hope that clarifies it for you.

 

So you closed the thread because of one insult? Is that appropriate among mods here?

 

Does my OP in this thread not show I am here for discussion. Let's be honest here, I made one insult after being subjected to a torrent of abuse. You closed the thread because it's "racist". Not because it's unscientific, or untrue. Not because I was illogical, ignorant or incorrect. That would be my opponents. But I was "racist". Can you explain what this word means?

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mikemikev

[hypervalent_iodine]

Does my OP in this thread not show I am here for discussion. Let's be honest here, I made one insult after being subjected to a torrent of abuse. You closed the thread because it's "racist". Not because it's unscientific, or untrue. Not because I was illogical, ignorant or incorrect. That would be my opponents. But I was "racist". Can you explain what this word means?

If you believe there were posts that insulted you, report them. If we agree, we'll do something about it. Specifically relating to your thread: if they were there, I certainly didn't see them. All I saw were the posts (yes, plural) made by yourself that were unnecessarily hostile and / or abusive towards other members (and we can now include this post of yours in that list).

 

As for the scientific content of your post (or lack thereof), why does that even matter here? It's not relevant to why I closed the thread, and I think it was well covered by the other posts in the thread besides.

 

Frankly, the OP and subsequent posts of that thread, as well as posts in other threads, point towards you coming into the thread with an agenda. That is not a good or objective starting point for discussion, particularly on a topic that already has such a huge potential to go the wrong way. Perhaps that is not the case, but it certainly seems to be.

[swansont]

 

Well it wasn't. Mod is clearly biased ("ridiculous premise") and cut me off before I could respond. The mod himself said there were "rational responses" so your analysis doesn't even make sense.

 

So I had a busy Saturday. Do you normally allow under 24 hours for a response?

 

Let's be frank here.

 

You were able to make a double-digit number of posts in that thread, which has 60+ total posts, so I'm not buying that you couldn't respond.

[John Cuthber]

A thread that talks about "race" and "intelligence" without starting of by scientifically defining both words (or referencing a definition) is unscientific.

The observation that, for example, skin colour is correlated with success in answering the questions of an IQ test is not the same as scientific evidence that race is related to intelligence.

[swansont]

 

So you closed the thread because of one insult?

 

One? Surely you jest. You acknowledged two that I pointed out earlier, and I wasn't doing a comprehensive listing.

 

As far as a "torrent" of abuse goes, being challenged on your thesis is not abuse. It's the expected response to un- or poorly substantiated claims.

[Mikemikev]

If you believe there were posts that insulted you, report them. If we agree, we'll do something about it. Specifically relating to your thread: if they were there, I certainly didn't see them. All I saw were the posts (yes, plural) made by yourself that were unnecessarily hostile and / or abusive towards other members (and we can now include this post of yours in that list).

 

As for the scientific content of your post (or lack thereof), why does that even matter here? It's not relevant to why I closed the thread, and I think it was well covered by the other posts in the thread besides.

 

Frankly, the OP and subsequent posts of that thread, as well as posts in other threads, point towards you coming into the thread with an agenda. That is not a good or objective starting point for discussion, particularly on a topic that already has such a huge potential to go the wrong way. Perhaps that is not the case, but it certainly seems to be.

 

Your stated reason was "Moderator Note I think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this."

 

if you are now changing this to the fact I made an insult ("OP made an insult. I am closing this"?) fine. I apologise, again, and will not do it again. There has been and will be no political points. Reopen please.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mikemikev

[swansont]

 

Your stated reason was "Moderator Note I think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this."

 

if you are now changing this to the fact I made an insult ("OP made an insult. I am closing this"?) fine. I apologise, again, and will not do it again. There has been and will be no political points. Reopen please.

 

You are mistaking a comment for the reason. You sin by omission here. You need to look at the entire modnote.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Your stated reason was

 

"Moderator NoteI think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this."

 

if you are now changing this to the fact I made an insult ("OP made an insult. I am closing this"?) fine. I apologise, again, and will not do it again. There has been and will be no political points. Reopen please.

Is there any particular reason you are choosing to ignore the other half of my mod tip? You do realise that my post is visible to everyone, right?

 

My whole post from that thread:

 

!

Moderator Note

I think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this.

 

Mikemikev, be aware that posting what essentially amounts to derogatory slurs against groups of people is prohibited by the rules you agreed to upon registering. You should also note that being abusive towards our members is not tolerated, nor is in allowed. You are toeing a fine line here. Do not tempt it again.

[Mikemikev]

 

You were able to make a double-digit number of posts in that thread, which has 60+ total posts, so I'm not buying that you couldn't respond.

 

I logged off 10.30 Friday and worked Saturday. How dare you accuse me of lying? Is there a 24 hour time limit on responses?

A thread that talks about "race" and "intelligence" without starting of by scientifically defining both words (or referencing a definition) is unscientific.

The observation that, for example, skin colour is correlated with success in answering the questions of an IQ test is not the same as scientific evidence that race is related to intelligence.

 

I did define them. By ancestry and IQ. Why do people keep saying this? Does it work to confuse people so often you failed to notice I defined and operationalised both concepts?

[swansont]

 

I logged off 10.30 Friday and worked Saturday. How dare you accuse me of lying? Is there a 24 hour time limit on responses?

 

You did respond many times, so to claim you couldn't respond in that thread is incorrect. Which is immaterial, since its closure was based on the posts you made, not on posts you didn't make.

[Mikemikev]

Is there any particular reason you are choosing to ignore the other half of my mod tip? You do realise that my post is visible to everyone, right?

 

My whole post from that thread:

 

!

Moderator Note

I think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this.

 

Mikemikev, be aware that posting what essentially amounts to derogatory slurs against groups of people is prohibited by the rules you agreed to upon registering. You should also note that being abusive towards our members is not tolerated, nor is in allowed. You are toeing a fine line here. Do not tempt it again.

 

Yes, you gave those reasons before saying you were closing. The other points looked incidental. Your forum prohibits discussion of group differences?

[swansont]

 

Yes, you gave those reasons before saying you were closing. The other points looked incidental. Your forum prohibits discussion of group differences?

 

 

Our forum prohibits slurs and insults. This has been explained several times as the reason for the closure. What about this is confusing to you?

[Mikemikev]

 

 

Our forum prohibits slurs and insults. This has been explained several times as the reason for the closure. What about this is confusing to you?

 

That the observation an individual or group has a low IQ is a slur. It's also a fact n'est pas? I guess you have a problem with differential psychology.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mikemikev

[StringJunky]

 

Yes, you gave those reasons before saying you were closing. The other points looked incidental. Your forum prohibits discussion of group differences?

Your posts were noted, dismantled and put in the correct perspective. Going around in circles is boring and your attitude not conducive to reasonable discussion of such a subject. It is clear that you don't know what you don't know; arrogance of ignorance. CharonY has given you the most current, informed answer to your premise. Read it again.

Edited May 29, 2016 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

I did define them. By ancestry and IQ. Why do people keep saying this?

Well, since we are all human (if you go back far enough) we share all our ancestors and are thus the same race.

IQ is a poor surrogate for intelligence, well known to be culturally biassed.

So, how do you propose to do science on the basis of essentially "made up stuff".

 

Face it; race is not a scientifically valid term, (except, possibly, in psychology) and thus it is not a valid field for discussion on a scientific web site.

Edited May 29, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Mikemikev]

Your posts were noted, dismantled and put in the correct perspective. Going around in circles is boring and your attitude not conducive to reasonable discussion of such a subject. It is clear that you don't know what you don't know; arrogance of ignorance. CharonY has given you the most current, informed answer to your premise. Read it again.

 

I read it, it's a paraphrase of Nisbett. All of his points have been responded to in the literature, I gave an example in the OP. The point here is, why can't I respond?

 

Otherwise your cheerleading is vacuous. I'm "ignorant"? Because you say so? No you are. Lol.

Well, IQ is a poor surrogate for intelligence and, since we are all human (if you go back far enough) we share all our ancestors.

So, how do you propose to do science on the basis if essentially "made up stuff".

 

Face it; race is not a scientifically valid term, (except, possibly, in psychology) and thus it is not a valid field for discussion on a scientific web site.

 

I'm happy to correct you on these points. They deserve separate threads.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mikemikev

[hypervalent_iodine]

Let's not get bogged down into the content of the thread that was closed, and return to the topic of this thread.

[Mikemikev]

Let's not get bogged down into the content of the thread that was closed, and return to the topic of this thread.

 

Quite. So the statement that races differ in average IQ is a slur prohibited on this forum?

[swansont]

 

That the observation an individual or group has a low IQ is a slur. It's also a fact n'est pas? I guess you have a problem with differential psychology.

 

Is that one of the examples I cited?

[Mikemikev]

 

Is that one of the examples I cited?

 

Just a simple yes or no to clarify your policy would be appreciated.

[EdEarl]

 

That the observation an individual or group has a low IQ is a slur. It's also a fact n'est pas? I guess you have a problem with differential psychology.

Several people in this discussion have PhD degrees and at least one teaches at a university. I think you cannot substantiate that observation.