Unfair closure of race and intelligence thread

[Mikemikev]

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

 

What does that have to do with my observation? If an individual calls mentioning group differences in IQ a slur, that person has a problem with differential psychology, no matter how many PhDs are on your forum.

[swansont]

 

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

 

You didn't ask a question that has a yes/no answer in the post I quoted.

 

Your thread closure was due to slurs and insults, of which I cited two examples. "races differ in average IQ" was not one of them. (That was a (poorly substantiated) scientific claim that was challenged)

 

If an individual calls mentioning group differences in IQ a slur

 

Please stop with this. You have been told repeatedly that this is not what happened.

[Mikemikev]

You didn't ask a question that has a yes/no answer in the post I quoted.

 

Your thread closure was due to slurs and insults, of which I cited two examples. "races differ in average IQ" was not one of them. (That was a (poorly substantiated) scientific claim that was challenged)

 

 

Please stop with this. You have been told repeatedly that this is not what happened.

Oh really? To me it looked like my premise was described as a slur.

 

!

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.

If it's not that's good to know.

 

I remember I called some people morons. I apologised three times already.

What was the other thing again please?

 

Ah I've found it. I said someone was "incapable of addressing the question". This was after they asked me what psychological problems I had. I said they were making an ad hominem argument because they were incapable of addressing the question. You paint this as me making a personal attack.

 

Should I apologise for that one? This is why you closed the thread? Where is the slur against groups?

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mikemikev

[dimreepr]

Sometimes that feeling of paranoia is because everyone is looking AT you, but mostly it’s because they’re looking past you.

Edited May 29, 2016 by dimreepr

[swansont]

Oh really? To me it looked like my premise was described as a slur.

"If an individual calls mentioning group differences in IQ a slur"

 

You did rather more than that, unfortunately. You were not cited for simply "mentioning group differences in IQ".

 

Ah I've found it. I said someone was "incapable of addressing the question". This was after they asked me what psychological problems I had. I said they were making an ad hominem argument because they were incapable of addressing the question. You paint this as me making a personal attack.

You may have felt that did not address the question, which would be questioning what they had (or had not) posted. But no, you said they were incapable of addressing the question, which is a personal attack. This was also not precipitated by an ad hominem on you. I have already explained this, but you are of course free to buttress your knowledge of the meaning of this terminology elsewhere.

[Mikemikev]

"If an individual calls mentioning group differences in IQ a slur"

You did rather more than that, unfortunately. You were not cited for simply "mentioning group differences in IQ".

 

 

You may have felt that did not address the question, which would be questioning what they had (or had not) posted. But no, you said they were incapable of addressing the question, which is a personal attack. This was also not precipitated by an ad hominem on you. I have already explained this, but you are of course free to buttress your knowledge of the meaning of this terminology elsewhere.

I think the real question is why you are focussing on the details of my behavior when your members were questioning my personal psychology to provoke this. Is there some kind of ideological bias in the mod staff? Like would they call consensus academic psychology facts "ridiculous"? Let's try to be honest here shall we.

[Mordred]

I haven't looked over the thread in question nor do I desire to do so.

 

However I can testify that a moderators job on a forum is extremely difficult. Particularly in this example. What most people don't see is the complaints on a particular thread. The moderators cannot reveal those complaints nor can they even indicate that there has or has not been complaints.

 

On a world wide forum that involves every ethnic group as its members. I can certainly see numerous problems associated with the thread on question.

 

The nature of the thread itself is incredibly risky and prone to discriminate one group over another.

On a forum this should never happen.

 

Particularly one who's intent is to teach science.

 

Is there a safe way to discuss possible disadvantages of one group as opposed to another?

 

Possibly however it sounds as though this thread went from a safe scientific discussion to racial slur and insults which quite rightly entailed being shut down.

 

To safely discuss this particular topic one requires his post to be 100% impartial to any personal feelings. One technique is to discuss the pros and cons in a particular scientific paper.

 

The very minute impartiality is lost then either it is recovered quickly or the thread should be locked.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

Is there some kind of ideological bias in the mod staff?

 

 

If you feel there is some such bias, there probably isn't much you can do about it. Other than find another forum more to your liking. There is no rule that says an Internet forum has to be fair.

[Mikemikev]

I haven't looked over the thread in question nor do I desire to do so.

However I can testify that a moderators job on a forum is extremely difficult. Particularly in this example. What most people don't see is the complaints on a particular thread. The moderators cannot reveal those complaints nor can they even indicate that there has or has not been complaints.

On a world wide forum that involves every ethnic group as its members. I can certainly see numerous problems associated with the thread on question.

The nature of the thread itself is incredibly risky and prone to discriminate one group over another.

On a forum this should never happen.

Particularly one who's intent is to teach science.

Is there a safe way to discuss possible disadvantages of one group as opposed to another?

Possibly however it sounds as though this thread went from a safe scientific discussion to racial slur and insults which quite rightly entailed being shut down.

To safely discuss this particular topic one requires his post to be 100% impartial to any personal feelings. One technique is to discuss the pros and cons in a particular scientific paper.

The very minute impartiality is lost then either it is recovered quickly or the thread should be locked.

True. We should all go into minority safe spaces rather than face biological facts.

[Mordred]

True. We should all go into minority safe spaces rather than face biological facts.

In science there is no real facts. For example related to the topic ...

 

Say one study uses an IQ test to measure two groups. One group does poorly while the other excels...

Does this mean one group is worse than the other or does it mean there is a problem in the IQ test itself?

 

I've taken several IQ tests and I know they are not all the same. Some tests actually favor men over women.

Just as some tests favor the teachings of one region over.

 

Simply due to the extreme difficulty of coming up with questions that reflect analytical ability as opposed to learned skills.

 

So is it correct to assume that studies that favor one group over another based on an IQ test is a fact?

I think not.

 

Take for example pattern recognition and fitting those patterns onto a puzzle. Sounds fair doesn't it?

 

Yet someone who regularly does jigsaw puzzles will be more practiced at these problems.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mordred

[Mikemikev]

In science there is no real facts. For example related to the topic ...

Say one study uses an IQ test to measure two groups. One group does poorly while the other excels...

Does this mean one group is worse than the other or does it mean there is a problem in the IQ test itself?

I've taken several IQ tests and I know they are not all the same. Some tests actually favor men over women.

Just as some tests favor the teachings of one region over.

Simply due to the extreme difficulty of coming up with questions that reflect analytical ability as opposed to learned skills.

So is it correct to assume that studies that favor one group over another based on an IQ test is a fact?

I think not.

This thread is about the unfair closure of the other thread. You can open another thread on the validity of IQ.

[Mordred]

This thread is about the unfair closure of the other thread. You can open another thread on the validity of IQ.

The last reply is in reference to the fact comment.

[swansont]

I think the real question is why you are focussing on the details of my behavior when your members were questioning my personal psychology to provoke this. Is there some kind of ideological bias in the mod staff? Like would they call consensus academic psychology facts "ridiculous"? Let's try to be honest here shall we.

I think you grossly misunderstood that particular post. You were posting in psychology, and someone asked you what your psychology-related issue was. I suspect it's because it seems more suited to biology. That you interpreted this as an attack is unfortunate.

[DrmDoc]

Oh really? To me it looked like my premise was described as a slur.

 

 

If it's not that's good to know.

 

I remember I called some people morons. I apologised three times already.

What was the other thing again please?

 

Ah I've found it. I said someone was "incapable of addressing the question". This was after they asked me what psychological problems I had. I said they were making an ad hominem argument because they were incapable of addressing the question. You paint this as me making a personal attack.

 

Should I apologise for that one? This is why you closed the thread? Where is the slur against groups?

 

Prior to that post, your OP premise coupled with your unreasonably hostile and insulting responses to cogent, opposing commentary were telling of motives not clearly evident. If you were offended by my interest in the psychology compeling your posts in a psychology forum, my apologies. However, your angry posting style (IMO) continues to speak volumes for issues or concerns (no offense) you haven't clearified or addressed.

[Mikemikev]

 

Prior to that post, your OP premise coupled with your unreasonably hostile and insulting responses to cogent, opposing commentary were telling of motives not clearly evident. If you were offended by my interest in the psychology compeling your posts in a psychology forum, my apologies. However, your angry posting style (IMO) continues to speak volumes for issues or concerns (no offense) you haven't clearified or addressed.

 

Your tone argument is of no interest or relevance, and your attempt to justify your personal attack is frankly pathetic.

 

You think it makes sense to psychoanalyse your opponent when discussing group IQ differences? Don't be so absurd.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mikemikev

[swansont]

Your tone argument is of no interest or relevance, and your attempt to justify your personal attack is frankly pathetic.

 

You think it makes sense to psychoanalyse your opponent when discussing group IQ differences?

 

That's not what happened. How about you stop with the revisionist history.

 

Don't be so absurd.

You should listen to your own advice.

[Mikemikev]

That's not what happened

That's exactly what happened.

[swansont]

That's exactly what happened.

 

 

No, you interpreted a post to be that, but that's not what actually happened.

[DrmDoc]

 

Your tone argument is of no interest or relevance, and your attempt to justify your personal attack is frankly pathetic.

 

You think it makes sense to psychoanalyse your opponent when discussing group IQ differences? Don't be so absurd.

 

Although you may view our discourse otherwise, my comments weren't meant as argument, my questioning your motives was not an intended attack, and I am not your adversary. Your, seemingly, angry responses suggest that this is about something more than just the science. You are clearly driven to promote and discussion a racially divisive topic to the point of apparent anger and insult. I was merely asking why? Why is this subject so personally edifying or important to you?

Edited May 30, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Mikemikev]

Although you may view our discourse otherwise, my comments weren't meant as argument, my questioning your motives was not an intended attack, and I am not your adversary. Your, seemingly, angry responses suggest that this is about something more than just the science. You are clearly driven to promote and discussion a racially divisive topic to the point of apparent anger and insult. I was merely asking why? Why is this subject so personally edifying or important to you?

 

Off topic.

[DrmDoc]

Off topic.

 

So, you don't want to explain why your racially divisive OP is so important to you that you have open this discussion thread to plea for its resumption?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

We have explained why the substantive thread was locked. The rules of the forum have been rehearsed. There is nothing more to discuss here other than that which is not allowed. Thread such as this descend rapidly from outwardly seeking an explanation of the moderator's action towards a restatement of the substantive OP (against the forum's rules) and self-justification by the OP; neither of these form a proper basis for the thread.

 

Thread locked.

 

Please do not open another thread questioning the moderator decision - nor another thread on the original substantive question; I will just lock and hide them.

 

An honest and scientific discussion on these topics is difficult - as both AJB and Mordred have alluded to above - because the vast majority of those who start them are not willing to debate but only to preach. Whilst I am not commenting on the OP's thread in particular - the OP might take note that his rapid resort to insults, rhetoric, and dismissal of opponents will ensure that moderators will err on the side of closure rather than continued discussion.