What do you consider more important.....

[Siggie]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I never said anything about cause. Learn to read first and then to write. I have every right to completely misinterpret you (though I don't see how hard it is to interpret you), because you have not at all been consistent, explicit, specific, and academic about your arguments. You slip in information as you go along, changing your tune when it suits you, and then blaming me for missing something that you never wrote, explained, or supported to begin with.

You have clearly said on numerous occasions that the research is imperfect. Instead of highlighting that, however, you cover it up to show that the research is reliable anyway, when even a primary school student can deduct that one imperfection is enough to discard the entire experiment and bury it in the grave of whoever invented it. You have not shown any critical thinking whatsoever in your so-called argumentation so far, instead resorting to false analogies, inexplicit definitions, blurred results, and ultimately self-defence mechanisms. It's funny how you have actually been supporting my argument, while you thought you were supporting yours.

Good night.

I have made every effort to be nice to you Nairi despite how you've acted in the past, so don't make it even harder than it is.

I did none of what you say. Everything has limitations and that's no reason to dismiss it all. You were insisting that your personal experience was adequate evidence without any sort of control (and with a sample size of 1), yet you want to dismiss the research in the field that has tested tens of thousands of people. Hmm... that makes a whole lot of sense. I haven't changed my tune dear... perhaps you just couldn't follow it.

[Anahita]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I have made every effort to be nice to you Nairi despite how you've acted in the past, so don't make it even harder than it is.

I did none of what you say. Everything has limitations and that's no reason to dismiss it all. You were insisting that your personal experience was adequate evidence without any sort of control (and with a sample size of 1), yet you want to dismiss the research in the field that has tested tens of thousands of people. Hmm... that makes a whole lot of sense. I haven't my tune dear... perhaps you just couldn't follow it.

I think you have lots to offer on this subject, Siggie. I really hope that you can understand that I will say things that don't make sense in your worldview, but these ideas do make sense. I agree with what you said about emotional IQ, partly. That seems like semantics to me, though...

[power is gone now, before heads get too big]

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I have made every effort to be nice to you Nairi despite how you've acted in the past, so don't make it even harder than it is.

I did none of what you say. Everything has limitations and that's no reason to dismiss it all. You were insisting that your personal experience was adequate evidence without any sort of control (and with a sample size of 1), yet you want to dismiss the research in the field that has tested tens of thousands of people. Hmm... that makes a whole lot of sense. I haven't changed my tune dear... perhaps you just couldn't follow it.

Please, Siggie, go back and reread yourself. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm merely observing. I did, too bad for you, learn how an essay and an argumentation should be built and written on an academic level, regardless of the field.

Ever since you decided that ethnicity and race are interchangeable, without ever explaining why you think so, you have only shown your incompetence in academic argumentation, at least in this thread. You tried very hard to hold on to the race-card, using false analogies to back it up (I think even a primary school drop-out can see how flawed your analogy with dog breeds, to name just one, is. Who are you trying to fool?), and without critically looking at any of the articles and citations that you quoted or vaguely summarized. That alone, makes me extremely skeptical of your opinion, let alone your research. You admitted yourself that intelligence is not your field. So why are you acting like you are a spokesperson for intelligence and population studies? Keep telling me that I need more academic insight as much as you like.

Your previous behavior in banning me clearly showed your level of critical thinking as well. You were extemely biased, did not look at the context whatsoever, you took me aside instead of looking at a GROUP of people behaving in the same way, some even far worse than me, and like a school teacher who throws a tantrum at the smallest disorder, you decided that I, and only I, should be kicked out of class, when there were many more who acted much worse, saying highly racist things, that I'm not surprised you overlooked or even agreed with seeing whose side you have been taking in this thread, and whom you should have addressed before you even dared to warn me, let alone ban me. The only reason I'm back here is because I don't care enough about your highness to stay away.

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

The trouble is, you read Siggie very one dimensionaly. We're all allowed to make a few mistakes during a debate, and we use our common sense to correct these mistakes as we go along. You won't stand for it because you dictate that just one error in the presentation of your background knowledge, will spoil the entire thing...

A little severe don't you think? This kind of insolence is what might've gotten you banned, it might've felt insulting to her that you dismissed her entire careers work and background in this field in such a way.

You and Siggie come from different schools of thought, and that's fine, but in the end, you must still be respectful and debate impartially.

You have to let go of your old points, like the one about comparing breeds of dogs to humans... What she meant to say was that there's variation in dogs, like there's variation in humans, what's so offensive about this?

The whole race and ethnicity issue can be resolved more peacefully if you stop pointing out how wrong she is, and instead, focus on the terminology behind them so that this misconception will cease to occur in the future.

[Siggie]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Please, Siggie, go back and reread yourself. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm merely observing. I did, too bad for you, learn how an essay and an argumentation should be built and written on an academic level, regardless of the field.

Ever since you decided that ethnicity and race are interchangeable, without ever explaining why you think so, you have only shown your incompetence in academic argumentation, at least in this thread. You tried very hard to hold on to the race-card, using false analogies to back it up (I think even a primary school drop-out can see how flawed your analogy with dog breeds, to name just one, is. Who are you trying to fool?), and without critically looking at any of the articles and citations that you quoted or vaguely summarized. That alone, makes me extremely skeptical of your opinion, let alone your research. You admitted yourself that intelligence is not your field. So why are you acting like you are a spokesperson for intelligence and population studies? Keep telling me that I need more academic insight as much as you like.

You're quoting ethnicity from a question I asked the Mouse very early in the thread before I even got into this debate with you. Throughout our exchange I have consistently used race.

If that and the dog thing thing (which only you seem not to understand) are your criticisms it's laughable.
Race and ethnicity are a little different, yes, but they both include some biological aspect as well. I don't think it's wise to lump people into broader categories like black and white because we lose a lot of information that way. I also worked in the org research department of a group that did a lot of survey research and they always called it ethnicity, so excuse the use of ethnicity in what was never even our debate.

I gave the dog breed example to try to make the idea that there can be differences more palatable for you. It was not given as evidence to support that there are differences. Obviously, we cannot generalize across species and say that because there are differences between dogs, then there must be between humans as well. The research on humans already shows that such a difference exists. All I did was give you another instance in which there are differences that is readily acknowledged by people.

You're accusing me of being racist because I acknowledge that there can be differences between groups of people? I suppose every physician who repeats the research that "African Americans are more likely to have high blood pressure" is racist as well.

Let me explain correlation to you. All it means is that two things covary. For example as ice cream sales increase, so do the rates of violent crime. Does this mean that we should push to ban ice cream from being sold and say that it causes violence? Of course not! To say that there's a correlation does NOT mean causation. Yet, you keep saying that I've claimed race determines or causes a person to have a certain level of intelligence and that's simply not true.
I didn't even go as far as to say that biology determines intelligence. I said that the research seems to indicate that biology accounts for roughly 70% of the variability in intelligence (as measured by IQ tests).

You're reaching for anything here to try to dispute what I've said, but you haven't presented any valid criticism yet. I have myself stated the limitations of the research and have not stated anything that is beyond what that research even with its limitations does not support.

I admitted that intelligence is not in my program of research. I did not say that it isn't within the scope of my field. It is and it is a topic I cover when I teach as well.

You cannot judge whether or not I am able to critically look at research when you yourself have no background in that area. I have a graduate degree in Experimental Psychology. That's what that whole area is about, how to do and evaluate research (stats and methods as I've said before). Knowing how to make an argument does not mean you know about methodology (which is what's necessarity to evaluate the validity of research) although they're not totally unrelated.

I don't know why you have a problem with that fact. I wouldn't have a problem at all admitting what fields I don't have much experience in and most of the time, I even stay out of debates concerning them because I realize my limitation. For example, I'm not going to purport that I know enough about economics to debate that with Anonymouse.

Your previous behavior in banning me clearly showed your level of critical thinking as well. You were extemely biased, did not look at the context whatsoever, you took me aside instead of looking at a GROUP of people behaving in the same way, some even far worse than me, and like a school teacher who throws a tantrum at the smallest disorder, you decided that I, and only I, should be kicked out of class, when there were many more who acted much worse, saying highly racist things, that I'm not surprised you overlooked or even agreed with seeing whose side you have been taking in this thread, and whom you should have addressed before you even dared to warn me, let alone ban me. The only reason I'm back here is because I don't care enough about your highness to stay away.

I don't need any critical thinking competence when you insult me. I warned you and a lot of others as well at that time and it was you who unlike even the worst of the others turned around and insulted me because I asked you not to insult others. Also, for example with many of the genocide debates. I cannot tell the turks that it is against the rules to make personal attacks and then allow the Armenians to do it. Or worse, to later suspend one group for doing it anyway and do nothing to the other.
You were banned because of how nasty you were and even when you created this new account, you continued to insult me. I allowed you to stay and "cool off" thinking that it was because you just lost yourself in your anger initially in that heated argument and later because you were suspended (and later banned for continuing on). Obviously that was not the case as you're demonstrating now.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

What-ever, as you Californians say so well.

As for banning me, you banned me not because I called a Turk who was insulting Armenians an idiot, but because of this:

"(Siamanto and Anoush keep your stupidity to yourselves, we're talking pure politics here)"

Both Siamanto and Anoush, Armenians for your information, were making very discriminating and racist remarks about Turks and J.ews. This is why I told them to keep their stupidity to themselves, and I had every right to go against your decision to ban me for this very stupid reason, because you chose to ignore their insults towards me and their racist remarks towards Turks and J.ews.

As for the warning, I got it for saying this to a Turk:

"You're an idiot. No more needs to be said. Except that it may be genetic. Hence nothing you can do about it."

Since you have shown to support the genetic theory in this thread, I don't see why you should have warned me for using the genetics-card against a stupid Turk, who was insulting us to begin with.

Funnily enough you explained my ban with this public statement:

"Nairi was banned for repeatedly breaking the rules..."

Repeatedly. Give me a break! I barely touched your ego once by disagreeing with your subjective judgment, and you had the nerve to say that I repeatedly broke the rules?

[Siggie]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

What-ever, as you Californians say so well.

As for banning me, you banned me not because I called a Turk who was insulting Armenians an idiot, but because of this:

"(Siamanto and Anoush keep your stupidity to yourselves, we're talking pure politics here)"

Both Siamanto and Anoush, Armenians for your information, were making very discriminating and racist remarks about Turks and J.ews. This is why I told them to keep their stupidity to themselves, and I had every right to go against your decision to ban me for this very stupid reason, because you chose to ignore their insults towards me and their racist remarks towards Turks and J.ews.

As for the warning, I got it for saying this to a Turk:

"You're an idiot. No more needs to be said. Except that it may be genetic. Hence nothing you can do about it."

Since you have shown to support the genetic theory in this thread, I don't see why you should have warned me for using the genetics-card against a stupid Turk, who was insulting us to begin with.

Funnily enough you explained my ban with this public statement:

"Nairi was banned for repeatedly breaking the rules..."

Repeatedly. Give me a break! I barely touched your ego once by disagreeing with your subjective judgment, and you had the nerve to say that I repeatedly broke the rules?

You yourself just gave two instances where you broke the same rule about insulting members; in onc instance calling two members stupid and in another, calling one an idiot. When you were warned, you attacked and insulted me. Yet another instance. You trying to say that banning you wasn't justified?

I didn't take sides in that discussion either for the record. I kept my opinion to myself and simply ended the discussion of that topic because it wasn't being done peacefully. I tried not to censor people's opinions without regard to my view on the subject as long as the rules of the forum were being followed. They were not, so that debate had to end. Anoush was banned as well and Siamanto from what I had seen did not insult anyone. His opinion on that topic isn't something I could suspend him for.

Let's not discuss this here. You can pm me if you'd like to discuss why you were previously banned and if you believe that I acted unjustly, then please send a complaint to Nimda.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I don't remember attacking you until you started throwing a tantrum because I could not see what your problem was in warning me. And even then, I'm not sure how much I attacked and insulted you.

You say I attacked and insulted you when I said: "open your eyes and use your brain" in this thread. I wasn't insulting you. You took it as an insult. That's no longer my problem.

Please feel free to show me any evidence of me deliberately attacking and insulting your person in private or in public prior to your self-defence mechanisms on this thread. Let other members be the jury. I also give you full permission to post any PM that I might have sent you, insulting or not, in public. Since I cannot access my nairi account, I can't do it for you.

Me telling S and A to keep their stupidity to themselves was not insulting them, nor breaking any rule. With the Turk, fair enough, but you still had no reason to single me out. Instead, you should have either closed that stupid thread, or told us all off. In isolated me, you gave me every right to not take your warning seriously, which I think is why you ticked off like that and banned me for really a very weak reason.

No, I won't rat to your boss. What I think is irrelevant. It's what you think of yourself that is relevant. Do you think you acted justly?

PS: feel free to first find evidence that Siamanto was not insulting me or anyone else before assuming that he didn't.

Please don't PM me. If you have anything else to add, do it publicly, since you also banned me publicly. You can start another thread for it, if you wish. Otherwise call this discussion closed.

[Sip]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I think we need a group hug quick. Just in case someone gets banned again

At this point, I am closing this thread.

[Siggie]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I am not going to post your ugly remarks for anyone to read. I do feel I acted justly and you're right, it is my opinion that's important. I don't even know why I discussed this in the first place. I make a genuine and sincere effort to do a good job and to be fair and I hope that the members here can see that.
Most of those who are suspended don't handle it well and I they're of course biased in their view.

I'm not closing this thread in case anyone else would like to discuss the topic of intelligence, but any posts on this tangent will be removed.