Ophiolite

I've addressed these very points in another thread. I have no idea which one. 1. You don't know it is bollocks until you have read it. 2. It is important to know what "the other side" is thinking. 3. Their interpretations may be faulty, but their facts may be right. 4. "When they came for me there was no one left to protest." 5. Who was hurt by an attack on Obama's legacy? If the attack was faulty there is no reason to be hurt. If the attack was well founded they better grow up and face reality. 6. It was not demonstrated that the ulterior motive was to cause hurt. 7. Do you think I should avoid, on Christian Forums, arguing for evolution and against a 6,000 year old Earth? I am pretty sure my arguments hurt some people there.

After much reflection I cannot find this to be true. The elements of Nazi philosophy and political thinking that we recall, the ones that are rightly condemned, are arguably narrow. However, their thinking on economic and social matters was much broader than that.

I was once a mod on this forum, but became inactive. I am currently an active mod on one other forum and an inactive mod on two others. I was admin on a further forum in the past, though I see it has gone dark recently. The problem I have with your noble suggestion (no sarcasm intended) is that benevolence is difficult to find and even more difficult to maintain. One cause of the problem in the US at present is that neither side takes sufficient time to lack past the surface rhetoric of the other. It is all to easy to fall into a reaction, rather than a well considered dialogue.I believe we benefit from hearing and facing unpopular views, for those same views are popular in some quarters.

I was wrong about Trump being nominated as the Republican candidate and I was wrong about him being elected President. They say things happen in threes. I hope I am wrong about him being a disaster for the US and for the world. (The thing that really sticks in my throat is that genetically I am as Scottish as he is. Believe that has caused a lot of introspection. Fortunately my father wasn't a multimillionaire.)

If you have to piss, you have to piss. It's up to others whether they take it or not.

I've always thought it more productive to allow, in String Junky's words, knobs to strut their stuff, rather than shut them down. I understand the arguments against this. I just don't agree with them. Since I don't trust myself not to close some one down simply because they disagree with me rather than because they are genuinely wrong, why would I trust someone else to do this with full objectivity.

In my case I guess it says: I agree with Voltaire who said (in translation), I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. I abhor the expectation that I must acknowledge and respect your culture and outlook, but you need not not do the same for mine. I object to the rule of the masses. (Never confuse that with democracy.) I genuinely resent being lambasted as a sexist when I hold the door open for a militant feminist, not because she is a militant feminist, but because she is someone who would benefit from having a door held open for her. Etc. Over 9000 is probably an asshole. That does not mean some of his data and some of his points are incorrect.

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.

Some of us have them at every age.

Harnessing it is straightforward. Training it is unnecessary. Just accept it.

Alternatively, he could try doing his homework a little earlier and, when he asks for help, show how far he has got up until that point and why he thinks he has got stuck.

You are describing the point at which logic was placed on a formal footing. Such success as was enjoyed by early "science" and mathematics was made possible by the application of informal logic. The limits of that success were arguably the result of the informality of that logic.

I'll try one last time: 1. You are working from a game plan that says anyone who argues, more than in passing, for differences in intelligence related to race is almost certainly a racist. 2. This is precipitate and unscientific. 3. More to the point, it is less effective at combating racism than attacking their data and their arguments. May I ask, and I understand if you wish not to answer, have you been a victim of racism, or are you following the traditional enraged white middle class posturing1, or......? 1. You see how inflammatory language can discourage open discussion.

Randolpin, is there any particular reason that you suspect that logic may be inadequate to the task of "describing reality"?

I do understand that is what you believe. Unfortunately I believe that compounds the problem. Note: While my statement above may not be welcome I hope it does not come across as belligerent or disrespectful. What if I had instead posted this. Well of course that nonsense is what you believe! I am not at all surprised. Unfortunately such a ridiculous attitude just exacerbates a problem that you have created. Which of these two options is more likely to encourage open dialogue and the possibility of moving towards a mutual understanding? Which of these is closest to the style you are using? The first question is rhetorical. I shall answer the latter: the first style is more reasonable, calmer and non-judgmental, but your style, in the posts I have commented on, is closer to the second. Calling your opponent (a telling word in itself) absurd and dishonest is likely very satisfying, but it does nothing to promote productive debate. Might your time not be better spent demonstrating their absurdity and dishonesty rather than simply alleging it? Well, It is your thread, but I thought the objective of the thread was to discuss the relationship between race and intelligence. From your words here it would be logical and on-topic to demonstrate the falsity of any questionable data they produced, or to challenge misinterpretations of data. That in itself would be the best way of undermining their arguments, whether they are inherently racist or not. As to how common such behaviour is, I have no idea. I doubt you do either. You may have many personal examples to recount, but I don't place much credence on anecdote other than to provide suggestions of possible interesting issues to investigate. Fair enough, but you will get a better hearing from those sitting in a neutral position, or even opposed position if you challenge the arguments and not the individual. Why should I wish to test the validity of the claim? I really don't care if some entity on an internet forum is, or is not a racist. I do care that attacking a possible racist rather than their arguments will be a poor way of combating racism. Finally, I think your thread title contains a possible fallacy. "Did humans evolve into separate races that differ in mental traits?" I am not convinced that we evolved into separate races.

You assert you are being calm and yet you choose emotive words and phrases such as "blatantly" and "outrageous boasts", exactly the kinds of words I had cautioned you not to use. Motive for the caution: I applaud your opposition to racism and do not wish to see you shut down. It is your methodolgy/tone that I object to. I return to my original point, which is now being echoed more powerfully by Zapatos: it is possible to consider that there may be "racial" differences in intelligence and still not be a racist. It would be helpful if you focused on the evidence for or against this possibility, rather than questioning the motives of someone who so asserts. Your suspicions may (or may not) be well grounded, but discussion of them is incidental to the focus of this thread. I just want to go on record for noting that I am not overwhelmingly, or even provisionally rejecting the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence. Nor am I asserting that there are. I think our definition of intelligence and the impact of cultural and educational differences makes this currently impractical to discern. Based on this lukewarm position do you wish to suggest that I am a racist? In order not to further disrupt this thread feel free to pm me with your opinion on the matter.

Guys, I recommend you both calm down a little. When tempers get frayed moderators tend not to pay undue heed to who started a slanging match, only as to who is participating in it. Let's focus purely on the facts, halt comments on each others posting styles and motives, and avoid emotive language entirely.

As per my point 4 in post #3.

I love being brutal. Please post an executive summary of your hypothesis.

You are absolutely correct. You should never vote. Please avoid doing so in future. Indeed I encourage all of you to follow this advice. I assure you it is purely coincidental that your absence from the polling booth will increase the power of my vote.

Well that's just silly! Obviously they would have been attacked by the giant squid.

I really don't want anyone else to be around when I eat chocolate. They are liable to say something and distract me from the pleasure.

In no particular order. 1. Write down, in a short, single sentence the precise objective of your study on a Post It Note. Place that on your monitor, or in a prominent position in your work space. Whenever you feel like quitting your study read the objective and refocus. 2. Always read relevant study material for half an hour just before going to sleep. Research suggests that such timing is favourable to memorising. 3. Find the most interesting portion of your study subject and focus on that. You will find it easier to study the part you find the most interesting and in studying that deeply you will still acquire strong peripheral knowledge. 4. Write down fundamentals on cards. Topic in Big Letters and a concise statement of the topic. Pull them out at random, look at the topic and imagine the statement without looking at it. 5. If you are feeling blah take a rolled up newspaper and beat it to pieces against an item of furniture. The adrenalin rush will carry you through another twenty or thirty minutes of study.

Indeed. Even when they know they are dead they won't share the information with humans.

In what way does a wave represent different possibilities? I don't see how my decision process relates to the form of a wave. Can you explain? And I cannot imagine how a wave pushing a particle in the double slit experiment would either alter the result, or give additional insight to the result. Can you explain?