Yuck...
Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability
- Thread starter Phill
- Start date
- Status
Exactly, you are arguing from emotion rather than applying normal scientific systems and principles of parsimony to data.
The people on this forum repeatedly invoke ad hoc requirements and strawman definitions simply to pretend we can't apply biological taxonomy to humans. Then, bizarrely using the same categories they say "don't exist", they posit myriad environmental variables which supposedly combine everywhere to produce the same pattern with no evidence. And in a final crescendo of anti-science Marxist nutjobbery, they blame everything on "White racism".
Last edited:
Sadly your idea of "racism" includes the scientific study of humans.
No, it is just you, not science. I think you go on ignore. I don't like yucky stuff...
Goodbye.
EgalitarianJay
Registered Senior Member
Templeton (2013) established that there are different races of Chimpanzees but no races within the human species. There are human populations but no races. Why is it that after numerous requests to do so you can not produce a single source that supports your argument that there are biological races?
Because of Fst 0.25 again?
Why is it that only Templeton uses this measure in biology?
Bells
Staff member
Mod Note
Are you aware that what you are doing is plagiarism? Not only are you posting things out of context, but you are also refusing to cite your sources.
Had you read it, you would have found that the Fst values are not enough to warrant classifying as different races. In fact, the values are exceptionally small. The study even has a table for comparison. Even the bigger levels of differentiation were small. Minutely small.
Now, I have asked you repeatedly to provide a link for what you are posting and you simply refuse to. And I notice you have posted yet another image, with no link. The funny thing is, I was able to search back and I found where you got this latest image from. Interesting blogs you read. By interesting, I mean it's interesting as a cross burning in front of someone's lawn could be construed as interesting (that was sarcasm, by the way)..
The link to the study you misrepresented can be found here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003862
From this site's rules:
You have done this multiple times now.. I have repeatedly asked you to present your sources, and you have deliberately refused to. I have repeatedly asked you to support your claims with scientific evidence, you have repeatedly refused to do so.
On this page alone, you plagiarised twice. On the previous page, you also plagiarised when you lifted an image from the study I posted above and posted it out of context and misrepresented it.
Instances of plagiarism:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/su...cognitive-ability.155804/page-13#post-3375199
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/su...cognitive-ability.155804/page-14#post-3375426
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/su...cognitive-ability.155804/page-14#post-3375436
Considering this is after I made repeated requests for links for what you were stealing from one study and you decided to then go on and steal from other websites without referencing them, really, you leave me no choice.
Thread closed.
Reason for thread closure:
1) OP was a misrepresentation of a survey. The survey itself was a misrepresentation as it clearly found that combined environmental factors weigh more on IQ than genetics.
2) Failure of Phill to support any of his claims with actual scientific evidence, despite repeated requests that he do so. Not to mention his trolling in demanding evidence from everyone else while refusing to provide any himself.. As well as trolling when he refuses to read what he demands others post.
3) Plagiarism. Multiple instances of plagiarism and also misrepresenting what he has been stealing from other websites.
As a result of this, and this has been going on for 14 pages now, I would say that enough was enough. Phill's refusal and failure to adhere to even basic principles of posting on a science forum, such as supporting one's argument, not trolling and demanding others support their claims while refusing to read what has been linked, or to provide any of his own support, not to mention his repeated misrepresentations and obscene plagiarism, is why this thread is now closed and why Phill will be facing moderation.
To everyone else who participated in this thread in good faith, I thank you for your enduring patience and I apologise to you for what you have had to put up with these 14 pages. You deserved better.
So you are linking images from a study you clearly have not read, since you are unable to link it. Which begs the question, why are you posting images of a study you have not read? And why are you misrepresenting those images as saying it shows a distance between Koreas and Japanese when the study actually clearly states the absolute opposite? From the study the images you plagiarised from:
The population groups included those from the Human Genome Diversity Panel [Cambodian, Yi, Daur, Mongolian, Lahu, Dai, Hezhen, Miaozu, Naxi, Oroqen, She, Tu, Tujia, Naxi, Xibo, and Yakut], HapMap [ Han Chinese (CHB) and Japanese (JPT)], and East Asian or East Asian American subjects of Vietnamese, Korean, Filipino and Chinese ancestry. Paired Fst (Wei and Cockerham) showed close relationships between CHB and several large East Asian population groups (CHB/Korean, 0.0019; CHB/JPT, 00651; CHB/Vietnamese, 0.0065) with larger separation with Filipino (CHB/Filipino, 0.014). Low levels of differentiation were also observed between Dai and Vietnamese (0.0045) and between Vietnamese and Cambodian (0.0062). Similarly, small Fst's were observed among different presumed Han Chinese populations originating in different regions of mainland of China and Taiwan (Fst's <0.0025 with CHB). For PCA, the first two PC's showed a pattern of relationships that closely followed the geographic distribution of the different East Asian populations. PCA showed substructure both between different East Asian groups and within the Han Chinese population.
[...]
With respect to population groups derived from very populous groups, the data indicate that Japanese and Korean were very closely related, as were Korean and Han Chinese but that these groups are much further from the south-east Asian populations (Filipino and Vietnamese). The Han Chinese and Japanese groups showed larger separation than either with Korean, although the paired Fst values were still small relative to Chinese/Filipino Fst. The Fst values also showed a close relationship between the Dai ethnic group in China and the Vietnamese population sample.
[...]
With respect to population groups derived from very populous groups, the data indicate that Japanese and Korean were very closely related, as were Korean and Han Chinese but that these groups are much further from the south-east Asian populations (Filipino and Vietnamese). The Han Chinese and Japanese groups showed larger separation than either with Korean, although the paired Fst values were still small relative to Chinese/Filipino Fst. The Fst values also showed a close relationship between the Dai ethnic group in China and the Vietnamese population sample.
Had you read it, you would have found that the Fst values are not enough to warrant classifying as different races. In fact, the values are exceptionally small. The study even has a table for comparison. Even the bigger levels of differentiation were small. Minutely small.
Now, I have asked you repeatedly to provide a link for what you are posting and you simply refuse to. And I notice you have posted yet another image, with no link. The funny thing is, I was able to search back and I found where you got this latest image from. Interesting blogs you read. By interesting, I mean it's interesting as a cross burning in front of someone's lawn could be construed as interesting (that was sarcasm, by the way)..
The link to the study you misrepresented can be found here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003862
From this site's rules:
Behaviour that may get you banned
[...]
Plagiarism and copying
14. Plagiarism – the copying of another person’s writings and passing them off as your own – is a breach of copyright, as well as being intellectually dishonest. If you post something that somebody else wrote, you must name the author and appropriately reference the source (e.g. with a link). Posts that include material from elsewhere that is not properly acknowledged will be deleted.
Knowingly posting false or misleading information
15. The intentional posting of false or misleading information is unacceptable. This includes posting half-truths, i.e. leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression.
[...]
Plagiarism and copying
14. Plagiarism – the copying of another person’s writings and passing them off as your own – is a breach of copyright, as well as being intellectually dishonest. If you post something that somebody else wrote, you must name the author and appropriately reference the source (e.g. with a link). Posts that include material from elsewhere that is not properly acknowledged will be deleted.
Knowingly posting false or misleading information
15. The intentional posting of false or misleading information is unacceptable. This includes posting half-truths, i.e. leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression.
You have done this multiple times now.. I have repeatedly asked you to present your sources, and you have deliberately refused to. I have repeatedly asked you to support your claims with scientific evidence, you have repeatedly refused to do so.
On this page alone, you plagiarised twice. On the previous page, you also plagiarised when you lifted an image from the study I posted above and posted it out of context and misrepresented it.
Instances of plagiarism:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/su...cognitive-ability.155804/page-13#post-3375199
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/su...cognitive-ability.155804/page-14#post-3375426
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/su...cognitive-ability.155804/page-14#post-3375436
Considering this is after I made repeated requests for links for what you were stealing from one study and you decided to then go on and steal from other websites without referencing them, really, you leave me no choice.
Thread closed.
Reason for thread closure:
1) OP was a misrepresentation of a survey. The survey itself was a misrepresentation as it clearly found that combined environmental factors weigh more on IQ than genetics.
2) Failure of Phill to support any of his claims with actual scientific evidence, despite repeated requests that he do so. Not to mention his trolling in demanding evidence from everyone else while refusing to provide any himself.. As well as trolling when he refuses to read what he demands others post.
3) Plagiarism. Multiple instances of plagiarism and also misrepresenting what he has been stealing from other websites.
As a result of this, and this has been going on for 14 pages now, I would say that enough was enough. Phill's refusal and failure to adhere to even basic principles of posting on a science forum, such as supporting one's argument, not trolling and demanding others support their claims while refusing to read what has been linked, or to provide any of his own support, not to mention his repeated misrepresentations and obscene plagiarism, is why this thread is now closed and why Phill will be facing moderation.
To everyone else who participated in this thread in good faith, I thank you for your enduring patience and I apologise to you for what you have had to put up with these 14 pages. You deserved better.
- Status