I'm guessing you misinterpretted what I said, and I'm sorry for not wording it in a way that you wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but for the record I never called you a racist if you actually read what I said,

You said, "by your reasoning black people aren't as intelligent as White based on studies done years ago."

That, categorically, is not my reasoning and I made no comment at all about the ancestry of people. I cited data which are demonstrating a clear, negative correlation between intelligence and conservative beliefs. That has nothing to do whatever with ancestry.

You have just over 12 hours remaining. I suggest you edit your post, but if you prefer, a public apology for mis-characterizing my comments for your own ends will go a long way to developing a bit of respect from me. This mis-characterization implies that I'm a racist, whether you chose to admit or not and whether thats what you intended or not. Just over 12 hours....

To sum it up my point is that you need to look at historical instances of where the scientific community tried to manipulate data to promote stereotypes.

No I don't. The data I'm citing from the studies I'm citing have nothing whatever to do with historical pseudoscience. These studies have nothing to do with ancestry or ethnicity and are backed by empirical data.

The fact that the research is highly subjective and that we have no information as to who they tested and the geographic locations where the samples were taken.

The data are not subjective -they are empirical. The methodologies include the demographics of the samples. You need only look at the papers cited.

I am glad you at least waited for me to clarrify what I was saying in case you were misinterpreting what I was saying.

You're not done yet. You've mis-characterized my comment which cites data regarding beliefs by attempting to equivocate it to pseudoscientific studies in history that derided ancestry and ethnicity. This is a prime and clear example of a straw man argument, which is a form of ad hominem argument. You'll need to edit your post and/or post an acknowledgment that my position and comment is being mis-characterized. I'll settle for simply you editing the post. 12 hours. Tick-tock.

Beyond that, I appreciate your participation here. Please don't get me wrong. Which is the reason I'm affording you this opportunity.

What follows are brief excerpts from an article in-press and my own commentary, which describes the negative correlation between intelligence and conservative beliefs. I cited the article elsewhere in this thread, but I'll include the citation at the end of this post.

I can't post the entire article here due to Fair Use restrictions, but you should be able to find the journal Intelligence at your local university library or online via your local public library's internet access. You should even be able to order it via your public/uni library through the Inter Library Loan (I'll try to include the DOI to make this easier)

Abstract
Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.

The abstract gives an overview of the hypotheses of the author, which is that there is a negative correlation between conservatism and cognitive ability. That is to say, the more cognitively capable a person is, the less likely they are to be conservative.

In this abstract, you can also get a sense of the methodology used, which includes a sampling of 2854 people (n=2854), including 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students. What was evaluated for cognitive ability were SAT scores, etc. (see the abstract).

More on methodology
To rate conservatism, the author drew on successful survey questions from other research that was able to establish levels of conservatism through the use of scaling questions with answers (like strongly and completely disagree to strongly and completely disagree).

Questions rated the degree to which an individual subscribes to conventional religious beliefs, the degree to which an individual subscribes to various justifications of self interest; the degree to which an individual subscribes to patriotism, consitutionalism, humanism, existentialism, neoliberalism, and functionalism; and the degree to which an individual subscribes to subjective experiences (paranormal experiences, personal mysticism, etc.).

Example statements (to which the respondent chose the degree to which they agreed or disagreed) were: "religion should play hte most important role in civil affairs;" "worldly possessions are the greatest good in life;" "I love and am devoted to my country;" and "some objects have magical powers."

The results showed a negative correlation between conservatism and cognitive ability:Overall, both IQ and Conservatism are important in assessingthe country's economic and political status, with Conservatism showing a somewhat better predictive validity. Again, I wish to refrain from making causal inferences. All that can be said from the data at hand is that two psychological variables — cognitive ability (or IQ) and Conservative syndrome — appear to form a nexus with demographic, economic, sociological, health and political/legal variables at the country level of analysis.

The author describes "conservatism" thus:The Conservative syndrome
describes a person who attaches particular importance to the respect of tradition, humility, devoutness and moderation as well as to obedience, self-discipline and politeness, social order, family, and national security and has a sense of belonging to and a pride in a group with which he or she identifies. A Conservative person also subscribes to conventional religious
beliefs and accepts the mystical, including paranormal, experiences. The same person is likely to be less open to intellectual challenges and will be seen as a responsible “good citizen” at work and in the society while expressing rather harsh views toward those outside his or her group. Our data
also show that countries differ along similar albeit somewhat broader dimensions of Conservatism. This paragraph's description of the Conservative syndrome is a narrative listing of psychological processes captured by the scales and items that define Conservatism factor in this and other studies of ours.

In his final concluding remarks, the author notes that he makes no attempt to speak to the causes of the results. He raises several questions: does IQ (cognitive ability) influence individuals' decisions to be conservative, or does conservatism influence one's IQ?

If anyone is interested, I'll also give a similar treatment to one of the other studies, the Nyborg study on intelligence and religiosity perhaps. I thought about adding it to this post, but I'm tired and have a full day tomorrow.


By the way, Nyborg is a researcher at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. Stankov is at the National Institute of Education in Singapore.

References:

Stankov, L., (2009). Conservatism and cognitive ability, Intelligence , doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.12.007

You said, "by your reasoning black people aren't as intelligent as White based on studies done years ago."

Yes I did, by your line of reasoning those studies would be perfectly valid, I'm not saying you believe those studies, but your line of reasoning can be used to say those studies were valid. Hmm, the only other thing I may have to apologize for is not including the word "line" but other than that.


That, categorically, is not my reasoning and I made no comment at all about the ancestry of people. I cited data which are demonstrating a clear, negative correlation between intelligence and conservative beliefs. That has nothing to do whatever with ancestry.

You're going off on a red herring, and btw, you did insult people's heritage and insulted people because of their religion, which is discrimination.


You have just over 12 hours remaining. I suggest you edit your post, but if you prefer, a public apology for mis-characterizing my comments for your own ends will go a long way to developing a bit of respect from me. This mis-characterization implies that I'm a racist, whether you chose to admit or not and whether thats what you intended or not. Just over 12 hours....

Only thing I'll apologize for is the misinterpretation on your part. If I were going to call you a racist, I would just flat out call you it.



No I don't. The data I'm citing from the studies I'm citing have nothing whatever to do with historical pseudoscience. These studies have nothing to do with ancestry or ethnicity and are backed by empirical data.


Actually it's just like the pseudoscience, your line of reasoning can be used to validate those studies. And as far as empirical data, I somehow doubt that. You've used every chance you had to bash people based on whether or not they believe in God, which is religious discrimination. I'm not going to back off that statement because that's the truth.



The data are not subjective -they are empirical. The methodologies include the demographics of the samples. You need only look at the papers cited.


Then if you really believe that I got some land to sell you on Jupiter.


You're not done yet. You've mis-characterized my comment which cites data regarding beliefs by attempting to equivocate it to pseudoscientific studies in history that derided ancestry and ethnicity. This is a prime and clear example of a straw man argument, which is a form of ad hominem argument. You'll need to edit your post and/or post an acknowledgment that my position and comment is being mis-characterized. I'll settle for simply you editing the post. 12 hours. Tick-tock.

That exact kind of study was done before by the Nazis in the 1930s. That is a fact, and you can argue it all day long, but the facts are the facts. You're just dismissing it because it completely invalidates your sources.

Addendum:
Btw, I edited the post to clarify what I was saying, I completely disagree with your interpretation though.

Yes I did, by your line of reasoning those studies would be perfectly valid, I'm not saying you believe those studies, but your line of reasoning can be used to say those studies were valid. Hmm, the only other thing I may have to apologize for is not including the word "line" but other than that.

Thank you for the adjustment. Sometimes a single word or syllable can make significant differences in what gets implied or inferred.

Let me also offer a clarification by actually outlining my line of reasoning.

The research I cited used empirical methods.
Their methods produced results.
The results are a product of empirical study.

Empirical studies have quantifiable data.
Quantifiable data from empirical sources are not subjective and have objective outcomes.
When the methods are understood and the data are acknowledge, the resulting correlations are undeniable until such time as specific flaws in the methodology are exposed.


What you've chosen to do, is equate two of the references I cited to the pseudoscientific and poorly researched speculations of a primarily Victorian age, but also the early 20th century. You didn't specify which "race studies" you were using as an analogy, but I'm familiar with several. Each had very serious methodological flaws -entire books have been written on this topic.

The research I cited earlier in this thread (and again a couple posts up) does not appear to suffer any methodological flaws.

Therefore, the line of reasoning I'm using is that empirical data, which survives modern peer review, can offer conclusions which cannot easily be denied with out detailed analysis of the researcher's methods.

You're going off on a red herring, and btw, you did insult people's heritage and insulted people because of their religion, which is discrimination.

I don't believe I ever stated that I didn't insult anyone's 'heritage.' That's a term which carries a lot of meaning, so it really isn't useful. I do, however, maintain that I've never insulted anyone's ancestry or ethnicity -which is very different from "heritage." There is no demonstrated "red herring" fallacy at work in my statement since I'm asserting that the data I cited is drawing a negative correlation between cognitive ability and conservatism and cognitive and religiosity. This is all an attempt to keep the focus on the topic, not cause it to go astray as a red herring would. Indeed, I'm answering a red herring, not creating one.

Actually it's just like the pseudoscience, your line of reasoning can be used to validate those studies.

Wrong. See above.

And as far as empirical data, I somehow doubt that. You've used every chance you had to bash people based on whether or not they believe in God, which is religious discrimination. I'm not going to back off that statement because that's the truth.

There is, without a doubt, an objective truth involved in our discussion. However, it cannot be approached without critical thought, logical reasoning, and rational discourse. The constant introduction of fallacious logic obfuscates the arrival of this discourse to the objective truth. I won't pretend to know this objective truth, but I'm confident that I'm closer to it than not. You can "doubt" the research are empirical data all you'd like (and doubt is a good thing), but you'll need to analyze the data and demonstrate the flaws in the methods before asserting its wrong, otherwise you're just saying, "No! I disagree! Why? Errrmmm... because, that's why!"

That exact kind of study was done before by the Nazis in the 1930s.

Wrong. See above.

That is a fact, and you can argue it all day long, but the facts are the facts. You're just dismissing it because it completely invalidates your sources.

No facts have been presented that invalidate the data presented by the research I cited. Believe me, if it did, I'd publish a paper in Intelligence in the very next issue and have something really cool to add to my CV! So if you really have some facts that invalidate it, I'm very open to reading them and ready to revise my assessment!

What I actually said (initially) was:

I thought I was actually complimenting or at least defending the republican party by pointing out that it is actually diverse and maturing past its stereotyped role of the past and developing into a more eclectic and progressive party. The core values of the republican party are beginning to shift, though there does seem to be an effort by some to continue to appeal to their alleged "base," which are conservative but fundamental christians who are demonstrably the more ignorant and undereducated of our society.
Whoops... actually I owe you an appology. You did say alleged "base" and I missed that part. Since the GOP has really become more and more diverse as of late, and our appeal has moved on more or less from strictly the evangelicals to the average joe. We are moving more centrist in most areas, and headed more toward an inclusive party. My bad.

Republicans are fast catching up in education.Woah hold up there. We actually exceed when you don't start to rework the statistics with "corrections for X." That's how statistics get manipulated to show whatever you want them to. Then again I don't pin a person's value based on their education level. And if you're ever stranded on the highway, I doubt you'll ask that tow truck driver if he has an Ivy league education before you'll let him help you out.

The data I posted for tommy was intended to show that there are some general feelings among non-republicans (and even some moderate republicans) that the things he was claiming not to exist actually does appear to exist.
That goes to the perception thing. Perception is not always the truth. In my perception the "Liberals" are pot smokin hippies. It don't make it true. I am not claiming that they don't exist. Just that the extent to which they exist is exaggerated so as to be easily attacked.

Rather than take each point of data and refute it logically, he chose to simply cast all the data aside as if they are magically refuted by his mere disagreement or an accusation of "bias." This type of fallacious reasoning is also a generalization that can be cast toward the republican party and, it is hoped, will become extinct among them as educations improve.

I certainly wouldn't trust data gathered and collected by Rush Limbaugh to be accurate about the Democrats. If you provided a source from a neutral source. IE one that doesn't have ties to an organization that specifically slams the Republicans(as is the case of "Facing South") yet never slams the Democrats. Or Dr. Massengill who's works have all been significantly against religion(at least the ones I have read). Just because she has a PHD doesn't absolve her from being biassed against religion. Ok though... I counter with Spirituality in Higher Education (http://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/results/index.html) which shows a positive influence of spirituality.

Oh and refuting with a simple cast of "bias" is not limited to Republicans and conservatives. If you want I'm sure garfield can point to some significant posts that have had that used against his arguments.

Stankov and Nyborg appear to be about as neutral as they can get. I still don't see any issue with Massengill's data. I see you disagreement and objection to her "agenda" and "bias," but there's no quantification of this bias and "agenda" and why they might affect her data. If her methods have deficiencies, then you've cause to doubt her research. Otherwise, we simply must accept that all researchers have an agenda (they call these research questions) and biases (they filter these through rigorous methodology and peer review).

Stankov and Nyborg appear to be about as neutral as they can get. I still don't see any issue with Massengill's data. I see you disagreement and objection to her "agenda" and "bias," but there's no quantification of this bias and "agenda" and why they might affect her data. If her methods have deficiencies, then you've cause to doubt her research. Otherwise, we simply must accept that all researchers have an agenda (they call these research questions) and biases (they filter these through rigorous methodology and peer review).

The intelligence thing I brought up was subject to peer review as well. Never take any study involving race or religion at face value.


Btw, an Ivy league education doesn't mean one is intelligent, it just means they studied in a particular field. There are other colleges out there.

I just found something else that makes you wonder what these Professors were taught:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020603332.html)

Supposedly because they didn't vote for Obama they are slavery loving racists? Excuse me, this is a College Professor shouldn't he have learned that there are other reasons one wouldn't have voted for Obama.

The intelligence thing I brought up was subject to peer review as well. Never take any study involving race or religion at face value.That isn't an argument. Like SkinWalker said, if you can demonstrate the bias of the researchers and back it up with evidence and/or show a flaw in their methods, that would be an argument, simply saying "they're biased because they're part of academia" without even giving evidence of such is not a valid argument.

That isn't an argument. Like SkinWalker said, if you can demonstrate the bias of the researchers and back it up with evidence and/or show a flaw in their methods, that would be an argument, simply saying "they're biased because they're part of academia" without even giving evidence of such is not a valid argument.

And I suppose this incident that Newsbusters picked up on isn't more than a little out of line too?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/02/26/msnbcs-david-shuster-touts-jindal-beavis-butt-head-insult)


Seriously, a researcher comparing Bill O'Reilly to a Nazi in one of the articles I brought up about IU, and that doesn't indicate a conflict of interest? What do they need to do for you to acknowledge that they aren't objective? Them running around without any clothes on with "I hate Conservatives" spray painted on their backsides, seriously.

And I suppose this incident that Newsbusters picked up on isn't more than a little out of line too?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/02/26/msnbcs-david-shuster-touts-jindal-beavis-butt-head-insult)


Seriously, a researcher comparing Bill O'Reilly to a Nazi in one of the articles I brought up about IU, and that doesn't indicate a conflict of interest? What do they need to do for you to acknowledge that they aren't objective? Them running around without any clothes on with "I hate Conservatives" spray painted on their backsides, seriously.You haven't shown that anyone SkinWalker cited was biased, I didn't even see their names mentioned in the articles you've linked, and from what you have linked, I'm beginning to think that your argument is simply "well they graduated from/work for a university, they have a liberal bias". If that's your argument, I'd like you to read up on Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly to see my counterpoints to that argument, Coulter in particular graduated from Cornell, an Ivy League school, and there is no way in hell you can say she has a liberal bias.

Coulter in particular graduated from Cornell, an Ivy League school, and there is no way in hell you can say she has a liberal bias.

Of course she does, Jaymack. Everyone has a liberal bias. Everyone.

_EW_

You haven't shown that anyone SkinWalker cited was biased, I didn't even see their names mentioned in the articles you've linked, and from what you have linked, I'm beginning to think that your argument is simply "well they graduated from/work for a university, they have a liberal bias". If that's your argument, I'd like you to read up on Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly to see my counterpoints to that argument, Coulter in particular graduated from Cornell, an Ivy League school, and there is no way in hell you can say she has a liberal bias.

I have read some of O'Reilly's works thank you kindly oh and I'm not just going after SkinWalker's sources I'm going after the bulk of academia. You have IU with one thing, the University I go to getting in trouble with the Feds for using campus computers and printers to print Barack Obama campaign fliers.

I'd advise you guys to read some of the following:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/15/a-speech-free-bubble-around-bill-ayers/)

links to:

http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20090115/OPINION05/901150304/1006/OPINION)

---------------------------


http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/06/child-abuser-obama-supporting-teacher-bullies-soldiers-daughter/)

Btw, there is the video from the Swedish Documentary attached to the blog, which is the only reason why I'm using the blog. Generally I don't like reading Michelle's blogs because sometimes she goes overboard but there were some things that were actually quite scary, assuming the jest of these articles are true.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column)


This kind of stuff is what is being taught in schools, the student in this article demonstrates that fact perfectly. So as I asked before, how blatent does it have to be for you to admit there is a problem?

I have read some of O'Reilly's works thank you kindly oh and I'm not just going after SkinWalker's sources I'm going after the bulk of academia.Then your argument, in addition to being fallacious, has no place in this thread, unless you'd care to narrow it down a bit and give reasons as to why SkinWalker's sources can't be trusted besides this poisoning the well fallacy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column)


This kind of stuff is what is being taught in schools, the student in this article demonstrates that fact perfectly. So as I asked before, how blatent does it have to be for you to admit there is a problem?
Follow up article to the one above (http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/nov/14/news/chi-kass-14-nov14).

But it’s also true that if Catherine lived in a beet-red community and wore an Obama shirt, she’d get a similar negative, intolerant and ugly reaction. And certainly some Republican children would outrage their grammar/lit teachers by wanting her crucifixed as well.

All such outrage is predictable. Whether red or blue or right or left, many adults don’t get it. But Catherine Vogt sure gets it: Children learn their politics from their parents.
It's not the teachers, it's the parents. Get it right.

Then your argument, in addition to being fallacious, has no place in this thread, unless you'd care to narrow it down a bit and give reasons as to why SkinWalker's sources can't be trusted besides this poisoning the well fallacy.

No, it has a place in the thread, just cause it shows there is a systematic problem in academia which shows those sources can't be trusted, and common sense indicates those studies are propaganda pieces, doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the thread, quite the opposite it does belong in this thread.

Seriously, teachers bashing a student for wearing a McCain T-Shirt, and we have worse examples on the college level, and that isn't a cause of concern.

It's not the teachers, it's the parents. Get it right.

That part is the reporter's analysis, that doesn't mean that would actually happen. And this situation isn't an isolated incident if you look at my other sources that I provided. There were some instances of outright indoctrination similar to the Hitler Youth Movement stuff or at least the videos looked similar enough, I'll try to dig up that stuff if you'd like.

No, it has a place in the thread, just cause it shows there is a systematic problem in academia which shows those sources can't be trusted, and common sense indicates those studies are propaganda pieces, doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the thread, quite the opposite it does belong in this thread.

Seriously, teachers bashing a student for wearing a McCain T-Shirt, and we have worse examples on the college level, and that isn't a cause of concern.Dredging up crap about other professors doesn't serve to refute anything said in this thread. It doesn't even serve to prove your point, since you haven't been able to show evidence that this problem is widespread, chronic, or exclusive to liberal teachers or professors.

That part is the reporter's analysis, that doesn't mean that would actually happen. And this situation isn't an isolated incident if you look at my other sources that I provided. There were some instances of outright indoctrination similar to the Hitler Youth Movement stuff or at least the videos looked similar enough, I'll try to dig up that stuff if you'd like.
You used the article to assert the fact that teachers teach their students intolerance. I have shown you that it they in fact do not teach their students intolerance; it comes from their parents.

I think we're done here.

Dredging up crap about other professors doesn't serve to refute anything said in this thread. It doesn't even serve to prove your point, since you haven't been able to show evidence that this problem is widespread, chronic, or exclusive to liberal teachers or professors.



Who the heck taught the teachers? -- Professors
Who works at Universities? -- Professors
Who did the study? -- Professors


Btw,

http://www.au.dk/en/news/210906a)

And another coauthor of a particular work was also found to improperly gather data to skew results.
It was also found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain.-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn)

You used the article to assert the fact that teachers teach their students intolerance. I have shown you that it they in fact do not teach their students intolerance; it comes from their parents.


And I stand by that statement, parents aren't the only ones that serve as role models to children, teachers do too.

Who the heck taught the teachers? -- Professors
Who works at Universities? -- Professors
Who did the study? -- Professors
[/url]

better quit school then and go live up in the ****ing mountains where there's no internet



jesus every post you make is ****ing word salad and 90% fallacies









seriously i'm ****ing done trying to interpret your bull**** **** you i'm out

And I stand by that statement, parents aren't the only ones that serve as role models to children, teachers do too.
There is nothing in that article that corroborates your statement, thus you cannot use it to prove your point. Nice try, though.

There is nothing in that article that corroborates your statement, thus you cannot use it to prove your point. Nice try, though.

Look at the articles again, it is one maybe two of SkinWalker's sources getting suspended or other disciplinary action for fraudulent research. That throws some of his source's credibility into doubt right there.

Look at the articles again, it is one maybe two of SkinWalker's sources getting suspended or other disciplinary action for fraudulent research. That throws some of his source's credibility into doubt right there.
I am talking about that specific article and your specific assertion that teachers teach their students political intolerance. I made no statements on any other thing that you have posted.

Again, there is nothing in that Trib article that supports your statement that teachers teach their kids political intolerance.

I am talking about that specific article and your specific assertion that teachers teach their students political intolerance. I made no statements on any other thing that you have posted.

Read the article, it states the students weren't the only ones acting intolerant putting it mildly...

Then there is the video from the Swedish documentary.


Again, there is nothing in that Trib article that supports your statement that teachers teach their kids political intolerance.

Ever heard if teachers do it, permit that kind of behavior, etc. the students will do so too thinking that they won't get in trouble for it.

Parents aren't the only people that teach children how to behave, teachers do so as well, because they are an authority figure.

I noticed that you've cast a few red herrings and others have chased them. Let's bring this back on topic, shall we?

The intelligence thing I brought up was subject to peer review as well.

We wouldn't know. You haven't cited the "thing" you brought up. What specific research are you referring to? There have been many, some of which were peer reviewed -and utterly skewered by their peers.

Never take any study involving race or religion at face value.

Agreed. This is why I took the time to examine and evaluate the methodologies.


Btw, an Ivy league education doesn't mean one is intelligent, it just means they studied in a particular field. There are other colleges out there.

I do not dispute this. Nor have I asserted it. Indeed, on of the studies I cited used students from community colleges in its sample. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I just found something else that makes you wonder what these Professors were taught:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020603332.html)

Supposedly because they didn't vote for Obama they are slavery loving racists? Excuse me, this is a College Professor shouldn't he have learned that there are other reasons one wouldn't have voted for Obama.

This has zero relevance to studies I cited. Zero.

Read the article, it states the students weren't the only ones acting intolerant putting it mildly...
Please find me the part where it says that teachers were intolerant towards the girl performing the experiment.

Ever heard if teachers do it, permit that kind of behavior, etc. the students will do so too thinking that they won't get in trouble for it.
Nowhere in the article does it state that teachers permitted that kind of behavior in their classrooms. It is dishonest and fallacious to assume so.

I noticed that you've cast a few red herrings and others have chased them. Let's bring this back on topic, shall we?

They aren't red herrings, though I'm not sure people realize what the implications of some of what I posted yet.



We wouldn't know. You haven't cited the "thing" you brought up. What specific research are you referring to? There have been many, some of which were peer reviewed -and utterly skewered by their peers.


http://www.au.dk/en/news/210906a)

Having problems getting article to come up but it is concerning one of your sources.


Agreed. This is why I took the time to examine and evaluate the methodologies.

Well first two people I looked up have gotten into serious trouble concerning academic dishonesty.



I do not dispute this. Nor have I asserted it. Indeed, on of the studies I cited used students from community colleges in its sample. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

That is in the second source I presented concerning Academic dishonesty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn)



This has zero relevance to studies I cited. Zero.

The fact one of the researchers you mentioned was suspended from his job for academic dishonesty in his research isn't relevent? I wasn't born yesterday, that is at least one source that just lost credibility, and that was just the first one I investigated.

In reference to that particular source though, I'm showing there is a systematic problem, and showing incidents in multiple states and even countries outlines that there is a problem.

Please find me the part where it says that teachers were intolerant towards the girl performing the experiment.

Oh you mean

But students weren't the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain.

"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," Catherine said.

If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.

"Later, that teacher found out about the experiment and said she was embarrassed because she knew I was writing down what she said," Catherine said.
-- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column)

Nowhere in the article does it state that teachers permitted that kind of behavior in their classrooms. It is dishonest and fallacious to assume so.

Considering the shear number of people, it is safe to say that teachers permitted it in the classroom, or in the halls.

"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," Catherine said.
That doesn't sound very intolerant at all.

That doesn't sound very intolerant at all.

That was just one example, and part of it is the tone in which it is delivered, furthermore there were examples that didn't make it into the article.



Anyways back to SkinWalker's source here is a quote from my reference:

Mr Holm-Nielsen says, “There is a clear case of official misconduct on the part of Professor Nyborg. By way of disciplinary punishment, I have therefore issued Professor Nyborg with a severe reprimand. This matter is thus closed – and his suspension from duty is now revoked.”--AARHUS University (http://www.au.dk/en/news/210906a)

Considering the shear number of people, it is safe to say that teachers permitted it in the classroom, or in the halls.
Do you have exact numbers? Did you specifically ask the child if she was accosted in the classroom or in the halls? If your answers are no, then you have no right or bearing to make this fallacious inference.

That was just one example, and part of it is the tone in which it is delivered,
Where does it address the tone in which it was delivered?

furthermore there were examples that didn't make it into the article.
Where are these examples and can you properly source them?

Do you have exact numbers? Did you specifically ask the child if she was accosted in the classroom or in the halls? If your answers are no, then you have no right or bearing to make this fallacious inference.


You mean to tell me that these all happened in the hallway? This wouldn't have just happened in the halls, since teachets were involved.


Where does it address the tone in which it was delivered?


Oh you mean:

If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college. -- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column)

That was actually rather easy to find and I'm not a lit major.


Where are these examples and can you properly source them?

They are inferred they didn't give specifics in the article, but it is inferred from the article.

You mean to tell me that these all happened in the hallway? This wouldn't have just happened in the halls, since teachets were involved.
So in other words, you don't have any evidence to back up your statement and you're pulling this completely out of your ass. Gotcha.

Oh you mean:

-- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column)

That was actually rather easy to find and I'm not a lit major.
Gonna throw something you said right back at you.

That part is the reporter's analysis, that doesn't mean that would actually happen.
It's the reporter's analysis, Garfield. Doesn't mean it was actually a threat. :rolleyes:

They are inferred they didn't give specifics in the article, but it is inferred from the article.
Show me where it can be inferred from the article. If you can't, I'm forced to believe that you're just full of crap. Thanks.

So in other words, you don't have any evidence to back up your statement and you're pulling this completely out of your ass. Gotcha.

Well considering I've seen this kind of stuff before and the shear volume of people bashing her, I'd say that teachers would have had to notice it unless they were completely incompetitent.


Gonna throw something you said right back at you.


Oh?


It's the reporter's analysis, Garfield. Doesn't mean it was actually a threat. :rolleyes:

There is a slight difference, nice try. In my example the reporter was interviewing her. In your example, the reporter just made a supposition without any supporting evidence or testimony.


Show me where it can be inferred from the article. If you can't, I'm forced to believe that you're just full of crap. Thanks.

It's the example you tried unsuccessfully to throw back in my face.

Well considering I've seen this kind of stuff before and the shear volume of people bashing her, I'd say that teachers would have had to notice it unless they were completely incompetitent.
You still have not shown where you get this 'shear volume' (the word is 'sheer', by the way) data from. And you have not shown where exactly these statements by other students took place. In other words, you make suppositions on incomplete information and decide these are facts. You are quite possibly the worst researcher ever.

There is a slight difference, nice try. In my example the reporter was interviewing her. In your example, the reporter just made a supposition without any supporting evidence or testimony.
If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.
All such outrage is predictable. Whether red or blue or right or left, many adults don’t get it. But Catherine Vogt sure gets it: Children learn their politics from their parents.
In both instances, the author makes a statement that were not directly stated to the student, but merely part of the article as commentary on the situation. They are both assertions made by the author, thus they are both equally valid.

And that first quote still does not address the tone in which the teacher delivered her statement. It neither said it was threatening or pleasant, but from the wording, it is easier to assume the latter than it is the former.

It's the example you tried unsuccessfully to throw back in my face.
The example above is used to illustrate the tone/threat issue. It has nothing to do with your inference that there were 'other examples that didn't make it into the article.' Please stop attacking the wrong arguments. It is dishonest and quite frankly makes you look like an idiot.

They aren't red herrings, though I'm not sure people realize what the implications of some of what I posted yet.

They are. Red herrings and straw man arguments. Rather than deal with the data presented, you choose instead to erect arguments you can easily knock down. This is clearly an intellectually dishonest tactic.


http://www.au.dk/en/news/210906a)

Having problems getting article to come up but it is concerning one of your sources.

It outlines the actions Nyborg's university took on him related to his participation in a different research project, which he was tasked to undertake and monitor.

First, it isn't clear that you understand what the problems the University had (Nyborg found it to be a matter of restricting academic freedom; the university took issue with technical flaws in a controversial research topic he monitored).

Second, you haven't demonstrated that the alleged issues the university took with his position on the Skanderborg project is related to the much later study I cited. Clearly they still had confidence in his academic ability since he was allowed to continue on as faculty. Clearly his later research has merit since it was vetted through the referee process of the prestigious journal Intelligence.

Therefore, for anything you say to have any merit; for any of your criticism to be worth reading, you'll need to evaluate the data of the 2008 research on its own merit. In order to compare and contrast with Nyborg's previous research, you'll need to demonstrate that the same flaws of methodology (assuming any existed to begin with) exist in the 2008 paper.

Otherwise, the comments you posted are intellectually dishonest ad hominem arguments. It appears that you're creating a straw man of the researcher's character since you're incapable of addressing the research.


Well first two people I looked up have gotten into serious trouble concerning academic dishonesty.

There is, indeed, dishonesty occurring in this discussion. It isn't, however, related to any of the research I've cited. Demonstrate dishonesty regarding this research, and I'll revise my position. Your straw man and ad hominem arguments regarding Nyborg indicate a fear to deal with the research.

What of the detailed analysis of Stankov I presented? You would rather erect arguments you can easily knock down that look at empirical data?

That is in the second source I presented concerning Academic dishonesty.

Sorry. This isn't related to any of the research or data I cited. Your spurious link is dismissed. Please stay on topic.

The fact one of the researchers you mentioned was suspended from his job for academic dishonesty in his research isn't relevent? I wasn't born yesterday, that is at least one source that just lost credibility, and that was just the first one I investigated.

Its only relevant to someone afraid to deal with research on its own merit. If you can demonstrate that whatever issues caused Nyborg's suspension are related to his 2008 research and you can show the flaws in his methodology, then you're demonstrating relevance. Instead, you've posted many spurious links which are red herrings, leading others down a path you want them to go, as far from the data I've presented as possible.

Clearly, my analysis and the data I've presented have hit a mark. I'm sorry, but they are legitimate and valid data. Particularly Stankov, who's research is empirical and not partially syllogistic the way Nyborg's is.

In reference to that particular source though, I'm showing there is a systematic problem, and showing incidents in multiple states and even countries outlines that there is a problem.

No. You haven't. You've shown that your adept at creating straw man arguments as an ad hominem toward researchers you don't like vis a vis google. You haven't demonstrated any of this "research skilz" you so boldly asserted. You've demonstrated a knack for generating red herrings to keep other participants away from data you don't wish to deal with.

There has been some discussion on Garfield's part regarding the veracity of Nyborg's research, so I'm going to give it the same treatment I did Stankov. Fair use prevents me from simply posting the entire article, but the full paper is available in volume 37 of Intelligence, which is available at most university libraries or via public libraries either in their stacks or online access. Ask your local librarian.

Abstract
The present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97). Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity. Ontogenetically speaking this means that contemporary denominations are rank ordered by largely hereditary variations in brain efficiency (i.e. IQ). In terms of evolution, modern Atheists are reacting rationally to cognitive and emotional challenges, whereas Liberals and, in particular Dogmatics, still rely on ancient, pre-rational, supernatural and wishful thinking.

The “g nexus” that Dr. Nyborg refers to is the “general intelligence” factor, a construct used in psychology to quantify common trends across various methods of scoring intelligence. Basically, there is an assumption that there exists a factor in human cognition that drives intelligence which may be phenotypical and an indicator of brain efficiency. While the g factor hypothesis generated a fair bit of controversy in the early 1980s, most notably from Stephen J. Gould, it has since become widely accepted with the advent of much empirical research. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor) barely touches on this topic for which entire texts have been written, but I provide that link as a starting point for anyone interested in further information.

What Nyborg attempts to do (and appears to succeed) is to bring religiosity into the g nexus. Like Garfield is always saying, Nyborg has an agenda. Unfortunately, perhaps for Garfield, the agenda isn't so sinister. Nyborg acknowledges the scientific curiosity of the “origin, development and persistence of religion worldwide” in his introduction to the research questions. He also notes the pervasive nature of religion across global boundaries as a human condition, anthropologically relevant to understanding human cognition in general given the presence of religion in both developing and developed nations and given the diverse range of superstitions and beliefs which exist.

Nyborg describes his research thus:The present study examines the working hypothesis that
dogmatism reflects a neurologically less than optimally evolved low g brain that seek supernatural guidance in ambiguous or life threatening situations. The study begins with two sets of a priori assumptions. First, high g people have a brain based biological capacity for solving complex problems, and for acting rationally when confronted with fundamental questions about existence, human nature, underlying causes, or the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. Second, low g people lack this protection and are therefore unfairly ordained to live in a prerational world based on poorly validated evidence and little accumulated insight. They accordingly often find themselves in cognitively, emotionally, or morally challenging situations and have to use plan B, that is, to call upon easily comprehensible religious authoritative guidance and to submit more or less uncritically to culturally given stereotyped rituals. Frustration with their life may also make them seek redemption or faith in an after life.

Nyborg also describes Six testable syllogisms about g which defined the empirical program:
Syllogism 1
Premises 1 and 2:
Cognitively complex people typically resort to reason, science and data to reduce uncertainty,whereas people lacking this cognitive protection often resort to ancient supernatural beliefs and claims. Ergo: High-IQ people gravitate towards atheism and/or science, and low-IQ people become religious.

Syllogisms 2a–c
Premise 1 and 2+premise 3:
Denominations differ in cognitive complexity. Ergo, 2a: Cognitively highly complex people choose Atheism/science; 2b: Medium complex people choose liberal denominations (i.e. fairly open, critical, less committed, metaphorical, cultural heritage type), and 2c:Least complex people drift towards dogmatic denominations (committed, personal relationship with Jesus, emphasis on sinfulness, fixed rules for behaviour, and need for atonement).

Syllogism 3
Premise 4: Denominations of different conceptual complexity also differ in IQ. Ergo: Denominations can be systematically rank ordered by average IQ.

Syllogism 4
Premis 5: Denominations that differ in distribution score will according to Gaussian distribution theory also differ in the proportions of high-IQ individuals (i.e. with IQ≥120)—the group from which society primarily recruits its members for the upper positions. Obviously, the absolute denominational contribution of high-IQ members also depends on its numerical size. Ergo: Large denominations may offer more gifted individuals to occupy the upper religious and social positions in society than do small denominations, even if they do have relatively low mean IQs and Sds.

Syllogism 5
Premise 6:
IQ is the most important single predictor of income. Ergo: Denominations with high IQ earn more than less favored denominations.

Syllogism 6
Premises 7 and 8:
The indicator for the heritability of IQ goes up with age as children have more chances to actively create their own environment rather than just reacting passively to parental directions. Moreover, individuals tend to gravitate over time towards a job with a task complexity that matches their own cognitive complexity level— the so-called Gravitation hypothesis. In the present context the Gravitation hypothesis gives basis for the expectation that individuals will gravitate over time towards a non-faith/faith position with a degree of complexity that matches their own cognitive complexity. Ergo: Agnostic and Atheist persuasions become increasingly more prevalent from ages 12 to 17, and the proportion of religious believers drops accordingly.

Methodology

Nyborg conducted 12 sub-tests on sample sizes that exceeded 10,600,000 adolescents based on CAT-ASVAB97 test scores converted to IQ across 19 denominations which included Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Muslim, atheist, agnostic Pentecostal, and Presbyterian among others.
Results of these data show:

http://www.lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=3026)

The data, as we can see in the lengthy and detailed methods section of his paper, aren't from Nyborg's own survey questions, questionnaires, or subjective hypotheses. They are arrived at using existing test scores used by the Department of Defense (the ASVAB test that many adolescents take every year in high school) and use to place potential service members in jobs and specialties to which they are cognitively suited.

The results are clear: “white religious people trail Atheists by 5.13 IQ points. Analysis of variance on the actual number of respondents indicates that this difference is statistically significant (p=.02).”

In the event that Garfield sees fit to erect a straw man or send us all on a red herring (he undoubtedly will if past behavior is an example) with the inclusion of “white” in the statement above, its important to note that Nyborg, like many social scientists who study social and anthropological research questions, was merely controlling for race. In the paper itself, you can see where he applied similar controls to other social constructs like wealth and status in order to isolate the correlation itself.

There appears to be no basis to Garfield's unfair and dishonest strawman, red herring and ad hominem attempts to dismiss Nyborg's research when his 2009 study is closely examined. It has nothing to do with his previous research nor has Garfield shown any indication that he understands what, specifically, Nyborg was accused of -an accusation that was so insignificant that the result was a reprimand. An accusation that is unrelated to this research.

He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.

By the way, you can't argue the issue SkinWalker, because it was the college he is employed at that suspended him.

@ Rogue Nine

I'm more than literate enough to read and comprehend what something is saying. I could draw up other examples to illustrate the teacher's threats from one of Mercedes Lackey's books if you like, I believe Alta which is book two of the Dragon Jousters would work.

@ Rogue Nine

I'm more than literate enough to read and comprehend what something is saying.
And [...] biased enough to draw conclusions that are based on the flimsiest of premises based on what you've read.


I could draw up other examples to illustrate the teacher's threats from one of Mercedes Lackey's books if you like, I believe Alta which is book two of the Dragon Jousters would work.
Don't bring in any other data or information unless it directly related to the article. Prove your point from the article. If you cannot, then sorry but I'm forced to believe that you are again drawing faulty and fallacious conclusions and that your argument is null and void.

Don't bring in any other data or information unless it directly related to the article.

Oh it's simple really, that statement by the teacher was a threat, I had even talked with some others on campus and they could see the threat in it.

I don't have the particular book in front of me but the style of the threat is very similar.


Prove your point from the article.

I generally don't lecture you about how you debate. If I can prove it using outside examples I'm going to use outside examples.


If you cannot, then sorry but I'm forced to believe that you are again drawing faulty and fallacious conclusions and that your argument is null and void.

Your opinion doesn't make it fact.

He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.

By the way, you can't argue the issue SkinWalker, because it was the college he is employed at that suspended him.


Why don't you take a look at the data at hand? This is just unbelievable.. Skinwalker went to great lengths and posted details about the methodology yet all you do is spout something about how the guy got into trouble somewhere..

If you want to show that the data is biased, skewed bad or whatever, do that by referring to flaws in the methodology. You can't just go "oh that guy has a reputation for blalblalbla, therefore the data is false".

Why don't you take a look at the data at hand? This is just unbelievable.. Skinwalker went to great lengths and posted details about the methodology yet all you do is spout something about how the guy got into trouble somewhere..

If you want to show that the data is biased, skewed bad or whatever, do that by referring to flaws in the methodology. You can't just go "oh that guy has a reputation for blalblalbla, therefore the data is false".

Actually in this case I can, because the reason I'm saying the study is biased and untrustworthy, is the exact same reason that he got suspended for. Furthermore if it had been at the university I'm at that Professor wouldn't have been suspended, he would have been fired. For all we know he just didn't get caught that time.

Oh it's simple really, that statement by the teacher was a threat, I had even talked with some others on campus and they could see the threat in it.
I talked with some other people on my campus and they didn't see any threat in it. Do you see how this kind of reasoning doesn't prove anything? :rolleyes:

If I can prove it using outside examples I'm going to use outside examples.
Except you haven't proven anything. Fact of the matter is, you can't prove that teachers teach their students political positions from this article.

Your opinion doesn't make it fact.
This is rich, coming from someone who draws their own fallacious conclusions and accepts them as facts without any support whatsoever.

I talked with some other people on my campus and they didn't see any threat in it. Do you see how this kind of reasoning doesn't prove anything? :rolleyes:

I'm saying it's that blatent...



Except you haven't proven anything. Fact of the matter is, you can't prove that teachers teach their students political positions from this article.


That's why I also brought in other articles such as the one about the Swedish documentary.


This is rich, coming from someone who draws their own fallacious conclusions and accepts them as facts without any support whatsoever.

Rrrriiiiggghhhhttttt......

He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.You know what is to say that he didn't? That fact that nobody has called him on it, and nobody is able to point out where he manipulated bad data and skewed the results in this study. If such bad science had taken place someone would assuredly step in and publish a paper about it since it would be a quick and easy way to gain some notoriety in the scientific community.

You're obviously just going to continue sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the actual science that you cannot debate because you either

A) Don't understand it
or
B) Are aware that you would be unable to refute it and would have to accept it as empirically valid.

He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.

Not that it's relevant anyway, but what data was his in regards to? Please cite the research. If you can't, don't sweat it. There's no reason to worry about it since this was from several years ago and the current research I'm citing is completely different and its data stands on its own merit.

By the way, you can't argue the issue SkinWalker, because it was the college he is employed at that suspended him.

I'm not interested in arguing the issue. Its irrelevant since it isn't related to the data I cited.

Actually in this case I can, because the reason I'm saying the study is biased and untrustworthy, is the exact same reason that he got suspended for. Furthermore if it had been at the university I'm at that Professor wouldn't have been suspended, he would have been fired. For all we know he just didn't get caught that time.

Perhaps you should take a philosophy 101 class.

Every single thing you assert is based off of what we like to call a "fallacy of logic." This one would fall between 'ad hominem' and 'poisioning the well.' Use your research skills to figure out what they are.

_EW_

You know what is to say that he didn't? That fact that nobody has called him on it, and nobody is able to point out where he manipulated bad data and skewed the results in this study. If such bad science had taken place someone would assuredly step in and publish a paper about it since it would be a quick and easy way to gain some notoriety in the scientific community.

Because he hadn't been caught at it because that's what the peers want to believe. You always need to be skeptical of research that says someone is smarter than someone else based on ideology, because it is the same kind of research the Nazis did.


You're obviously just going to continue sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the actual science that you cannot debate because you either


If you consider propaganda to be science.


A) Don't understand it
or
B) Are aware that you would be unable to refute it and would have to accept it as empirically valid.

I'm going with

C) You can't realize when something is propaganda.
or
D) You are aware that it nothing more than propaganda yet you cling to it because it supports your ideology.

Not that it's relevant anyway, but what data was his in regards to? Please cite the research. If you can't, don't sweat it. There's no reason to worry about it since this was from several years ago and the current research I'm citing is completely different and its data stands on its own merit.


It had to do with another one group is smarter than another group study. So the data's merit is seriously lacking.

I'm not interested in arguing the issue. Its irrelevant since it isn't related to the data I cited.

Considering it was the same type of study, I think you know perfectly well that it is relevent.

Perhaps you should take a philosophy 101 class.

Any other personal jabs?

Every single thing you assert is based off of what we like to call a "fallacy of logic." This one would fall between 'ad hominem' and 'poisioning the well.' Use your research skills to figure out what they are.

There is also something known as research integrity and the first source I looked up the background on, has little to no integrity.

Because he hadn't been caught at it because that's what the peers want to believe.So you are trying to tell us that there is not one single researcher in the entirety of the world who is interested in refuting a correlation between lower IQ and religion?

You always need to be skeptical of research that says someone is smarter than someone elseYou always need to be skeptical of research period. That is how science works, don't accept anything without analysis.

If you consider propaganda to be science.Maybe you could finally take the time to demonstrate exactly how it is propaganda? Show us the flaw in the method? Find the bias in the sampling?

Any other personal jabs?It's not a jab of any sort, you have a poor grasp of logic and taking a Philosophy class might help to remedy that since it's essentially proving things through logic and almost nothing else.

So you are trying to tell us that there is not one single researcher in the entirety of the world who is interested in refuting a correlation between lower IQ and religion?

Oh you mean like the one where a scientist at the Smithsonian Institute was discriminated against because he believed in God?


You always need to be skeptical of research period. That is how science works, don't accept anything without analysis.

Considering I do a lot of research, I already know that, and the fact that SkinWalker's source has gotten in trouble for skewing data, doesn't speak well of his source's credibility.


Maybe you could finally take the time to demonstrate exactly how it is propaganda? Show us the flaw in the method? Find the bias in the sampling?

Why don't you look up on wikipedia the Nazi Party there is a subsection in that article dealing with how they utilized 'research' to prove their discriminatory attitudes as legitimate. Seriously, there are a few other historical examples that fit this too, none of which are something that speak highly of this kind of research.

It's not a jab of any sort, you have a poor grasp of logic and taking a Philosophy class might help to remedy that since it's essentially proving things through logic and almost nothing else.

As one whom possesses a minor in History, I can say with relative certainty that those whom do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Quite frankly the research that SkinWalker is using looks rather similar to the kind of research that was seen out of Nazi Germany.

Oh you mean like the one where a scientist at the Smithsonian Institute was discriminated against because he believed in God?I fail to see how that in any possible way relates to the point I was making.

Considering I do a lot of research, I already know that, and the fact that SkinWalker's source has gotten in trouble for skewing data, doesn't speak well of his source's credibility.Yes, we heard you the first five thousand times, we realize that you don't believe his source is credible because of one unrelated instance in his past where he was reprimanded for poor investigative techniques on a different topic. What you have failed to do is point out how that relates to the research we are discussing. If he was already in trouble for poor research techniques then wouldn't it stand to reason all subsequent research would be scrutinized far more? And therefore any bias or data manipulation would have been found out?

Why don't you look up on wikipedia the Nazi Party there is a subsection in that article dealing with how they utilized 'research' to prove their discriminatory attitudes as legitimate.And why don't we just keep on discussing completely unrelated tangents. Or perhaps you could use more than circumstance and assumptions and actually empirically demonstrate how Nyborg's research is in any way the same pseudo science. Demonstrate the error in his methods. Explain the flaws in reasoning.

As one whom possesses a minor in History, I can say with relative certainty that those whom do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.As one who does not possess a minor in history I can also say that I too have heard that quote. Relevance?

Quite frankly the research that SkinWalker is using looks rather similar to the kind of research that was seen out of Nazi Germany.Really? Were the methods the same? Same sample size, same sampling method? Or is the only similarity the fact that they're centered around intelligence?