Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

[Margaret McGhee]

Tom, I enjoy these discussions as a way to consider various ideas and discuss the evidence pro and con - but when I do that I am not trying to say that other views are wrong. Some here are looking for ideological confrontation and I sometimes let myself get sucked into that - but I always regret that afterwards.

Even though I seem to fall more on the nurture side of things I expect that there are gaps and errors in my understanding of it all. I am no pro at this. I just think it is all so fascinating.

If I argue against your view, that doesn't mean that I really believe that I am right and you are wrong. It's just a challenging way of testing ideas. You always offer your views thoughtfully and respectfully and I sense that you have a sincere interest in the underlying questions - and especially that you are pushing no agenda.

Just wanted to be sure that you know that I appreciate that,

Margaret

[Fred H.]

TomJ: Plus, he [Fred] does make choices, as do we all, based on his social animal instincts and deserves pity rather than dislike. He can't help but behave this way based on what he allows to enter his mind

I “deserve pity?” You’ve made similar charges numerous times Tom—e.g., that you “feel sorry for [my] predicament, “sympathize with [my] plight,” “know [my] pain is not easy to bear,” etc., etc., etc.

It seems to have become a rather nasty habit of yours. And while I tend to ignore your gratuitous ad hominems as useless distractions, they nevertheless do tell me something about who and what you are. Consider using a little more restraint in the future.

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

I “deserve pity?” You’ve made similar charges numerous times Tom—e.g., that you “feel sorry for [my] predicament, “sympathize with [my] plight,” “know [my] pain is not easy to bear,” etc., etc., etc.

It seems to have become a rather nasty habit of yours. And while I tend to ignore your gratuitous ad hominems as useless distractions, they nevertheless do tell me something about who and what you are. Consider using a little more restraint in the future.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. However, not all attacks against the person involve fallacious reasoning (see Validity below).

Fred, while you may take these statements as an attack, I assure you that I absolutely mean them. That's the peace I get from my philosophy, I don't get angry or frustrated with people like you; you suffer from a personality disorder that would make my life miserable if I suffered the same.

If it truly bothers you, I will refrain in the future as long as you refrain from misrepresenting my statements and insulting me. If you don't refrain and it does bother you, then cool!!! And anyone that reads a large number of your posts will not be blind to the fact that you would be the best target of this post of yours, so you could lead by example by granting us your request.

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Margaret McGhee

If I argue against your view, that doesn't mean that I really believe that I am right and you are wrong. It's just a challenging way of testing ideas. You always offer your views thoughtfully and respectfully and I sense that you have a sincere interest in the underlying questions - and especially that you are pushing no agenda.

Yes, I see now how you would have taken my "Paradox solved" as a "Take that!", but it was surely not meant to be. Tone is sometimes so hard to convey via writing, especially for me when I value brevity; that's probably where much of Fred's feelings of being attacked by my sympathy comes from.

I love puzzles and paradoxes are my favorite. That's why I read all of these posts; I'd love thoughtful challenges and while puzzle books are fun, they don't come close to the puzzles of real life. I was just excited that I resolved this apparent paradox in my own mind, it allowed me to know myself better.

Thanks for raising it and all of your great posts.

PS. I, however, do believe that I am right!

[Fred H.]

TomJ: Fred, while you may take these statements as an attack, I assure you that I absolutely mean them. That's the peace I get from my philosophy, I don't get angry or frustrated with people like you; you suffer from a personality disorder that would make my life miserable if I suffered the same.

Yes Tom, I don’t doubt that you “absolutely mean them,” and that you do “believe” that you are “right”—lacking expertise or evidence, you’ve ascertained that the guy who points out various flaws in your arguments suffers from a “personality disorder.” Maybe someone else here will explain to you why your conviction is a bit over the top, a bit ominous—you may be taking that “Übermensch ” thing way too seriously.

Or maybe I just should have let you “win” a few of your arguments.

OK Tom, maybe I can throw you a bone—There actually is, as JimB has more or less indicated in his opening posts, differences in various traits among individuals, and it’s essentially a genetic thing (shocking, isn’t it?)—Arthur Jensen, a prominent UC Berkeley supergrade professor emeritus of education psychology, known for his work in psychometrics, and differential psychology, a leading authority on IQ, has provided an enormous amount of overwhelming evidence on this area in his various papers and books.

So here’s your assignment Tom: Read and study Jensen’s book, The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998); and then, with actual (overwhelming) evidence documenting genetic differences, see how long you can discuss/debate this area with any estrogen-guided K-mart thinking friends you may have recently acquired before charges of Full Monte racism emerge.

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

the guy who points out various flaws in your arguments suffers from a “personality disorder.”

Originally Posted by Fred H.

So here’s your assignment Tom:

OK Fred, I guess you decided not to accept my invitation to take the high road and set a good example. Very well.

First, the reason I diagnosed you with a personality disorder couldn't have been because you "pointed out various flaws in my arguments", since you haven't. You don't have to let me 'win' any arguments and it's not right to imply that I 'lost' any.

Second, leave it to you to cast yourself as my teacher and suggest that I read a book that supports the nature side of my argument and use that to debate people whom I have no quarrel with. I don't think so.

I mentioned a personality disorder because of the mean-spirited posts you send. You must have a lot of fear and anger to be so rude.

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Margaret McGhee

and especially that you are pushing no agenda

Thanks so much for noticing! As wonderful a thing it was for you to write, I feel compelled to be open and honest and spoil the moment: if I appear to be pushing no agenda then it's purely by coincidence that my agenda matches "agendalessness". To illustrate my point, it would help for you to read one or two of the "The case of..." pages at the bottom of the "Forum Jump" list near the bottom of this page; kinda long but fascinating reading. Plus, there's the http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/showthread.php?t=728 thread, to which nobody has replied.

My point is that we are all born intelligent and fragile psyches. Each of us could write a "The case of..." that would pretty fully explain every one of our posts. Mine would say something about having bad adult role models and better sibling role models. This put me on a course where I do not respect authority and believe that we mere humans are responsible for our futures. So, I accept nothing on faith and have to see the facts for myself. (If this actually is agendalessness and I'm completely right, then cool!)

The case of Margaret might say something about suffering at the hands of men.

The case of JimB might say something about suffering at the hands of women who suffered at the hands of men.

The case of Todd might say something about the horror of the Holocaust and continued anti-Semitism.

The case of Fred might say...I have no idea.

I don't think there were any replies to the "The Repressor Module: EP's Holy Grail" thread because of the threat the ideas pose to the bubbles we've built around ourselves (or maybe it was just my clunky prose). That our brains do not let us have all the information that might damage our self-concept kind of explains why these discussions take on the tone of everyone speaking an entirely different language. And it really is; what I have in my brain is filtered before it shows up in my post, everyone reads the words but their brains interpret them different from each other and different from my intent.

To believe this seems pretty uncomfortable; how can we exercise free will when the brain is not giving us a true picture of reality? That's my point, we don't have free will; we make choices with our brains but those are completely dependent on the state of our brains (and Fred's meds). So what do we do? I say we accept everyone's shortcomings, including our own, and keep trying. It's the only human way to go and at some point we may all realize our limitations and create a society that is more effective before we kill ourselves.

[Fred H.]

TomJ: I mentioned a personality disorder because of the mean-spirited posts you send. You must have a lot of fear and anger to be so rude.

You (and Margaret) initiated the mean-spirited posts, the rudeness—I wasn’t first to raise the stakes. If anyone has a “personality disorder,” it’s you, along with a poor memory.

Go back to Feb 10 in the “Intelligent Design and Why Not” thread—until then our posts were reasonably cordial, but then Margaret decided to raise the stakes in her post #49 (with her hypersensitive inferences/allegations from my review of Woody Allen’s Match Point), and you then decided to join forces with her in your mean-spirited (and groundless) remarks about me in your post #50:

. . . people whose religious beliefs refuse to allow them to follow the evidence…. Take Fred, for example. I don't bother trying to reason him out of his firmly-held beliefs; I don't think his psychology will allow him to acknowledge even pure fact, much in the way the woman discussed in the "Repression Vindicated" section ….

I could argue him out of his beliefs morally much more easily than scientifically (since his beliefs are, by definition, beyond science)…. [http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/sh...&postcount=50]

Also Tom, if you’re interested in actual evidence and science regarding genetic differences, you should consider reading Jensen’s book—The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998)—so that you can provide something more intelligent than, “you can't play basketball while huddled in your igloo.”

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

it’s you, along with a poor memory.

This still does not "point out various flaws in my arguments". And Margaret's concern that you were calling her morally blind in your post previous to your examples is sufficient for me. Especially in view of this post of mine based on replies to posts of yours from last year:

Originally Posted by TomJrzk

Speaking of 'honesty' I've not seen as amazing an example of 'taking out of context' as turning:

into:

But it is an excellent example of politics, if you happen to like such things.

And, for the sake of others, here is the last quote from Lizzie:

And here's Carey's last response to you, Fred:

I hope others read your previous posts before they bother responding to you...

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by TomJrzk

So, my answer, in a phrase is "male sexual selection". Paradox solved.

Ha, who woulda guessed. Within days of this quote, I find the following at
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...82809EC588ED9F:

Originally Posted by SciAm.com

October 17, 2001

Fish Study Finds That Male Mate Choice Matters

Biologists generally agree that female choosiness drives the males of their species to ever-greater heights of showmanship, from having brighter feathers and more sprawling antlers to driving faster cars. Now, in a striking validation of the cosmetics and fashion industries, Trond Amundsen and Elisabet Forsgren at Sweden’s Goteborg University demonstrate, at least in fish, that male choice matters too.

Amundsen and Forsgren, who published their results in yesterday’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that male two-spotted gobies stuck in a partitioned tank between two contrasting females—one with a bright yellow-orange belly, the other drab—spent twice as much time in the side of their chamber next to the flashier female, even if the color was markered on. They were also four times more likely to display their willingness to mate—by shivering up close to the female or undulating toward the nest—for the more brightly colored female fish. These results, the authors write, "suggest that the colorful belly of female two-spotted gobies has evolved, at least partly, as a response to male mate choice."

But male gobies aren't just interested in beauty. A female's color, which comes from carotenoids in her eggs and to a lesser extent her skin, may indicate to the male the quality of her eggs, the authors note. Males gobies are far outnumbered by females at the end of the mating season and nurture the eggs by themselves, so they have a strong incentive to recoup their investment by choosing a mate who produces eggs more likely to survive.

The authors point out that mate choice on the part of male animals is relatively widespread. For that reason, they write, "we suggest that more attention be directed at the largely unstudied phenomenon of female 'beauty' in fish and other animals." --JR Minkel