142264Re: [evol-psych] The neurological basis of g
- Oct 29 10:53 AMThank you and also I need to correct a minor typo meant to say >= 80%:) is not shown to be so.
From: clarence_sonny_williams <clarencew@...>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [evol-psych] The neurological basis of g
Yes, you have done very well in establishing your case and providing
Many of the rest of us have done so as well, but Hibbsa/Brad feels like
he must assume the role of gadfly and forever ask the same thing. Just
swat him away like you do all the other annoying insects by telling him
to read your previous posts wherein you provided evidence to contradict
the absolutely inane blathering of RAF and Bee.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, jacob mack <jcbmack@...>
>some of the flaws of the research that states genes have such a high %
> I submitted the links to contradictory data already and I discussed
involvement in intelligence levels. There are of course many others.
<=80% intelligence is far too high in a representative sample is just
>and perhaps, you seem to support.
> From: hibbsa hibbsa@...
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 3:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [evol-psych] The neurological basis of g
> >1.) Analyze data that shows a contradiction to the findings that Bee
> It wouldÂ really help move things on, if you were to provideÂthe contradictory data. Then I will join you in challenging Bee to
explain whether it has been dealt with and if not why not. And I'm sure
Bee won't mind in the leastÂ being challenged with actual data. So
let'sÂ go to the next stage with you providing theÂ contradictory
- << Previous post in topic