Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] The neurological basis of g

Expand Messages
  • hibbsa
    Jacob - I genuinelly haven t ever seen actual contradictory data from you or Lucy (Sonny) . If I ve missed it I m sorry. Could you possibly repost so we can
    Message 1 of 200 , Oct 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Jacob - I genuinelly haven't ever seen actual contradictory data from
      you or Lucy (Sonny) . If I've missed it I'm sorry. Could you possibly
      repost so we can progress this?


      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com,
      "clarence_sonny_williams" <clarencew@...> wrote:
      >
      > Jacob,
      >
      > Yes, you have done very well in establishing your case and providing
      > scientific evidence.
      >
      > 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 evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, jacob mack jcbmack@
      > wrote:
      > >
      <snip>
    • jacob mack
       Thank you and also I need to correct a minor typo meant to say = 80%:) is not shown to be so. ________________________________ From: clarence_sonny_williams
      Message 200 of 200 , Oct 29, 2012
      • 0 Attachment

         Thank 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@...>
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 8:40 AM
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] The neurological basis of g

         
        Jacob,

        Yes, you have done very well in establishing your case and providing
        scientific evidence.

        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 evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, jacob mack <jcbmack@...>
        wrote:
        >
        >
        > I submitted the links to contradictory data already and I discussed
        some of the flaws of the research that states genes have such a high %
        involvement in intelligence levels. There are of course many others.
        <=80% intelligence is far too high in a representative sample is just
        plain false.
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: hibbsa hibbsa@...
        > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.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
        and perhaps, you seem to support.
        > It would really help move things on, if you were to provideÂ
        the 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 least being challenged with actual data. So
        let's go to the next stage with you providing the contradictory
        data? Â
        >
        >
        <snip>


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.