Moderation Questions

That's coming from peer reviewed reputable journals

That as i said we don't have enough data for small groups. There are a myriad ethnic groups in indonesia alone, some very remote and never-integrated into western style life.

A lot in south america as well, and some still very distinct ones in sub saharian africa.

Then there is continential asia with remote siberian tribes and whatnot.

We don't have solid, recent data on a lot of the long tail of human groups so it would be a wild guess to claim which one of them has the lowest IQ.

And then we don't have ways to control for the environment for many of them.

All the above isn't true for askhenazi which shared our environment and level of food access and whatnot for long

You have no metrics to measure intelligence in aboriginals bc there are no metrics.

Calling them less IQ is illegal and dumb.
Youre not supposed to say that and yet you are saying that. Why?

Are the South Americans dumber than the Irish?

Can you share a bit more about this?

"south americans" isn't an homogenous ethnic group lol

No.

Luciom, most people grow out of the idea that IQ measures anything useful other than an ability to take IQ tests. There are many different types of intelligence and many of them can't be measured well in written tests.

Testing native Australians with metrics weighted around Western ideas of logic and reasoning is just plain stupid itself when their culture was heavily weighed towards spatial awareness.

this.

None of this is about modding and needs to stop in this thread. Take it elsewhere if you want.

mod question arising in the trans visibility thread:

is it against forum rules to assume that a portion of young people who self identify as trans might actually not be trans?

I don't think that's what the forum rules say, i'll wait for a mod to confirm/deny.

I think forum rules ask to affirm that being trans isn't a choice and is a permanent characteristic of the individual.

So either someone is trans all his life, or he never was during the phase he believed to be so, when it ends up not being trans.

But i need mods to weigh in, don't want to be banned again for not understanding what the rules imply.

Good decision. Luckbox, that's why your responses were deleted. This thread is for questions to mods and answers from mods. Feel free to comment in the boc thread if you want to.

Another note: I haven't been able to be online much the last couple of days, so missed the start of the big discussion on IQ, race, and other stuff. But ganstaman clearly warned everyone to stop the derail as it was getting out of hand volume wise in the mod thread, and asked people to move the discussion elsewhere.

As usual, some posters didnt listen and kept posting so ganstaman deleted a bunch of posts. I have deleted some more nonmod related posts. So again, please move that discussion out of this thread so that you wont get the posts you put time into deleted.

As for the questions about references to IQ and race or ethnic groups, and talking about detransitioning and what one can assume by that, we mods are reviewing the topics and will issue clarifications. But just as mod responses to post reports are not real time due to mod real life things, it's the same for mod to mod discussions. So it may be a couple of days before anything is put out.

My advice is to tread very lightly on the topic of IQ and ethnic groups until then. Though much of the "science" on this which has been used by racists to make the case for their superiority over others has been debunked for many years, it seems to be making a comeback in some extreme circles lately. So hold those thoughts, if you have them, to avoid crossing over the line until clarification is issued.

Thanks.

Regardless of the modding, I would add that, in 20 years, I have never seen a productive discussion on this topic. The discussions most often are started by posters who are at least interested in, if not outright persuaded by, arguments from proponents of scientific racism.

Then Luckbox weighs in and says the whole discussion is dumb because race (and to a lesser extent, ethnicity) is an artificial construct. Then a bunch of posters question the validity of IQ tests as a measure of inherent general intelligence.

The person who started the discussion then tries to avoid a ban by focusing on how "smart" certain groups are rather than how "dumb" other groups are. Eventually, people start trying to bait the person who started the discussion into saying something blatantly racist. Sometimes those efforts are successful, and sometimes the person who started the discussion decides the game isn't worth the candle and moves on to some other topic.

It's very repetitive.

That and it's a futile discussion because whatever difference that might actually exist between populations are going to be minor and what applies to groups of people doesn't necessarily apply to individuals within that group.

Mods, do you have an answer to this question? The only rule I know of is that we are not allowed to say that any trans person ever is mentally ill, though clearly that has been broadened a bit in the recent past.

A hypothetical like that cant be answered. Of course, one is free to assume anything they want. What is said in a particular post will determine whether or not a statement violates forum rules.

Btw, you have misstated the forum policy on transgender people and mental health comments. But I think you know that and did it for dramatic effect. Please refrain from doing that in the future.

(1) So the way to find out it is against the rules is when you get banned for it. Got it.

(2) Gotta love the threat for (supposedly) misstating for dramatic effect.

What kind of answer would you expect to the question about making an assumption? It doesnt even give an example of a possible statement or potential post to be evaluated.

I didnt make any threat in your number two comment. I just find it hard to believe you actually misinterpreted the rule that badly, and so asked you to refrain from making such obviously incorrect statements on purpose. You stated the rule (incorrectly) as this:

Obviously some transgender people can and do suffer from the mental disorder of gender dysphoria. And that topic has been discussed. So to claim that the rule is that it is prohibited from saying that any trans person ever is mentally ill is just wrong.

Browser, you seemingly don't even know what the word "hypothetical" means. A hypothetical is a story or scenario that is used as an analogy to see if similar behavior would be bannable. "What if I were to say Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs was not a real trans person" would be a hypothetical. You were asked in the most direct and unambiguous manner I can even imagine. What kind of answer do I expect? I expect a response along the lines of "that is against the rules" or " that is not against the rules." You can't even give us that much.

And yes, when somebody that not only has the power to ban users, but has been using that power quite liberally, tells you to "refrain from doing that in the future", it is a threat.

No, we are deleting comments from people not involved in the discussion who continue to insert themselves itt rather than in the boc thread. Your opinion on this doesnt matter in terms of giving an answer to the question as you are not a mod and cant clarify a policy.

In fairness the mod position was that you can't say all transgender people are mentally ill by virtue of being transgender.

it's a good sign you've lost complete touch with the entire point of online message boards when you repeatedly delete any message you find slightly irksome

seriously, you should retire, you're a nice guy and an otherwise excellent poster, but you weren't built for this kind of responsibility

Of course, one is free to assume anything they want. What is said in a particular post will determine whether or not a statement violates forum rules.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. But what you post based on that assumption will determine whether a statement violates policy or not.

For example, a statement like:

"If one assumes that a portion of children who may self identify as trans may not actually be trans, then it is best to not allow certain medical interventions on any children to play it safe".

That's an opinion based on that assumption. People can chose to challenge the assumption itself, suggest that's why careful analysis by medical professionals is needed to determine if the child is transgender or not, or challenge the opinion on medical care based on that assumption. So that statement is fine.