iDB Community Forum

Ah, now I see how your interpretation of this, thank you. I now see how this could have been viewed as offensive (seeing as there was awkward wording), but the thing is, is that I was not directing this at anyone or any group. When I said that comment, I was trying to say that no one is able to debate that point. Not you, me, or even a doctor in psychology.

Sorry for the confusion. =/

Rainer Wrote:Ah, now I see how your interpretation of this, thank you. I now see how this could have been viewed as offensive (seeing as there was awkward wording), but the thing is, is that I was not directing this at anyone or any group. When I said that comment, I was trying to say that no one is able to debate that point. Not you, me, or even a doctor in psychology.

Sorry for the confusion. =/

No problem, thanks for being mature enough to apologize

Quote:You know, if you ask for evidence, at least take the time to look at it. Nothing you've said has been backed up by a shred of fact, and yet, you act as though looking at the facts of other people is below you.

I was too busy doing other things to read it at that time, geez. >_>

If I tried hard enough, I could corner a certain subject and then link an article on it in this thread that backed up what I said.

I will say this.

Quote:Part of Segal’s authority comes from being a twin herself. Her sister, a lawyer, lives on the other coast, in New York City. The two are fraternal twins and not much alike.

Your own article indirectly proves my point to some degree.

Genetics is a very complicated and messy subject. Due to my exposure to it, I find it incredible hard to swallow any statistics that aren't directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Internet articles usually have the convenience of not having to post references. Simply put, what I say really holds as much weight as they do from a readers standpoint. To reinforce this, I did not see where this particular author got their information from to make the statement you quoted, they did not state such a thing.

I will concede height, it is mostly genetic. I can use my common sense to say such a thing, rather then find an article to do it for me.

Not about to pretend like I'm an expert in Basketball either. >_>;;

nates1984 Wrote:

Quote:You know, if you ask for evidence, at least take the time to look at it. Nothing you've said has been backed up by a shred of fact, and yet, you act as though looking at the facts of other people is below you.

I was too busy doing other things to read it at that time, geez. >_>

I was actually mostly offended by the fact that you took the time to reply, proving that you had some time, but didn't take the time to look at the facts you requested. Saying that you were busy isn't an excuse, because you apparently weren't busy enough to be unable to post your own opinions.

nates1984 Wrote:

Quote:Part of Segal’s authority comes from being a twin herself. Her sister, a lawyer, lives on the other coast, in New York City. The two are fraternal twins and not much alike.

Your own article indirectly proves my point to some degree.

I actually don't see how that proves anything...could you narrow it down? You could be referring to the fact that fraternal twins are apparently not identical...but fraternal twins are essentially normal siblings that happen to be the same age. The fact that they aren't identical is actually important to twin studies (as you should know if you read the article, so I doubt this is what you were trying to say). You could also be talking about how one of the researchers described in the article apparently feels that she has some extra knowledge about the subject of twins because she is one...but the studies referenced used actual described science, so the possible opinions of the researcher (she doesn't even necessarily think that...it could just be the author of the article looking for a good way to squeeze in facts) shouldn't matter.

Sorry...I don't get what you were trying to say. Explain?

nates1984 Wrote:Internet articles usually have the convenience of not having to post references. Simply put, what I say really holds as much weight as they do from a readers standpoint. To reinforce this, I did not see where this particular author got their information from to make the statement you quoted, they did not state such a thing.

That article was published in Discover magazine before being posted online, hence you theoretically needing a subscription to Discover to read it (obviously, this wasn't the case, and I'm not surprised). It's not an 'Internet article' in the sense you make it out to be - it's a magazine article that was later placed on the internet. And Discover does cite its sources in each issue. The credibility of the article can't be called into question nearly as much as you think.

nates1984 Wrote:Not about to pretend like I'm an expert in Basketball either. >_>;;

...

Yes, you are.

Quote:I was actually mostly offended by the fact that you took the time to reply, proving that you had some time, but didn't take the time to look at the facts you requested. Saying that you were busy isn't an excuse, because you apparently weren't busy enough to be unable to post your own opinions.

It was four pages long. x.x

Quote:I actually don't see how that proves anything...could you narrow it down?

They are twins, who are incredibly similar on a genetic level, yet this article claims these two are "not much alike," thus downplaying how much effect genetics have on a persons development.

Quote:(as you should know if you read the article, so I doubt this is what you were trying to say)

I skimmed it, because me acting like I read it was more important that actually digesting it's information, as per your previous comments. ;p

Quote:That article was published in Discover magazine before being posted online, hence you theoretically needing a subscription to Discover to read it (obviously, this wasn't the case, and I'm not surprised). It's not an 'Internet article' in the sense you make it out to be - it's a magazine article that was later placed on the internet. And Discover does cite its sources in each issue. The credibility of the article can't be called into question nearly as much as you think.

The New York Times is a nationally recognized newspaper, yet it is often criticized by conservatives for being inaccurate. At least I think it's the New York Times. Regardless, credibility is subjective, and although they may quote references in the magazine, they didn't within that article.

Anyways, it's completely off-topic. One article claiming certain things with no references attached to it, certain things that aren't even the real main focus, can hardly be counted as a trump card.

Quote:Yes, you are.

Indeed I am, please refer to me as John Madden from hence-forth. =o

So yeah, I conceded height, and you'll have to do better about intelligence, or the entire concept in general. Besides, twins have this creepy psychic powers thing going on. I just kept having flashes of those twins from The Shining the entire time I was looking at the article.

nates1984 Wrote:It was four pages long. x.x

Pity.

nates1984 Wrote:They are twins, who are incredibly similar on a genetic level, yet this article claims these two are "not much alike," thus downplaying how much effect genetics have on a persons development.

Quote:(as you should know if you read the article, so I doubt this is what you were trying to say)

I skimmed it, because me acting like I read it was more important that actually digesting it's information, as per your previous comments. ;p

The level of rudeness and ignorance you're displaying here just kind of stuns me. You clearly aren't even reading what I'm writing, as I explained in my previous post why fraternal twins aren't "incredibly similar on a genetic level".

nates1984 Wrote:The New York Times is a nationally recognized newspaper, yet it is often criticized by conservatives for being inaccurate. At least I think it's the New York Times. Regardless, credibility is subjective, and although they may quote references in the magazine, they didn't within that article.

Anyways, it's completely off-topic. One article claiming certain things with no references attached to it, certain things that aren't even the real main focus, can hardly be counted as a trump card.

Yes, of course, credibility is subjective. Silly me, here I was thinking that a magazine that cites its sources and has published hundreds or thousands of scientifically accurate articles in the past should be believed. Are you going to attack science textbooks next? Last I checked, they didn't have many in-text citations either.

Let's put it this way: that article is certainly more credible than your opinions, and you claiming otherwise isn't going to change that. Incidentally, twin studies (used to find how inherited certain traits are) were the main focus of that article, as you'd realize if you read it. I'm not using the article as a "trump card", whatever that means. I offered it to support a claim I gave, as you requested.

You were the one who apparently "knew" that centers were the only position on a basketball team that need to be tall, as you said yourself. You've continually presented your own opinions and misconceptions as fact while denying that comparatively credible sources can be accepted. Since you refuse to support your arguments with facts, kindly keep your discussion topics conceptual or cease talking at all. I was under the impression that I could have a fact-based discussion with you, which is the type I prefer, but this clearly isn't the case.

Quote:The level of rudeness and ignorance you're displaying here just kind of stuns me. You clearly aren't even reading what I'm writing, as I explained in my previous post why fraternal twins aren't "incredibly similar on a genetic level".

I am only rude in your eyes because I'm not letting a discussion on the internet rough up my feathers. So I'm being nonchalant, what about it? I shall get serious then.

Quote:Yes, of course, credibility is subjective. Silly me, here I was thinking that a magazine that cites its sources and has published hundreds or thousands of scientifically accurate articles in the past should be believed. Are you going to attack science textbooks next? Last I checked, they didn't have many in-text citations either.

Once again, they didn't post referances in the internet article. Alas, you did not send me a copy of the magazine, so how was I to know such a thing? Regardless, why don't you post some referances then, it would certainly shut me up.

Text books should give lists of referances to at least the teachers. They are prone to inaccuracies, and can even sometimes be biased depending on the subject.

Then again, I have the foresight to realize that what you read, even in a magazine like Discover, is not necessarily the truth. Remember, we once thought the world was flat, and to not question even the most apparent truths is to turn away from the act of discovering truth itself.

Once again, I've raised the white flag on height, and once again it does not disprove what I said earlier simply because what I said was a very general statement.

Quote:You were the one who apparently "knew" that centers were the only position on a basketball team that need to be tall, as you said yourself.

I've admitted I'm not an expert, why is that not enough for you?

Quote:You've continually presented your own opinions and misconceptions as fact while denying that comparatively credible sources can be accepted.

You provided one source, and it was an article that only had an indirect relation to the subject at hand.

Quote:Since you refuse to support your arguments with facts

I asked you for a source for your statement that intellect is 50% inherited because it piqued my curiosity, and you gave me a crap article on twins.

Therefore, I am still waiting.

I feel confident my point still stands on two legs in a general way.

Quote:I was under the impression that I could have a fact-based discussion with you, which is the type I prefer, but this clearly isn't the case.

I was confident we could have a calm discussion about something on an internet forum, which is the type I prefer, but clearly you're more intent on getting angry and slinging mud.

Do me a favour: go back and actually read that article on twins. And then see if you can still say anything about it being unrelated to this discussion.