To Ise Mise.

That should keep AJ busy for a while.

My favourite John Grisham book is "The Rainmaker". Although "A Time to Kill" is not far behind, and it now has a sequel. (who's name escapes me". Other great books I recommend by Grisham are "The Runaway Jury", "The Pelican Brief", "The Brethren" and one of his latest, "The Street Lawyer."

"The Street Lawyer" is interesting in that it could have almost been written by Michael Connolly. The "hero" of Grisham's book is a lawyer who's office is in a car, in the same way that Connolly's lawyer hero "Mickey Haller" (in "The Lincoln Lawyer") uses a car for his office. Connolly also writes the famous "Harry Bosch" detective books.

Other authors who's work I regularly read are Ian Rankin (Inspector rebus detective novels) and Cathy Reichs ( who writes stories about a female anthropologist who is attached to forensics, who has a knack of solving crimes.)

What do mean "again", LEGO?

<<There you go again, AJ. You first agree that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, and then you claim that nurture "drowns out" nature.>>

If you acknowledge that I've said that before, then why didn't you reflect that the first time you attempted to summarise my position?

I’ll tell you why: because you’re all about empty rhetoric and needed make it appear as if you’ve discredited what I had said many times before.

<<That is a contradiction. Either behaviour is a product of nature AND nurture, or it is not.>>

No, there is no contradiction. This is another false dichotomy from you. A product of your inability to see the grey.

<<You can't agree that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, and then deny it.>>

I didn’t.

<<How do you justify your [self-evident] contradiction?>>

Well firstly, you haven’t demonstrated a contradiction. Secondly, I gave you plenty of scholarly reading supporting my claim, and three factors upon which my claim is based that you have not even bothered to address.

<<Oh, and please note, I am not going to pretend that I don't know what "drowns out" means, even though it is hardly a scientific term.>>

Of course not. Why would you?

Incidentally, I haven't pretended to not know what “works” means. I have simply asked that you specify a uselessly broad term. Something you still refuse to do, I note.

<<… I don't have to pretend that I don't understand plain English in order to dodge explaining what my own position is.>>

You do apparently have to dodge a lot of questions though, not a good look.

<<You're [in] the corner now, aren't you, AJ?>>

Yes, the one who has not yet committed a fallacy; has not had to resort to emotive language; has not had to dodge questions; and has provided peer-reviewed evidence for their claims is the one “in the corner”.

That’s adorable, LEGO.

The rest of your post doesn't contain much to respond to. But your manic tone of sheer panic, and the nervous laugh, were certainly telling.

Dearie me, LEGO. That’s gotta be embarrassing.

<<That should keep AJ busy for a while.>>

If only I had posted it three minutes earlier, eh?

I fail to see how a lot of ducking and weaving and unsubstantiated allegations of contradictions would keep me busy, though.

Since I’m here, there is one thing I would like to expand on. Firstly, let me just say that I don’t for a second think you’re stupid enough to truly believe that requesting that you specify what you mean by “works” is me pretending to not know what you’re talking about. In fact, I think the reason you sound so nervous now is because the penny dropped with that question of mine and you realise now that your Fallacy of Composition is highly flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

That’s twelve fallacies now too, by the way. (Sorry, I would have pointed it out earlier but couldn’t remember the name of it.)

Anyway, just to put this to rest, let’s look at what “work” means in this sense:

2. Be engaged in [an] activity in order to achieve a result. (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/work)

Pretty broad stuff there, wouldn’t you agree? So, what “activity” is it that you’re referring to when you attempt to conflate genetics on the macro and micro levels? If you just mean, ‘to transfer genetic ‘information’ in general’, then we arrive back at my differentiation between behavioral genetics on both the macro and micro levels. Something you are yet to address without a false dichotomy or the Fallacy of Composition.

Incidentally, “drowned-out” may not be a scientific term, but, unlike your “works”, it was adequately descriptive, so your analogy was false. That’s thirteen fallacies now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy

<<If nurture "drowns out" nature, then your position must be, that behaviour is almost entirely a product of nurture.>>

Across large populations, yes. And yes, my criminology, sociology and psychology textbooks that touch on this all agree.

I’m still waiting on some peer-reviewed work supporting your position. What happened to all these fun facts you were going to “throw” in my face too? Or was that just tough talk?

Fallacies: 13

Your position is a contradiction. You recognise the principle that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, then claim that nurture "drowns out " nature. I can't make you recognise your own contradictory position if you refuse to do so. All I can do is to keep pointing it up, and let our readers decide if you are dumb or devious. Personally, I think it is a bit of both.

AJ wrote "Well firstly, you haven’t demonstrated a contradiction. Secondly, I gave you plenty of scholarly reading supporting my claim, and three factors upon which my claim is based that you have not even bothered to address."

Firstly, I don't debate against links. If you have something which supports your reluctantly admitted "claim" that nurture "drowns out" genetics, then précis them and post them up. Secondly, since you have consistently refused to submit a reasoned argument supporting whatever position you are advocating, then your claim to have provided three "factors" supporting your "claim" is complete nonsense.

You did not even willingly provide a "claim" in the first place. I had spend about 500 pages doing my best to wheedle one out of you. I knew that sooner or later you would stuff up, and you did not disappoint me. It took me so long because your posts are so disjointed and usually consist of just personal attacks on me, sneery one, two, three, or four liner replies, endless questions, and deliberately misleading statements, that it took a while to collate your replies into any sort of order that made sense. We would have come to this position long ago had you been honest in the first place and submitted a position you were prepared to defend. You must have been aware of your own contradiction because you have done everything you could to conceal it.

Genetics plays a significant role in human behaviour. You know it, I know it, the AIC knows it. The question begs, why is a person who is studying to be a behavioural scientist doing his utmost to deny what he knows is the truth?

Still not a contradiction, LEGO.

<<You recognise the principle that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture …>>

Yes.

<<… then claim that nurture "drowns out " nature.>>

“Across large populations, yes.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#332018)

<<Firstly, I don't debate against links.>>

Oh, that’s okay. They serve their purpose just being there, for two reasons: they demonstrate that you won’t read something if it contradicts your beliefs, and that only one of us has evidence for their position.

<<If you have something which supports your reluctantly admitted "claim" that nurture "drowns out" genetics, then précis them and post them up.>>

“... polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, [that] drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable[, and] 'genetic variability' …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331975)

“Reluctantly admitted”. Why would I be reluctant to say that? Ding!

<<… since you have consistently refused to submit a reasoned argument supporting whatever position you are advocating, then your claim to have provided three "factors" supporting your "claim" is complete nonsense.>>

If you’d like me to expand on a point, then just ask. But I could not describe all the evidence in even four consecutive posts, if that's what you're asking for.

“Whatever”. As if it were vague. Ding!

<<I had spend about 500 pages doing my best to wheedle [a claim] out of you.>>

No, I have always maintained this position.

<<It took me so long because your posts are so disjointed and usually consist of just personal attacks on me …>>

Try finding a single instance of me attacking you without addressing your claims first.

<<You must have been aware of your own contradiction because you have done everything you could to conceal it.>>

A “contradiction” that you can only make apparent by over-simplifying what I’ve said. (See my first point.)

<<Genetics plays a significant role in human behaviour.>>

I know. To what degree, however, is still debated.

<<… why is a person who is studying to be a behavioural scientist doing his utmost to deny what he knows is the truth?>>

Where have I done that?

Instances of emotive language: 14
Fallacies: 12

Some additional thoughts, LEGO.

I should point out that it’s unrealistic of you to fill your posts with absurd claims, fallacies, and emotive language, and then expect me to just ignore it all so that I can attempt to do what I have already done intermittently over the last three years and summarise all the evidence debunking your Fallacy of Composition.

Speaking of which, here are those articles again. This time with their titles, just to make it more obvious as to what it is that you’re up against and what it is that you refuse to read. I’ll even shorten the URLs so that they don’t distract from the titles:

Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability: http://goo.gl/65v7tw
How Heritability Misleads About Race: http://goo.gl/ZOU4ck
Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children: http://goo.gl/WLJ7YS
Race and IQ: Molecular Genetics as Deus ex Machina: http://goo.gl/yPwG5t
Race and Intelligence: http://goo.gl/AXUhwW

Finally, I’d like to re-visit this for a moment:

<<I had [to] spend about 500 pages doing my best to wheedle [a claim] out of you.>>

No, you have spent “500 pages” over the last three years doing your best to deny what I have said, pretend that I’ve said something that I haven’t, and ignore what I’ve said when it’s inconvenient. And now that you’re finally quoting me (as I have always requested and recommended), we’ve gotten to the crux of our disagreement a lot faster because you’re forced to address what I actually say (although you still paraphrase when you need to over-simplify what I’ve said).

Surprise, surprise!

Now you are clinging for dear life to your contrived “contradiction” because it is the last card you have to play.

It is thoroughly dishonest of you to sit there and pretend that it is you who has done the hard work and finally “beaten” something out of me, when you have done your darnedest over the years to avoid getting to this point out of an apparent fear that your position won’t hold up, and now that we’re here, it hasn’t.

Which is why you’re panicking.