If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

Boss

Personality is genetic

Stefan has made a claim that "personality is genetic"
 



I would love to know the resources that made him state such a claim. I have found some correlation research but I wouldn't think that would be enough for this claim as correlation doesn't equal causation.

I know Stefan also relies on IQ correlation research which is more researched than personality but I dont recall Stefan saying "IQ is genetic"(please let me know if he has) rather, Stefan says it more on the lines as IQ might be mostly genetic

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stealing from a famous wiki:

Gazzaniga, M.S., & Heatherton, T.F. (2006). Psychological science: Mind, brain, and behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.

Marcus, G. (2004). The birth of the mind. New York: Basic Books.

Loehlin, J.C., & Nichols, R.C. (1976). Hereditary, environment, and personality: A study of 850 sets of twins. Austin: University of Texas Press

Goldberg, L.R. (1990). "An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59: 1216–1229. PMID 2283588. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.

Jeronimus, B.F.; Riese, H.; Sanderman, R.; Ormel, J. (2014). "Mutual Reinforcement Between Neuroticism and Life Experiences: A Five-Wave, 16-Year Study to Test Reciprocal Causation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 107(4): 751–64. doi:10.1037/a0037009.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personality and IQ are mainly genetic BUT both can be greatly changed by environmental variables.

For example, people with personality disorders often get it from their parents. (And not necessarily Disorder A gives child Disorder A but some work like A -> B -> A -> B etc) BUT if they were adopted to another family there is a decent chance they would break the cycle. Also personality can be changed such as a healthy normal type of personality could be changed by abuse as a child. Also environmental changes could be a depressed low energy person discovers a job that constantly engages them and rewards them in such a way they are not often depressed anymore. Their personality changed from the environment they put themselves into. A narcissist put into a position where they are obviously not the best at hardly anything will change them (its actually the only real way to cause a drastic change to a narcissist personality type).

IQ is mainly genetic but if a child grows up in an environment where IQ pattern recognition is not used they can lose potential IQ, bad diet can lose potential IQ, along with some other environmental factors. You can't gain IQ though like if your genetics give you a potential IQ of 120 max then you will be 120 or below, and that will be determined by environment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personality and IQ are complex topics and it makes a difference if you test say the IQ score of adopted children while they are with foster parents as opposed to when they have moved out. What adoption studies seem to suggest is that you can see a temporary increase in IQ, when a low IQ comes to a high IQ family, with a better enviroment for learning, but that also this effect is temporary. Once those children move out, they return to 'their' IQ.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stefan leaves no doubt about where he stands. Personality is genetic, eh? "BIGGEST MISTAKE EVER" is the perfect title for that assumption.

Genes and DNA are important, but not for the reasons most commonly assumed. Most importantly, genes/DNA relate to predispositions, not causes. Genes/DNA do not determine anything.

The more skeptical suggestion coming from some quarters is that IQ tests measure one's ability to do IQ tests, not intelligence. I obtained my MBA from one of my country's top MBA schools. During one of our lectures, our highly regarded strategy lecturer described a kind of intelligence that is able to see the big picture, and makes decisions within the context of that big picture. A person with this ability is not typically able to explain how he arrives at his decision, as it is based on the subconscious weaving together of many threads. He just "sees" the answer. IQ tests do not really measure this dimension of intelligence.

I obtained a very high score for my IQ test... but this does not mean anything to me. I know someone else who's obtained a very high score, and he's just an autistic nut-job. In fact, I suggest that IQ tests typically tend to the autistic end of the intelligence spectrum, and not the big-picture end where intelligence really most counts. I've read somewhere that Richard Feynman, among the brightest physicists of our time, obtained a very average score in his IQ test. But I can see where high-IQ folk would be predisposed to the "it's-all-in-the-genes" hooey... they can claim their high score as their own, because it's etched into their very genes, and not their environment.

Stefan does great work in his videos, with his preparation and articulate presentations. But he is clearly wrong with his belief that "personality is genetic". "Because genes" is the reactive flip-side of the "because God" argument.... both are wrong. The strange death of Europe (an awesome video, btw) can be attributed to this pathological duality. God is dead, but in its place is a sterile secularism that just continues to feed the ignorance. With their implicit genocentric assumptions, Europeans are unable to see the groupthink that informs them. They think that the assumptions informed by their groupthink is "just" the way that "reality" "is". To reframe this in the narrative of Buddhism, Europeans are "seeing the world from their own level" and assuming these illusions to be real.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, shirgall said:

An entire field of science gone with one assertion.

Epigenetics is an attempt to factor in the environment in determining which genes are expressed (phenotypic plasticity). Phenotypic plasticity means that an organism with a specific genetic inheritance (genotype) can have many possible phenotypes, depending on the environmental pressures and which genes are switched on or off subject to these pressures. As such, epigenetics is as intractably genocentric as any of the other Neo-Darwinian paradigms. And as such, it is based on the same, flawed assumptions:

  • It is unfalsifiable (you can make it up as you go along, but just be sure to rely on evidence and assumptions that cannot be proved nor disproved... eg, natural selection "makes sense", but it is ultimately neither provable nor disprovable, particularly when you factor in important topics like entropy (next point));
  • It fails to properly account for entropy (this is a serious topic that Neo-Darwinism refuses to take seriously, even though it has respectable audiences in other areas, such as systems theory);
  • It fails to account for the "technology" or the "computer" that "processes" said genetic "information." In broader terms, if someone wants to rely on a particular narrative, then that narrative has to be consistent through and through. Information processing (genes) requires a computer... but there ain't no such thing in any biological system anywhere, never has been, no semblance thereof. If someone can show me how this technology works, I might be more receptive, but I'm not holding my breath.

... and so on. Epigenetics is based on the same fairy-floss foundation that characterizes the rest of the Neo-Darwinian, genocentric narrative. I cover some of the finer detail in my opening post of June 23 in the Science and Technology section, under "Has science become unscientific?"

Bottom line, epigenetics, including behavioral epigenetics, is exactly the same, useless, sloshing, deterministic swill, devoid of any kind of compelling axiomatic framework (for a good example of a solid, axiomatic framework... Isaac Newton).

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, steljarkos said:

Epigenetics is an attempt to factor in the environment in determining which genes are expressed (phenotypic plasticity). Phenotypic plasticity means that an organism with a specific genetic inheritance (genotype) can have many possible phenotypes, depending on the environmental pressures and which genes are switched on or off subject to these pressures. As such, epigenetics is as intractably genocentric as any of the other Neo-Darwinian paradigms. And as such, it is based on the same, flawed assumptions:

  • It is unfalsifiable (you can make it up as you go along, but just be sure to rely on evidence and assumptions that cannot be proved nor disproved... eg, natural selection "makes sense", but it is ultimately neither provable nor disprovable, particularly when you factor in important topics like entropy (next point));
  • It fails to properly account for entropy (this is a serious topic that Neo-Darwinism refuses to take seriously, even though it has respectable audiences in other areas, such as systems theory);
  • It fails to account for the "technology" or the "computer" that "processes" said genetic "information." In broader terms, if someone wants to rely on a particular narrative, then that narrative has to be consistent through and through. Information processing (genes) requires a computer... but there ain't no such thing in any biological system anywhere, never has been, no semblance thereof. If someone can show me how this technology works, I might be more receptive, but I'm not holding my breath.

... and so on. Epigenetics is based on the same fairy-floss foundation that characterizes the rest of the Neo-Darwinian, genocentric narrative. I cover some of the finer detail in my opening post of June 23 in the Science and Technology section, under "Has science become unscientific?"

Bottom line, epigenetics, including behavioral epigenetics, is exactly the same, useless, sloshing, deterministic swill, devoid of any kind of compelling axiomatic framework (for a good example of a solid, axiomatic framework... Isaac Newton).

You still haven't said why epigenetics is flawed. You just said it is flawed and then made more baseless assertions to prove your point.

 

6 hours ago, steljarkos said:

The more skeptical suggestion coming from some quarters is that IQ tests measure one's ability to do IQ tests, not intelligence. I obtained my MBA from one of my country's top MBA schools. During one of our lectures, our highly regarded strategy lecturer described a kind of intelligence that is able to see the big picture, and makes decisions within the context of that big picture. A person with this ability is not typically able to explain how he arrives at his decision, as it is based on the subconscious weaving together of many threads. He just "sees" the answer. IQ tests do not really measure this dimension of intelligence.

Yes they do. There is no real anatomical/physiological difference between the conscious and unconscious. You can't have one without the other, it is one. But in order for us to understand the complexity of the brain it is very useful to divide it into two categories. Therefore an IQ test that measures one but not the other makes no logical sense.

You throw in these wacky phrases like "the big picture". The big picture of WHAT? What are you talking about, that some people have the ability to see forests but not trees and others trees but not forests? Please be more specific.

6 hours ago, steljarkos said:

I obtained a very high score for my IQ test... but this does not mean anything to me.

I call bullshit on this. Answer this question, it's a very simple question so please give a very simple answer. Assume you have a child, assume you have the ability to choose their IQ, do you want them to have an IQ of 50 or 150?

 

6 hours ago, steljarkos said:

 I've read somewhere that Richard Feynman, among the brightest physicists of our time, obtained a very average score in his IQ test. But I can see where high-IQ folk would be predisposed to the "it's-all-in-the-genes" hooey... they can claim their high score as their own, because it's etched into their very genes, and not their environment.

This is FAKE NEWS. Feynman still holds the highest test score ever in mathematics at Stanford. He also holds the lowest test score ever in English at Stanford. This is probably the only formal testing of his intelligence that it is known. Though he was widely regarded as a buffoon and an average bloke (including himself) the consensus of most physicists and mathematicians is that he was far smarter than anyone than everyone assumed including those that assume he was a genius. There's this story of him doing some research and coming across a useful math formula relevant to his work but he couldn't find the proof for it so he scribbled the proof in the textbook itself next just for fun. Later on as his research paper was being reviewed it got rejected because of that formula on the basis of it being yet unproven. So are you really sure this is the guy you wanna claim has an average IQ?

Second, I love how you claim Feynman has average intelligence in the same breath with calling him "among the brightest physicists of our time". How did you determine this "brightness" of his. Is there any test that would quantify in some fashion this trait called "being bright"?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, steljarkos said:

It is unfalsifiable (you can make it up as you go along, but just be sure to rely on evidence and assumptions that cannot be proved nor disproved... eg, natural selection "makes sense", but it is ultimately neither provable nor disprovable, particularly when you factor in important topics like entropy (next point));

Well, off the top of my head:

- the only whites who survived the plague are the ones who were smart enough to isolate themselves. They passed on their genes leading to an IQ increase in the average population.

- the only bacteria who survive anti-biotics are those who are resistance. They pass on their genes leading to an increase in bacterial resistance.

- women - when given the choice - prefer to mate with taller men. Taller men make more babies, leading to an increase in the average height of the population.

3 concrete examples.

2 hours ago, steljarkos said:

It fails to properly account for entropy (this is a serious topic that Neo-Darwinism refuses to take seriously, even though it has respectable audiences in other areas, such as systems theory)

Entropy is a measure of randomness, and often used for predictive analysis (such as systems theory), not descriptive analysis (such as genetics). The reason that they don't take it seriously is because it is irrelevant to studying actual genetic makeup. There will always be a 100% chance that your genes are your genes, and are what they are, because you can map out the exact sequence.

2 hours ago, steljarkos said:

It fails to account for the "technology" or the "computer" that "processes" said genetic "information." In broader terms, if someone wants to rely on a particular narrative, then that narrative has to be consistent through and through. Information processing (genes) requires a computer... but there ain't no such thing in any biological system anywhere, never has been, no semblance thereof. If someone can show me how this technology works, I might be more receptive, but I'm not holding my breath.

You are equating gene expression with computation. What is the basis for this? Why do you consider genes to be information? Why do you consider gene expression to be a technology?

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Erwin said:

You are equating gene expression with computation. What is the basis for this? Why do you consider genes to be information? Why do you consider gene expression to be a technology?

It has been my experience in other forums that armchair theorists typically overwhelm these conversations. By armchair theorists, I mean those who obtain everything that they know about science from weekend newspaper magazines and television science docos. That is not intended as an insult, but merely to emphasize the point that the sorts of issues that are typically raised by casual opinionators do not provide traction for serious conversation.

Take shirgall's opening post, as a counter-example. He seems to know what he's talking about, and so far, he's been providing me with something to bite into. I welcome comments from those who know what they're talking about, or who have serious questions that they want serious answers to. And responding to armchair trolls, butthurt that their naïve vision of science is being called to task, is definitely not something that I intend to waste time on.

Now in having cleared the air, think about what you are asking in this question of yours. What do YOU think genes/DNA do? What models do you have in mind, that make living things happen? In epigenetics, for example, references to switching genes "on" or "off" is an infotech concept that relates to some manner of data processing. What do YOU infer from that?

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, steljarkos said:

Epigenetics is an attempt...

Poisoning the well. Then you dive into plasticity when epigeneticists study *stable* phenotypes.

Genes determine a lot and environment determines a lot. Even the genetic blueprint of a human requires a specific chemical environment to make a liver cell versus make a synapse.

We are, however, far away from the subject possible genetic influence on personality. Let's circle back: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/brain/

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, shirgall said:

We are, however, far away from the subject possible genetic influence on personality. Let's circle back: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/brain/

I appreciate your serious questions, but we now venture into territory that requires familiarity with other topics that can hardly be covered adequately in a forum such as this. And seeing as my most recent comment is in moderation (hidden), well... I don't know that this forum is conducive to the sort of serious, wide-ranging conversation that the topic deserves and needs. How familiar are you with neural plasticity (Norman Doidge was a pioneer), systems theory, quantum physics, etc? They all flow into this. You are welcome to contact me directly if you are interested, but I don't think that this topic will survive this forum. Just sayin' :)

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, steljarkos said:

It has been my experience in other forums that armchair theorists typically overwhelm these conversations. By armchair theorists, I mean those who obtain everything that they know about science from weekend newspaper magazines and television science docos. That is not intended as an insult, but merely to emphasize the point that the sorts of issues that are typically raised by casual opinionators do not provide traction for serious conversation.

Argument from authority is not an argument. Also, your assumption that I get my science from magazines is not only unfounded (since you can't possibly know that), but I think you're smart enough to know that you're just saying that to attack my credibility instead of addressing my argument. Not that it matters, but I used to be in pre-med if it makes you feel that I am now good enough to speak to.

As for you labeling me an opinionator, surely you can point out what my opinion is?

2 hours ago, steljarkos said:

Take shirgall's opening post, as a counter-example. He seems to know what he's talking about, and so far, he's been providing me with something to bite into. I welcome comments from those who know what they're talking about, or who have serious questions that they want serious answers to. And responding to armchair trolls, butthurt that their naïve vision of science is being called to task, is definitely not something that I intend to waste time on.

Reflection much? I'm calling your vision of science to task with 3 solid examples, 1 argument, and 3 questions. If you're so sure you're right, surely you can point out where I'm wrong?

2 hours ago, steljarkos said:

Now in having cleared the air, think about what you are asking in this question of yours. What do YOU think genes/DNA do? What models do you have in mind, that make living things happen? In epigenetics, for example, references to switching genes "on" or "off" is an infotech concept that relates to some manner of data processing. What do YOU infer from that?

I'd be happy to answer this, but one thing at a time. You made a claim, and I made a counter-argument which you have yet to address. Ball's in your court, not mine.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I made a counter-argument which you have yet to address. Ball's in your court, not mine.

With all due respect, I only address questions that I regard as serious. In the climate of armchair-theorizing that this topic seems to draw out of the wood-work, this decision is my call.

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, steljarkos said:

With all due respect, I only address questions that I regard as serious. In the climate of armchair-theorizing that this topic seems to draw out of the wood-work, this decision is my call.

So the reason why you won't address my 3 concrete examples, 1 argument, and 3 simple questions is because "you don't regard it as serious" ?

on-well-okay-2805130.png.258e3b6ceb6bc5d23059b9a12ec6d0f1.png

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Erwin said:

Entropy is a measure of randomness, and often used for predictive analysis (such as systems theory), not descriptive analysis (such as genetics).

Using the word "entropy" is a little pet-peeve of mine because I have no idea what people mean by it though in this case you pointed it out. It's a word that should be banned from the dictionary just because it's so confusing. It's both one thing and its opposite at the same time. Equilibrium is synonymous with entropy, chaos is synonymous with entropy, however equilibrium and chaos are not synonymous with each other. This makes no sense.

 

17 minutes ago, steljarkos said:

 

Just so you know, I was the one that downvoted your comments. You come into a thread, start a conversation, people engage in that conversation, they start disagreeing with you or are asking for you to explain yourself, then you shut down the conversation because >tfw too intelligent and nobody here would understand because we're armchair whatever that watch documentaries.

The only thing you forgot to do is to tip your fedora.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It has been my experience in other forums that armchair theorists typically overwhelm these conversations. By armchair theorists, I mean those who obtain everything that they know about science from weekend newspaper magazines and television science docos.

Where do you get your information from?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Using the word "entropy" is a little pet-peeve of mine because I have no idea what people mean by it though in this case you pointed it out. It's a word that should be banned from the dictionary just because it's so confusing. It's both one thing and its opposite at the same time. Equilibrium is synonymous with entropy, chaos is synonymous with entropy, however equilibrium and chaos are not synonymous with each other. This makes no sense.

Not to mention, all 3 of those words mean different things depending on context. For example, all 3 of those words mean one thing in chemistry and something else in economics.

But hey, what do we armchair theorists know? It's not like Stephen Hawking ever d--- Oh. Right. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Using the word "entropy" is a little pet-peeve of mine because I have no idea what people mean by it though in this case you pointed it out. It's a word that should be banned from the dictionary just because it's so confusing.

Entropy may be confusing. I get that. But it is a most important topic that NeoDarwinism in particular disregards at its peril, especially with regards to genetic mutations.

7 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Just so you know, I was the one that downvoted your comments.

Makes no difference to me. If you regard these conversations as a popularity contest, that's your problem.

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ofd said:

Where do you get your information from?

Whatever reputable sources I can, online, wherever, including of course academic journals. Though less reputable sources can sometimes provide leads to follow up on. And if some ambiguity bugs me in particular that I want to clear up, I even go straight to the source if I have to. The main point, though, is that for me it's about establishing truth, and so it's something that I'm invested in... this is not just a job or a hobby.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I read @steljarkos posts this phrase from Catch-22 comes to mind:

"He was one of those people with lots of intelligence but no brains."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I understand genes can influence your personality but the claim "personality is genetic" is false as it would require direct evidence. Like if I say John is 6ft, I will need direct evidence like John standing next to a large ruler. If I say, John height's may be mostly influenced by genetics then I can use correlation research that shows that. May/might/influence is not the same as "is". Like saying height is genetic would also be wrong as it would not be consistent with the malnourished or taller than parents/grandparents(like me :P). So it's not logically consistent to say personality/IQ is genetic. Now I never heard Stefan ever say "IQ is genetic"(please correct me if he has), I have only heard something along the lines as "IQ may be mostly influenced by genetics" so it struck me when I heard Stefan say "personality is genetic"

Now a few may be wondering why I brought this up, well #1 its false. #2 is this feeds the determinist narrative. I strongly oppose the determinist narrative, I believe Stefan does too. But this kind of stuff is not helping.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you talk about personality in a scientific sense, you have to take it from the amorphous meaning to something that can be measured and tested. There are several ways to do that a one of them is the five factor model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

As is the case with IQ studies on twins that have been raised apart suggest that the basis for personality is genetic, while the expression of those traits is partially dependent on the enviroment.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boss said:

Alright, I understand genes can influence your personality but the claim "personality is genetic" is false as it would require direct evidence.

There is no direct evidence that personality is genetic. Period. And the conjecture that genes "influence" personality is sufficiently vague so as to not really explain anything at all. What is missing is an axiomatic framework to bring it all together, much like what Isaac Newton provided for physics. What is an "axiomatic framework?" It is a set of working assumptions to guide our thinking, which is analogous to a corporate mission statement that informs an organization of its priorities. For example, my assumption that life is pervasive throughout the universe anywhere that the conditions are right, focuses my efforts on the sort of evidence that I look for. The notion that genes/DNA determine anything is contrary to that assumption, because it is an extension of the dumb-luck hypothesis, and acts in violation of the laws of entropy. Another way of restating this... if complexity can arise and persist across time on Earth, it then follows, given the pervasiveness of the same atoms and molecules everywhere, that complexity will arise and persist across time anywhere that the conditions are right. And this then compels me to ask how genes/DNA might play out in such a scenario.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boss said:

I strongly oppose the determinist narrative

Here is a clip that might interest you. Can you identify the mechanisms that "determine" how these guys do what they do? If you're following current conversations in quantum physics, you'll realize that there's something going on, something that our smartest people are having trouble wrapping their brains around: https://youtu.be/FzcTgrxMzZk

 

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ofd said:

There are new studies coming out about Chinese twins raised apart. We'll see what the findings of those are.

From the link I posted: "•Twins share a common pre-natal (intrauterine) environment." This is non-trivial, because a lot of stuff is going on in the intrauterine environment. Handedness (right or left) is shown to differ even with identical twins, based on their shifting proximities within the womb. There are sounds, the mother's experiences and whether or not she is stressed out, and so on (references available). A proper study will have to somehow control for the intrauterine environment. Handedness (left/right) in identical twins is particularly interesting, given their shifting proximities and likely dominance issues that might play out in confined spaces.

From http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/051600hth-genetics-lefthanded.html:

  • In a striking 18 percent of identical twins, products of the same egg with exactly the same genetic makeup, one twin is right-handed and the other left-handed. There also seems to be a higher proportion of fraternal twins with different handedness than is the case with other siblings.

Stay skeptical. They'll have to find a way of controlling for the intra-uterine available, and I don't see that happening anytime soon, without artificial wombs.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, steljarkos said:

The twins studies are controversial, and far from settled: https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/12/studies-reared-apart-separated-twins-facts-fallacies/

 

1 hour ago, steljarkos said:

 

18 hours ago, steljarkos said:

It has been my experience in other forums that armchair theorists typically overwhelm these conversations. By armchair theorists, I mean those who obtain everything that they know about science from weekend newspaper magazines and television science docos.

9978963.jpg.58cc4a29bc17dd2711b6f26f7371fcc7.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with my 3 posts being held in moderation since yesterday? And there's no pattern to it, which ones go hidden and which get posted.

We give adult donations to be controlled like children. This forum is clearly not one for freedom of expression. It would seem that it's features are a means of controlling content that is inconvenient to Admin. Clever.

Let's see if this makes it through....

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now