Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth will open soon!

Talk:Davide Piffer/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Defamation of person and intelligence research[edit]

With this edit removed information which tried to slander the person, and out of context with SYNTH connect his own personal life activity to further make a defamation of intelligence research and hereditarianism, basically ignoring Nature's Intelligence research should not be held back by its past (2017) article. Editors personal ideology and viewpoint, as seen from User:Skeptical templates, should not and must not interfere with their editing of RationalWiki articles, otherwise, it violates this wiki policy. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

You could have easily rewritten the parts you disagreed with, but instead chose to delete it. Including the parts that had nothing to do with what you addressed.
I don't see how that information slanders the person. While there are some snarkier parts, there is genuine information that makes a basis for criticism.
Pfiffer concentrates on race. Which is of little use for this kind of research. You liked that nature article, so let me quote: "More recently, the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races." That's exactly what happened in Pfiffer's paper.
RSamys (bla) 15:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Good point, aside from the fact the BoN never read his own source and is a dumbass - it's likely he's a sock of Emil Kirkegaard who has been banned here. He's returned already before on socks; note the BoN is a single-purpose account whose only edits are related to Kirkegaard or his OpenPsych pseudojournals (Piffer is the co-founder with Kirkegaard). Also, as you say its not "slander" to debunk and criticize racial pseudo-science - this website does the same for creationism and plenty of others.ANTIFAGuy (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, the IP was not a sock - that's ANTIFAGuy bullshit. Secondly, It is not anyone's job to rewrite or fix others editing, that's not how editing of any Wiki works, that's why exist reverts - you make an edit, the edit is reverted, it is discussed, and made a consensus. Thirdly, the "snarkier parts" are used in a way to make further criticism of the persons research. Fourthly, Piffer does not concentrate on race and you misrepresented the Nature's sentence - your exceptional claims need exceptional evidence, not ad hoc proclamations.--RationalP (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer about some things. My (mis-)understanding of the processes in wikis aside, the BoN didn't revert, but deliberately deleted passages - which I guess is fine, but they also deleted passages that had nothing to do with the criticism (the ESP part). This goes beyond what a revert would represent.
As far as Piffer and his stance on race is concerned, I was more concerned about his paper , which was part of the content removed (see especially the discussion and conclusion part). Did I misrepresent Nature's sentence? In the paper, Piffer explicitly links differences in intelligence scores to genetic factors in races. The other part of the sentence is that it's falsely attributed, and if it was published in a reputable Journal, I would think differently about this.
I agree that intelligence research shouldn't be held back by its past, as long as it's good science.
Other than that, I will admit that I am out of my depth, but I thought I'd elaborate on my comment to maybe clear things up.
RSamys (bla) 10:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
You really do not know what you're writing about, "Piffer explicitly links differences in intelligence scores to genetic factors in races", when following A review of intelligence GWAS hits: Their relationship to country IQ and the issue of spatial autocorrelation (2015) was published in Intelligence, where he does not specifically uses the term race, but has same factual conclusion on country level, makes him or science racist?--RationalP (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
So... is your argument that his work can be interpreted as racist in one context and as not racist in another context, therefore no racism at all? I mean, that's in this RW article, he publishes credible papers - but also does that other stuff. Do you want us to disregard that? Please clarify.
RSamys (bla) 11:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
See my section below - Davide Piffer is certainly a racialist. RationalP is just lying again.Zeros (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
You're the one whose lying.--RationalP (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
You're the liar. Piffer published a paper arguing for race. Instead you cherry-pick one study where he supposedly doesn't mention race, but only countries, despite the fact his other study mentions race.Zeros (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
You did not answer the question, liar.--RationalP (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem is the BoN/RationalP doesn't seem to understand racialism/hereditarianism is pseudoscience; he's coming here trying to heavily alter articles to defend racialism & hereditarianism (and all these people he edits - Kirkegaard, Piffer are racialist cranks). There's no "debate" to be had about this; RationalP is no different than a young earth creationist trying to edit Ken Ham's or Kent Hovind's articles. Just keep these articles locked to prevent him changing/vandalising them.Zeros (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not defending racialism, and you do not know what hereditarianism mean at all. Your stance on debate and personal attack is typical totalitarian and fundamentalistic bullshittery.--RationalP (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't care less what you defend, the focus of this talk is Davide Piffer - and he's a racialist crank who tries to link his dodgy IQ research to putative races as large continental populations, see below. Zeros (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Your ideology have eaten your brain, 1) you accuse me that I am defending racialism, which I am not, and then 2) you state you do not care what I defend? Then's not how argumentation is held, that's not how logic or anything works. You already lost the discussion as you discredited yourself.--RationalP (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
What a clown, you apparently cannot read. I said you defend racialism by "heavily alter[ing] articles" (you vandalised & were reverted), not these talk pages. Talk pages aren't articles. Hence I said "the focus of this talk is Piffer". Just lay off trying to appear rational every second, when you're a pseudo-intellectual to the extent you don't even know the difference between an article and a talk page.Zeros (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Spare me of your pseudo-intellectualism and irrationality. RationalP2 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
racist, bigot Nazi!Zeros2 (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I can not hear your - identity politics is not argumentation, sunshine.--RationalP (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Davide Piffer is a racialist[edit]

Above, (ir)RationalP says Piffer only discusses IQ to countries and is not a racialist since he doesn't discuss race. This is false. In his paper published in the white supremacist pseudojournal Mankind Quarterly Piffer says this:

Finally, this is the first study to provide systematic (albeit preliminary) evidence that differences between countries and races in IQ and educational attainment are related to genetic factors.

He discusses both "races" as continental populations and countries as more local populations; the whole paper references putative continental races like "East Asians", "Africans"/"Blacks", "Whites" etc throughout:

The extracted factor reached highest values among East Asians (around 1-1.5), Europeans have a slightly lower factor score (0.1-0.4), and Africans obtained the lowest (negative) factor score (-1.4/-1.6).

50 populations from all major geographic areas and all continents. The factor scores for 8 racial groups were highly correlated with their estimated IQs.

Only 17.3% of Blacks 25 years and older had a Bachelor’s degree, compared with 30% of non-Hispanic Whites and 49.8% of Asians. The difference is less pronounced in high school, which is completed by 87.6% of Asians, 89.4% of Whites and 80% of Blacks. A similar pattern is observed at the country level, particularly on standardized tests of scholastic achievement, such as PISA, where East Asian students (Singapore, China, Japan) consistently obtain higher scores in tests of math, science and reading than their European counterparts.

And notice how Piffer doesn't highlight any of these terms with an "..." like an anti-racialist would do, he also maintains these large continental populations have utility to population genetics which is dubious and racialist pseudo-science (read the racialism article); he has plenty of other racialist stuff on his blog. Its pretty foolish to deny Piffer believes in race and is a racialist.Zeros (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"RationalP says Piffer only discusses IQ to countries and is not a racialist since he doesn't discuss race. This is false." - I did not state that in my comment above at all, that's a logical fallacy, your own ideological deduction. I am not interested to discuss with people who make such irrational statements and personal attacks. You discredited yourself, pathetic. Answer me, is the journal article published in 2015 also racist? --RationalP (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
So why did you post Piffer discusses countries, cherry-picking one paper, when he discusses races in his others? He's a racialist. Read the quotes above. He doesn't only apply his pseudo-scientific IQ research to countries, but whole continents/major regions, e.g. he lists "8 racial groups" and elsewhere talks of "Africans"/"Whites""[East] Asians" etc. Those aren't countries.Zeros (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Once again, you are intentionally making the exclusive ideological identification between racialism and hereditarianism, and as current and future intelligence research will advance with you ideological indoctrination will intentionally be against hereditarianism in general on in regard to human intelligence although it is already proven, most blatantly in the case of twins. Please, you can stick with your irrational ideology in your fictional safe space, and leave science for adults and rational thinkers. RationalP2 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Just mentioning the word race does not make one racist. The term race is commonly used in national surveys by governments in the US and UK. If Piffer is racist, then the NHS in the UK and the CDC-NCHS are racist too? Check out, where anthropometric measures are divided into racial groups. So is it fine to say one race is taller or heavier but it is not ok to say its IQ is higher? This is a double-standard. Racism or racialism implies a belief in superiority of one race over the other. A high polygenic score for educational attainment or IQ does not make one race superior. Humans have many qualities not limited to IQ or scholastic ability. Finally, I share many ideas with him but I don't consider myself racist. See my latest blog post: — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 22:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone has published an account of peer-reviewed research on racial differences by respectable academics, which highlights the double-standards especially of some individuals that work on this page. Please check out: — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 22:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Defamation - unacceptable[edit]


The whole article is a hit-piece, please remove the personal attacks, misrepresentations etc. Thanks.Topseudoscience (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Point to a specific example that's inaccurate and we'll talk. L̤̈ÿ̤n̤̈n̤̈R̤̈ (̈ẗ̤ä̤l̤̈k̤̈)̈ (̈c̤̈ö̤n̤̈ẗ̤r̤̈ï̤b̤̈s̤̈)̈ @ 14:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

An interesting observation.[edit]

I noticed something while checking the edit history of this article, that is that all three of the recent attempts to whitewash it have been perfectly identical, right down to each adding the exact same phrase quote "a good looking" GrammarCommie (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, did not notice compared to my previous revision, it was edited by Topseudoscience, possibly D. Piffer himself or some troll.--RationalP (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
And yet all these accounts appeared the same day as the BoN/RationalP appeared to revert/vandalise the article, notice also edits on Kirkegaard, an account named "JP". As mentioned above they're all single purpose accounts who only edit Kirkegaard, Piffer or their pseudojournals. All of these suspicious accounts (including BoN/RationalP) also accused other RW editors (who don't support their racist BS) as being "SJW", "ANTIFA" or "left-wing" i.e. to imply political bias. This is amusing considering Kirkegaard, Piffer and John Fuerst are all alt-right - they're not scientists, but racialists whose agenda is white nationalist politics. Just go to Piffer's FaceBook to see his political views - you can also have a laugh there reading how he supports other crazy pseudosciences like psychokinesis and supports Uri Geller's spoon bending. Zeros (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, you also appeared on the same day (!). Secondly, you make a false assumption connecting me to these accounts. Thirdly, the accusation of other accounts as "left-wing" or "Antifa" when their templates or account name says so is stating an obvious fact.--RationalP (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
"Antifa" in his name is probably just to bait alt-right people like yourself. Zeros (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah right, when he edits exactly according to his radical left-wing ideology.--RationalP (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
It's completely irrelevant here, as we don't care about people's political opinions if they make high-quality edits. If an alt-righter came here (I actually think Brittany Pettibone did once and this happened) and didn't try to start fights/edit war/vandalize and made good edits, we wouldn't ban them, so it's the same with ANTIFAGuy. L̤̈ÿ̤n̤̈n̤̈R̤̈ (̈ẗ̤ä̤l̤̈k̤̈)̈ (̈c̤̈ö̤n̤̈ẗ̤r̤̈ï̤b̤̈s̤̈)̈ @ 03:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that ANTIFAGuy may not actually be an ANTIFA member, he might be referencing a private joke, be an anti-fascist (though again not ANTIFA), used the name to troll alt-righters or any number of possibilities. The point being that attacking someone based on their username is not only petty but quite possibly fallacious. — Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs 03:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
It also exposes RationalP as an alt-righter like Emil Kirkegaard and John Fuerst. The fact is ordinary people don't know anything about "ANTIFA", nor care, while the only people who throw around accusations of "far left wing" every second is also the alt-right. Its only the alt-right who are obsessed with ANTIFA - to the extent I've heard alt-right people say they're disappointed if they don't get to confront ANTIFA at a street protest or march. And just looking at Kirkegaard's twitter, all he does is tweet about "SJW"s or "ANTIFA" nearly all the time. Note that I suspected RationalP to be a sockpuppet of Kirkegaard because he's a single purpose account only editing Kirkegaard/Piffer, is a pseudo-intellectual obsessed with being rational despite being irrational and has the same post style - accusing everyone of "ideological bias". If its not Kirkegaard then its someone who edits his OpenPsych pseudojournals; I cannot see them lasting long here since all they do is throw around baseless accusations of everyone being 'left wing'.Zeros (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually CNN, Fox, and other news outlets reported on ANTIFA counter-protests earlier this year, so ordinary people do know about ANTIFA. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Average person walking down the street has never heard of "ANTIFA" I can assure you. Simply ask your work colleagues, friends or family; no one I know personally has ever heard of them. Same thing for the "SJW" nonsense. At a dinner table on Christmas day, how many people will mention "SJW"s or "ANTIFA" in a casual discussion? Virtually nobody except alt right loons like Emil Kirkegaard. Most people do not know what "ANTIFA" even means, or stands for. The funny thing is I only found "ANTIFA" recently through debating the alt right online.Zeros (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
All of the above is defamation, personal attack, and exceptional claims need exceptional evidence, what you write is pure nonsense bullshit. When you start a discussion in such a way that you also make presumptions that an editor is also going to defend pedophilia you already discredited yourself because you know that you already lost the discussion, or do not have a will and good faith intention (which is by the way violation of Wiki policy) for a normal and rational discussion.-- — Unsigned, by: RationalP2 / talk / contribs
Blahblah. You're also socking on double accounts "RationalP2". Is that "rational"? What a buffoon. Zeros (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
It appears RationalP2 is actually an impersonator; the same as Zeros2 who is now impersonating me (see "impersonations" below) Zeros (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Pathetic, you would rather accuse and personally attack people being a Nazi, sock puppet, buffoon than have a reasonable discussion. Such a good faith you have, perhaps your username mean "Zero honesty", your agenda mission on this Wiki is more than obvious.--RationalP (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Please remove this sentence: "However, his credibility is undermined by the fact he has also published in the controversial Mankind Quarterly, which critics (such as the SPLC) describe as racist and pseudo-scholarly". Publishing a couple of papers in a journal does not undermine one's credibility. Aside from the fact that MQ is peer-reviewed (not rigorously, but still peer-reviewed), someone's publishing outlet tells us nothing about that person. Academic journals are not like newspapers which have a clear political bias. Scientific content should be judged according to scientific standards and not a brand or reputation. You are just discrediting the scientific process by making it dependent on clannish and partisan instincts. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 22:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)



I'm the real Davide Piffer, not sure why you blocked my first account. Someone alerted me by email to this talk and the fact I now have a RationalWiki article.

I don't mind having an article here, but as it currently reads - its totally unacceptable and libellous.

Firstly, I strongly object to being described as a "psi-pseudoscientist". You quote where I said I can test/demonstrate my psychic powers (psychokinesis and clairvoyance), and so since I actually test my abilities - I am a scientist, not a pseudo-scientist.

Uri Geller is not a "psychic fraud". On the contrary, I am convinced like me he has actual psychic powers. I strongly oppose the defamation Geller is a "fraud". I am also a personal friend of Geller.

The stuff about me being a "racialist" seems rather silly. Yes, I am a "race realist" in the sense I argue human races exist, but isn't everyone who is honest? Clearly there are different population groups both by country (e.g. Dutch) and continent (e.g. White European), whether you call these races or some other words like "clusters" is pointless semantics.

I am not a racist. In fact growing up as an Italian and visiting places overseas, I have been a victim of racism - since some do not consider Italians to be "white enough".Real David Piffer (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Davide Piffer is a neo-Nazi. Zeros2 (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
14/88! Davide Piffer is a Neo Nazi (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not interested to discuss with people who make such irrational statements and personal attacks. You discredited yourself, pathetic. Answer me, is the journal article published in 2015 also racist?RationalP2 (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC) [blocked impersonator accounts, likely Mikemikev]