First time I have ever done it ... ever ... and I feel dreadful just thinking about it.
All that garbage on a post does not exactly help it in any way.
As I do have a little experience with the IQ/EQ balance, though I am no psych, it was just a serious pain which he thought was a fun thing to do.
The guy does not even post. He just goes around making remarks. I left it where it was.

The post is there, for everyone to see, no garbage from my point of view, I called your supposition out and you stuck by it and even defended it with your misunderstanding of the wordage used in that study pertaining to individuals, you then sought to remove your comments by deleting them and I had reposted for all to see. So explain what was wilful ignorance if it wasn't you never backing up your supposition that IQ is linked to DNA, not once while also never correcting your misunderstanding after I pointed it out. The facts don't change because of their age, the group might not be as large or diverse as you want, but it shows that IQ changes and it does so by VERY substantial amounts and it was correlated directly to brain scans. You didn't explain how Intelligence is linked to DNA either, so that is a lie.

-sorry for the replies, nesting limit again-
I didn't deserve your comment about me being a narcissists or the snide remarks, and I feel it was warranted to say "cool story bro" to your supposition which added to the falsity of IQ is linked to DNA. You then took that as goading when the subject matter was about EQ, and it was a simple remark exposing the supposition, while at the same time I provided evidence contrary to that supposition. Attacking the methodology, the age and, *lack of control* now, won't change the fact that you didn't even comprehend the language correctly to begin with and never sought to remedy that while expounding language lessons to me. Also attacking the source, The Guardian, instead of addressing the data and the correlation with brain scans, you hinted at the illegitimacy of the Guardian as if they are the ones that founded or ran the study, even though I had given you an alternative source as well. That only goes to prove that YOU have an agenda of pushing the obvious fallacious supposition that DNA is responsible for IQ and IQ doesn't change, and insinuating I have an agenda without explaining yourself or seeking to expose my agenda is only another attack on my person, and proves that you had no interest in discussing or being open to counter points. The flags were completly unwaranted and it is obvious, I never attacked you or your person, I requested time and time again proof for your viewpoint and explanation and you never posted either, instead what you did was to point out that you referred to measurement of IQ disingenuously as the only reference about measurement in that post was about EQ, and the topic of our discussion wasn't EQ, it was IQ, as if that explains at all how IQ is linked to DNA and IQ never changes.

To come and here and try to justify your abusive flagging by lying and paining me as some abuser is hysterical, I hope you don't take this as an attack, these are facts and I closed with my opinion on your actions, disingenuous actions, as the evidence points out.