@LangLangC I am not quite sure what you are talking about. I expressed no opinion on the matter

@Sklivvz You deleted comments to that effect below Odd's A as ranty despite them pointing out some of the flaws in it and also cut such a large portion from my A where this was discussed. (Never mind that I suggested something similar on your own James Woods A). That looks to me like 3 times expressing that very opinion?

which post?

This refers to the comments deletion and answer edit on skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45013/… (Your James Woods question was skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/28536/… but the chat room is now 404.

@Sklivvz Or do you mean what I wrote beginning with "Most curiously…"? That specifically refers to your "Removed long comment section because it was really ranty and unhelpful to the OP. A few tips: if you don't like IQ scores, there's a question about that, post there."

The edit I made seems obvious: your tone was unacceptable and that part was wholly unreferenced which is why you got a bunch of flags and downvotes.

Regarding Odd's answer: the comments were in large part a discussion between you and other people. I could probably have salvaged the first comment but it was not really that useful and it was what lead to the discussion.

Please assume that if I have an opinion on some things, I will state it. I will never express an opinion by deleting comments.

@Sklivvz I don't want to argue the edit as such, but if anyone would follow links and read them then it should be obvious that it is in the references, can be reffed further, but it's impractical to link every word. The point of criticising your edit may be found in removing essential parts that have nothing to do with any 'tone'.

@LangLangC I have no interest in changing your answer's point. I believe the part I left pretty much says the same thing. If you want to add an initial summary that's fine, but do so in a neutral way, please.

And one such essential I already tried to point out below Odd: it needs to clarify "IQ" without context is meaningless. A sole low quality source was criticised, which is also not very well summarised. Then the effect of that summary and the resulting discussion below only reinforced that point.

'The original' claim is very misleading and distasteful. Read more original here tiaztikt.nl/18-very-interesting-remarks-by-jordan-peterson

Here people have read and voted 105 times without even grasping what's said in the original, with the added bonus of Skeptics absolution of "not very misleading"?

An edit to that A while on HNQ would have been what I preferred. But comment was ignored and then deleted.

That opportunity now gone.

But what I really want to know, from you: How should one go about if really almost all questions on this site have serious flaws, fundamntal ones, when they are tagged "intelligence"?

For 1) bring it to meta or flag

For 2 it's a bit more... complex

Firstly I would add my own better answer

It might not be at the top but at least it provides a new view point

Secondly, if I really feel strongly I would attract more attention on meta or via a bounty

Unfortunately it's really difficult for us mods to change anything because its semantically incorrect, because in large part that's subjective and we can't do that

As such, you left a comment/chat msg that says "if you don't like IQ scores, there's a question about that, post there." It's unclear which post you mean by that. Is it indeed this one skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2758/are-iq-tests-reliable ?

@LangLangC probably, I went by memory but that post is from 2011 :-D

That one is deeply flawed. Reliability in test theory and practice is evidently not what OP means. Yet this non-answer doesn't even start to correct a flawed assumption, has tick and plenty UV.

Since OP seems to inquire about objectivity and various forms of validity in concert with reliability: should that be edited into the question now? Op long time no see and edit would be quite massive?