Form: Excerpt

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/95897385_273884627343031_8933192037608456192_o_273884620676365.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/96102822_273885477342946_2118672384608174080_o_273885470676280.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/95489626_273885537342940_144587634478415872_o_273885530676274.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/95875216_273886190676208_1169880307529154560_n_273886187342875.jpg A USEFUL IDIOT ILLUSTRATES MARXIST PILPUL TRYING TO RETALIATE AGAINST MY (MAINSTREAM) ARGUMENT AGAINST MARX

Before we begin, if you want to counter a scientific proposition raised from the underlying data you have to address the data. I know the underlying data in most every field other than chemistry and molecular biology (which I consider ‘icky’ subjects )

So as an example if you wanted to counter my arguments on the five factor model, the facet model under it, you could argue the foundation (that it’s top down diagnosis not bottom up) and I would respond with say, the diagrams attached, and show the biological construction of different emotional impulses. If pressed I would explain how different facets would emerge simply by simple differences in developmental connectivity between regions both in utero and during the first two years of development. And I would move from the diagrams to the literature.

In other words, as in all things, as a practitioner of operationalism, I would explain the physical construction of behavioral differences in humans from the bottom up. And from there I would link you to the vast literature on the subject which would take you (anyone) somewhere between a year and four years to comprehend.

If you questioned it then I would take you to the research on the duplication of human brain functioning in computer science and the differences between what we are able to accomplish in computers, and in what biology can accomplish that computers cant and why.

Now, you know, I know the average idiot doesn’t have access to people like me. But I also know that the average idiot has been taught pseudoscience for the past seventy years or more.

In the following ‘rebuttal’ from a useful idiot, please note he’s not once used a scientific argument. he’s actually applying sophistry (as if I’m making a rhetorical argument) and applying sophistry (as if I’m making a philosophical argument) to what is a scientific question: “is this from observations sufficient to suppress human tendency to error bias and deceive by due diligence against error base, wishful thinking, fictionalisms and deceits. Is this consistent with realism, naturalism, and operationalism, and is it categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally constructed, fully accounted, parsimonious, competitive.

SUMMARY: (To Lee Meyers)

You use the word ‘Vague’ to reverse blame. You use “Suspect” to accuse. You do both to claim I’m vague or ill intentioned when you’re ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. You use your ignorance as the test or measure of deep rich complex scientific literature of which you clearly have no demonstrated knowledge whatsoever.

You employ philosophical rationalism that was developed for legal and scriptural interpretation of language, against evidentiary claims – without consciousness of the difference between axiomatic(declared), rational(deduced)), and scientific (laws). In doing so you practice sophistry becuase you aren’t sufficiently cognizant of the misapplication of the method of testing – or if intentional you’re making false claims dependent on others ignorance of your deceit.

You cast the foundations of all my statements such as the fact of existential sexes as if they are arbitrary categories of sex preference. You imply that marginal differences and their causes and consequences in individuals and groups are immaterial. You cast a century of economic evidence, decades of rigorous science in psychology, cognitive science, and neurobiology as presumptions from general observation.

You pose as if you are more than a petulant schoolchild. You presume that your opinion has value, rather than people like me (us) seek to limit the harm you do to the informational commons with you ignorance and self importance. You do this because you’re operating under the pretense that your approval, or agreement is somehow necessary despite your demonstrated ignorance.

And that the collective you have any choice whatsoever if those of us who find you undesirable and disgusting, from separating from you. And you illustrate better than the less articulate but equally ignorant and incompetent why we must separate from you so that the harm you do by your very display, word, deed – even your very existence, can be contained like the biology of plagues, the pseudosciences of marxism, communism, and theology of islam have been contained.

CURRENT USEFUL IDIOT:

=== by: @lee.myers.148 Lee Myers ===

Man premise objections

—“1) Stereotypes are the most accurate measures in the social sciences”—

Premise 1 is just false

(CD: non-argument)

—“2) While personality factors are relatively similar between the sexes other than male disagreeablness-domnance-political-physical, and female agreeableness-submission-interpersonal-empathic that the underlying personality facets of each factor differs by sex accordingly”—

Premise 2 is false and subscribed to a completely unjustified normative claim on maleness and Feminity

(CD: False. Ascribed to structural and behavioral differences in cognitive development, in the evidentiary record. )

—“3) that we all vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive biases, but that collectively (in distributions) we cluster in three stereotypical traits: i) the female (socialist) ii)the ascendent male (libertarian), and the established or dominant male (conservative).”—

Premise 3 again is false, and the typology is not justified or grounded at all.

(CD: false it is in fact scientifically grounded in empirical measurements of sex differences and… I’m not sure how you can even disagree with xx xy chromosome differences and their expressions in brain structure.)

—“4) that nature-nurture debate is over via twin studies and genetic studies, and that 80% of behavior is genetic, and the other 20% is the result of idiosyncratic developmental differences.”—

Premise 4 is not only false, but arrogant and unbecoming of actual scientific discourse.

(CD: No argument. Not an argument)

—“5) that intelligence is a personality trait and that it may be indistinguishable from openness to experience,”—

Premise 5 is vague.

(no argument, not an argument. it’s a common question in the literature.)

–“6) that individuals and groups differer by genetic load (accumulation of errors not of excellences),”–

CD: Premise 6 is incredibly vague and partly incoherent.

(It’s a simple statement: look up ‘genetic load’. the lower classes carrier heavier genetic loads (defects). which is rather obvious if you look at photos of large numbers of people.)

—“7) that the differences between races, subraces, and classes is due largely but not entirely to:

… i) the group’s development of neoteny which produces cognitive agency,

… ii) the local adaptation to local environmental conditions such as disease gradients in africa, closed group winter living along the ice, time under agrarianism, time under eastern or western manorialism (or worse, under middle east agrarianism)

… iii) the group’s genetic load which we express as the ratio of the genetic underclass (those that cannot learn by at least reading), versus those that can learn by reading self study self investigation or self theorizing.”–

Premise 7 is racist, incoherent, not justified or grounded, false and completely unaware of the history of race construction

(CD: non argument. false. yes it’s grounded in data. and I am certain I can recount the history of race construction from aristotle to the present, which is why i’m the most citied person on the subject in Quora.)

–“8) that a group’s relative condition is dependent upon the median of the group’s abilities more so than the outliers,”–

Premise 8 is unfalsifiable and extremely vague and therefor not apt to Popperian-scientific testing.

(CD: it’s easily falsifiable. It’s not falsified. There is a whole literature on it. (See IQ and the wealth of nations))

(CD And at present I’m the leading theorist in the completion of the scientific method. and while the subject is over your head because it’s over almost everyone’s head, I’ll debate any philosopher living on the subject and it won’t be a contest.) And that said you clearly don’t know what falsification means in popperian reasoning.

—“9) that unless a group can organize a pareto hierarchy of voluntary organization of production it cannot compete in the world market for goods services and information and drag the population out of poverty.”—

Premise 9 assumes General Equilibrium and Pareto Optimality holds in the world market as a wealth building mechanism and is a necessary precondition for engagement as such when in fact neither completely hold empirically.

(CD It doesn’t assume anything. It’s that pareto identified it a century and a half ago and we can’t find a single counter-example nor rationally explain how alternative is possible, and every attempt at alternatives has failed.)

None of these are actual premises for an argument and appear to look like they divine some type of ideal or current humanity, I’m not completely sure, but all around unclear as to why these are premised as such.

(CD: you mean you can’t comprehend it? Lack the knowledge to comprehend it? because clearly thousands of others do comprehend it. So why can’t you comprehend it? The premise is pretty simple: man demonstrates all these behaviors – that’s the evidence. Can you counter that these are evidentiary claims? No. you can’t. That’s why you didn’t.