Today the following exchange occurred on X:
Great of Chris to respond because there’s not a person I can think of whose World class IQ has been more authenticated, first by the legendary Ron Hoeflin and than independently by ABC news! I encourage everyone to check out his X account and let me know what you think about the extremely provocative content. It makes sense that Oprah wouldn’t have him on but he’d be perfect for Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Candace Owens or even Breaking Points.
Speaking of Oprah, recently not even a professional psychotherapist was any match for the wit and wisdom of brain that at its peak probably weighed over 2000 grams:
Pumpkin Person 
Exactly what is said for 10 years. Great to see another great mind debunk Puppy and call her show garbage.
Depends what he considers genius. I’m arguing Oprah’s +2.5 SD which is genius by normal standards, but someone who scored +5.93 might hold people to higher standards.
Ridiculous. He obviously thinks shes an idiot. Have you seen what he thinks of blacks?
Well working for years in security, he saw the absolute worst of blacks:
Watching daytime TV from the comfort of suburbia, I saw the absolute best of blacks:
Yeah you saw the ben shapiro version of blacks.
Chris actually had to interact with real ones.
Shapiro doesn’t want the races to get along in my humble opinion. He wants tension between the races.
Shapiro was BLM. Watch the videos.
You should ask chris whether he thinks evolution applies to humans. You clearly don’t and won’t listen to me. So maybe you will listen to a bouncer with a moustache.
Stop straw manning please. We both know I’m an HBDer.
False. Youre anti-HBD. As religious as RR.
Still doesn’t know what PP believes and why, after reading him say it many different ways over the last 8 years.
Low IQ.
Guy Pearce apologises for sharing antisemitic content
Is Guy pearce similar massive IQ like mel Gibson?
Probably.
This is actually more evidence for high IQ than anything puppy said about his favourite celeb
Not doubting Langan has an extremely high raw IQ. But he’s a great example that raw cognitive power doesn’t automatically translate to real world accomplishments.
If the cutoff for genius is 145 Oprah could still be 140
But if she was 140 she would need to score 140 on some tests as proof or people like Langan won’t budge.
I took the mega society power test and received a score of 118 SD 16
Its is a really hard test and math oriented.
Oprah might not good at math but maybe better than I am?
–
I can learn math but slowly without help.
With help I learn faster.
The thing is that i can understand the concepts but only if I apply them.
Which is called learning by doing.
If I look at the math on wikipedia or YouTube I don’t understand much because I cannot use them myself, I cannot memorize random symbols.
I like building abstract models but they are difficult to make without programming a computer so all I have are the drawings I make and look at.
Currently I want to understand the basal ganglion and how it is used to update and maintain working memory. This could be the reason people differ in intelligence levels because the basal ganglion routs information and if more information is dealt with efficiently then you have more working memory to solve problems. Thinking is a process one does in the head by routing information into and within the neocortex.
Because the brain is a router system that learns, the efficiency of that system is what makes it possible to be more or less intelligent.
What makes a router more or less efficient is the speed of the connections where those connections connect to and if they are stronger or weaker.
Because the communications the brain has with itself matters to whether information is absorber or not ands whether more or less information gets in and out. The information going in needs comparison to itself and also past information and then stored in long term memory.
It is a very simple model.
People will be able to take in information, compare it, store it and make decisions on it.
This happens by the communication the connections have with each other based on the quality of those connections.
The quality of those connections can be affected by many things.
Mostly if the proteins in the brain change the strengths and weaknesses of the processes involved in the growth of connections we will see it in the function of each connection.
My hippocampus for example has a protein that makes part of it bigger than normal. Feature like this accumulate to make the brain communicate better or worse with itself increasing or decreasing intelligence.
Furthermore if the connections have greater density along with good functioning the router system of the brain has more pathways to travel and thus more can be done. Humans have the polar prefrontal cortex and this allows us to see into the future what might happen and plan accordingly. Sensory information can be higher resolution with denser connections as well in the visual cortex.
“Because the brain is a router system that learns”
Mereological fallacy.
no its not a fallacy
you are ignorant of how brains work
Post this one.
You’re ignorant of fallacies even after the fallacy is pointed out. Ideologue. How do BRAINS learn? They don’t—the self (mind) is what learns.
“Post this one.”
lame
“You’re ignorant of fallacies even after the fallacy is pointed out. Ideologue.”
why are you against certain facts about science?
oh right, Marxism
“How do BRAINS learn? They don’t—the self (mind) is what learns.”
so no mechanisms in the brain are used?
the brain is just a gelatinous blob with no purpose?
that is the true fallacy rr
It’s incredible how even after all these years you don’t have an iota of understanding on the distinction between “necessary” and “sufficient” causation.
it is necessary that genes modulate crystallization
so as i said a million times:
the rate of change will make people more or less intelligent.
you keep rejecting simple truths
“it is necessary that genes modulate crystallization”
Nice claim. How can genes constitute normative correctness?
And just WHAT do you think the mereological fallacy is? How many arguments are in my article?
crystallization of intelligence is not “normative intelligence”.
the brain naturally crystalizes in complexity by necessity of it for intelligence.
if crystallization is not in the brain where is it happening?
the self? then the brain is necessary
you devoice the physical from the mental and this causes your view to have problems.
no brain as necessarily means you have nowhere to put the crystallization.
I’ve literally said for years that the brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness but not a sufficient condition.
First, what do you take “crystallization” to mean?
You don’t believe the brain is necessary because crystallization needs to happen somewhere.
I said over and over and over
I’m convinced you either have a learning disability or you’re just wilfully not answering my questions—which is it?
You contradict yourself because if I am learning disabled then that disability must occur in the brain because there is a difference between the learning disabled brain and the normal brain by necessity of the brain for intelligence to exist.
Thus what you said here:
Is wrong and all your assumptions/arguments against me are defeated.
The brain is a dependency condition (like a functioning voice box is necessary for speech), but the normative correctness that constitutes intelligence (like the meaning of and grammaticality that constitute language) is fixed externally by the social practice, not any internal physical state.
Can you define “crystallization”?
I defined crystallization in the other moment you ignored.
Again “normative correctness” has nothing to do with intelligence. You made that shit up.
“I defined crystallization in the other moment you ignored.”
Where?
“Again “normative correctness” has nothing to do with intelligence. You made that shit up.”
Why not? I think I explained the argument well, where do you think I went wrong?
Hmmm…. He replied egocentrically . 1) ” She is not of (my) league of the smartest people in the world” 2) ” She wasn’t interested in me” 2) ” I am fine with that” 3) ” I am not interested in her” ……. PS; “The structure of her brain is not good enough” :
lol
I actually think you didn’t analyse that right. I don’ think he cares talking to housewives one way or the other. But my sense is that he knows something about Oprah that he won’t say to a fanboy.
Its just a feeling with the words hes using.
And of course, like all very high IQ people hes racist.
Just to make thing clear:
normative intelligence
rule following
These don’t have anything to do with intelligence (understanding complexity)
They have everything to do with cultural Marxism:
If you follow societies rules you are intelligent by cultural Marxism standards which rr advocates as a cultural Marxist. But then he goes double think and says societies rules are not intelligence?
This just makes it complicated.
If following societies rules were what IQ tests were about, then we would need no test at all we could just read Marx and answer all those questions “correctly”.
No, IQ is more than following societies rules it is about the complexity your mind can handle.
It is objective who can draw better which is not based on social rules but on ones ability to see a create stuff. Same with IQ, people can have higher or lower memory to think. That is they can deal with more information or they cannot.
In society you cannot force people to have more working memory.
Working memory is innate, high or low regardless of societies punishments or rewards.
Drawing is the same, no matter how much you paid me or punished me I cannot draw better than people with natural talent.
–
rr and those like him have double think
RR: I am a cultural Marxist that believes in rule following
RR: intelligence tests are about rule following thus not tests of intelligence.
RR: I am a good follower of cultural Marxism
RR: everyone has the same intelligence, no differences exist at all
–
normative drawing = rule following
therefore no one can draw good
“But then he goes double think and says societies rules are not intelligence?”
What makes you think I believe that?
“If following societies rules were what IQ tests were about, then we would need no test at all we could just read Marx and answer all those questions “correctly”.”
How are you making this inference?
“Working memory is innate”
There’s no such thing as “innate traits.”
“rr can handle complexity but just doesn’t want to understand what I am saying because he is motivated against the conclusions.
Understanding complexity -> can do well on IQ tests
differences in intelligence exist but rr won’t admit it because oppositional defiant e.g. cool story bro”
Cool story bro. Hereditarianism is false. That’s the main thrust of the arguments. So if hereditarianism is false then environmentalism is true and IQ differences are sociocultural in nature. QED.
Both of you clowns are false. Equally lost.
Psychotherapy is an art, not a science, so “professional psychotherapist” is a weak signal of competence. It carries about the same weight as “college graduate”, i.e. not zero, but not much.
PhD graduate but point taken.
“Cool story bro. Hereditarianism is false. That’s the main thrust of the arguments. So if hereditarianism is false then environmentalism is true and IQ differences are sociocultural in nature. QED.”
^still refuses to understand and listen
“Hereditarianism” is not the point of what I am saying.
Your arguments then are irrelevant to what intelligence is.
if you look at the complexity of the tests then you will see that those who understand them get higher scores.
simple facts are that it takes more memory to understand complex things, people with super high memory capacity score highest on the tests regardless of social background.
also by the way, having 5 fingers is an innate trait to humans
whatever is making a person have better memory for understanding complexity is innate as well.
I said what intelligence is—you’ve not refuted any argument I’ve made. If you believe intelligence is genetic, that’s a hereditarian viewpoint. Duh.
why must it be 100% genetic?
you believe its 100% not genetic which is wrong
intelligence you still have no clue what it is
“Intelligence is the dynamic capacity of individuals to engage effectively with their sociocultural environment, utilizing a diverse range of cognitive abilities (psychological tools), cultural tools, and social interactions, and realized through rule-governed pra gives that determine the correctness of reasoning, problem solving and concept application.”
Rule-governed practices *
The brain is a dynamic system.
You reject the brain as necessary.
Where did I ever say that?
where does crystallization take place.
where is it stored
not the body? then where?
necessity of the brain solves this by having a place crystallization is stored
but you reject it
Go ahead and define it and let’s see if we need to talk about the concept first before we continue.
because the brain is necessary for intelligence crystallization is the process of the brain absorbing information to become more complex.
What’s the argument that brain events are the seat of normative correctness (see Kripke-Wittgenstein)? How does what you said NOT reify intelligence as an internal property (see Vygotsky’s argument)? How does that become a step-1 functional definition (Kim-Kripke normativity argument)? How is what you’re saying NOT neuroreductionism (Uttal’s/Gabriel’s argument).
There are defeaters for your views everywhere. That you’re not privy to them proves that your views lack conceptual grounding—and they lack conceptual grounding because such grounding is logically impossible.
I am not arguing for normative correctness but for intelligence.
Why do you pretend not to understand that?
Fuck you, I am talking about intelligence not a reified property of anything.
Your lies about me keep getting deeper and deeper.
Because you crackhead I am not arguing for reified intelligence.
Intelligence exists separate from anything to do with that inside the individual.
because brains are necessary they have a reason to exist.
Look at all the complexity in them
Only if you lie about my view which is what you do all the time.
Screw you, intelligence exists no matter what you say or believe. Intelligence is not normative or reified at all as you are trying to make others think I believe that.
This is Marxism 101 what you are doing.
lies upon lies upon lies.
“I am not arguing for normative correctness but for intelligence”
What’s the argument? Why don’t you know how to address arguments?
“I am talking about intelligence not a reified property of anything.”
Haha, nno idea how to make inferences and see what someone is really talking about. Sad.
“Because you crackhead I am not arguing for reified intelligence.
Intelligence exists separate from anything to do with that inside the individual.”
You clearly are. Which sentence you previously typed do you think I’m basing that on?
“because brains are necessary they have a reason to exist.
Look at all the complexity in them”
What does this mean? You’re clearly espousing neuroreductionism but then you deny it. Hilarious.
“Only if you lie about my view which is what you do all the time.”
No I don’t. Your view is a hereditarian one. I’ve explained how.
“intelligence exists no matter what you say or believe. Intelligence is not normative or reified at all as you are trying to make others think I believe that.”
I agree it exists. My definition is pretty comprehensive (even PP agrees with it, don’t know about my reformulation). I say it’s normative and what you said is reification. Yet another instance of your inability to draw inferences from what people say.
Marxism is the basis for what people call blank slatism.
Because it is social theory taken to the extreme.
Anyone can be programmed to become anything therefore not innate talent or intelligence or anything can be naturally just in a person.
Sorry to say but no, experiments to make people do more things than they actually can has failed time and time again.
It is a failed system based on a failed understanding of human nature.
People are not infinitely malleable.
You cannot make them more intelligent with social conditioning, propaganda or anything to do with the Marxist system.
Chimps as the example: Noam Chomsky proved that recursive language was impossible for them to learn. Training has no effects on them at all.
You can breed foxes to behave like cats and wolves to become dogs.
But without breeding you cannot change an animal by social conditioning alone. Domestication needs generations to change the organism. And is why assortative mating in humans by evolution allowed us to be what we are from the ancient hominoids like lucy.
We as humans evolved greater intelligence because those that socialized better i.e. cooperated better understood theory of mind. Yet this also raise intelligence by the multifactor involved with the complex environment. If you are thinking about multiple things are once this transfers from social intelligence to thinking about objects / non living things.
On IQ tests you have to think about multiple things at the same time and is why people that can do this have higher scores along with higher social intelligence. But you cannot force it into the person by conditioning. It has to be a long term generational improvement.
Have you ever read Marx? Marx never actually said everyone was equally intelligent/strong/good looking/creative etc.
I feel like if you were able to read Marx you would stop attacking it.
Marxism is the excuse people use for everything to do with brainwashing people into false beliefs.
first economics then culture and now science
brainwashing is evil so I am against it
how does this refute the rule following argument, the psychophysical law argument and the Kim-Kripke normativity argument?
(1) If hereditarianism is true, then general intelligence as a real cognitive capacity must be reducible to the physical domain (genes, neural states, etc).
(2) The only remaining respectable route to mind-body reduction of cognitive/intentional processes is Kim’s three-step functional-reduction model.
(C1) So if hereditarianism is true, then general intelligence must he reducible to Kim’s three-step functional-reduction model.
(3) Kim-style reduction requires—as its indispensable first step—an adequate causal-functional definition of the target property (intelligence, rule-following, grasping meaning, etc) that preserves the established normative meaning of the concept without circularly using mental/intentional vocabulary in the definiens.
(4) Any causal-functional definition of intentional/cognitive states necessarily obliterates the normative distinction between correct and incorrect application (Kripke’s normativity argument applied to mental content).
(C2) Therefore, no adequate causal-functional definition of general intelligence is possible, even in principle.
(5) If no adequate causal-functional definition is possible, then Kim-style functional reduction of general intelligence is impossible.
(C3) So Kim-style functional reduction of general intelligence is impossible.
(C4) So hereditarianism is false.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2025/11/30/the-conceptual-impossibility-of-hereditarian-intelligence/
“how does this refute the rule following argument, the psychophysical law argument and the Kim-Kripke normativity argument?”
Why must I refute something I have no involvement in?
(1) not an issue, because I never said it was 100% reducible
(2) what is that?
(C1) ?
(3) so?
(4) why?
(C2) but some people can think of multiple things at the same time more so than others can so what is your point?
(5) so the brain is stupid jello with no purpose and we must deal it as nothing to do with intelligence 100%?
(C3) who said it was 100% reducible?
(C4) This is a false assertion to attempt to call me racist again.
“Why must I refute something I have no involvement in?”
Do you know what “implications” are? Those arguments have implications—what are they?
(1) It is an issue, because that’s an entailment of hereditarianism.
(2) (1) Functionalization -> (2) Identification of the realizes -> (3) Explanatory theory.
(1) must be completed first and be done conceptually/a priori. The Kim-style functional definition must be non-mentalistic and non-circular so that any possible later identification of physical realizers counts as genuine reduction.
(C1) follows from 1 and 2.
Do you understand (3)? If not, what are you having trouble with?
As for (4), reread the above section in this comment and you tell me.
(C2) How is that a refutation?
How does that follow from (5)? You know the difference between necessary and sufficient causation right?
(C3) is another inference. I should have written out the steps to help you better since logic clearly isn’t your strong point.
(C4) That’s a valid inference in the argument. I defined hereditarianism in P1.
Anyway, see how many arguments there are against hereditarianism? This is only but one and there’s no way around it.
I knew he’d quote kripke. I was literally going to predict it.
the implications are fallacious because you reject necessary things. like genes modulating physiology of people rate of crystallization.
Mereological fallacy = no physiology involved in intelligence at all (its not necessary)
Fuck you , I am not a “hereditarian”
i.e. physiology is unnecessary to intelligence
i.e. pixie dust must control intelligence not the brains natural limitations.
i.e. genes don’t allow natural limitations of physiology
your theory that physiology is unnecessary because we identify with pixie dust and not the body makes no sense.
mental contents is not the same as mental capacity.
you reject that some people can hold more in the mind than others – better eyesight and working memory
because brain physiology constrains what peoples intelligence can be. You reject it as necessary a priori
if you reject the necessary part of physiology then no causality will give you intelligence at all. you say pixie dust is all they is. i.e. socialization crystalizes peoples intelligence without any physiological involvement, the crystals are not in the body the crystals and are not the body and therefore you must revert to non physical pixie dust as the cause of intelligence. (and also socialization cannot make chimps have recursive language because of the crystallization of pixie dust in the chimp)
you have different cultural tools than I do but it crystalizes faster than mine do. But you use your intelligence to subvert language to suit an agenda.
the inference is that you reject the necessity of crystallization to happen in the body. therefore you reject that crystallization is modulated by genes but instead a nonphysical pixie dust due to your commitment to dualism. meaning you reject necessary things of intelligence.
You reject the necessary, i.e. that crystallization of intelligence must happen in the body and that physiology modulated by genes.
for years you said it was not sufficient but I never said it was, you hate that physiology is involved in intelligence.
crystallization is in the body and proteins are the what make it possible for the limitations of the rate of crystallization to be what it is necessarily by their shapes.
You reject that physiology has to do with chemistry by saying I am autists for saying chemistry depends on protein shapes.
everything to you is based on pure socialization:
you lie about me being a “hereditarian” because of your commitment to cultural Marxism which is the subversion of truth to suit agendas of Marxism. The Violence of revolution.
lastly: everything I say is necessary, rr rejects all necessary things I have said about intelligence.
crystallization mediated by the limitations and rates of physiology necessarily mean some people will absorb information faster and thus be more intelligent potentially.
they will have more expanded models of reality
higher resolution in eyesight and working memory to think about more things at the same time.
you cannot refute what is necessary for intelligence
rr has always rejected proteins have shapes
because it has implications as necessary for intelligence
differences exist and he rejects those as well
differences as a word he keeps rejecting
because he rejects the body as necessary for intelligence
mechanisms in the brain limit what we can do
but he calls it a fallacy
rr: necessary things for intelligence = Mereological fallacy
“the implications are fallacious because you reject necessary things”
Where did I do that?
What is the mereological fallacy?
“I am not a “hereditarian”
Yes you are. Hereditarianism is the belief that genes contribute substantially to IQ and other psychological traits.
“” physiology is unnecessary to intelligence ”
What’s this mean?
“pixie dust must control intelligence”
The self does. Did you read my updated definition? How does this response cover what I said in the defense of (1)?
“genes don’t allow natural limitations of physiology”
Non-sequitur.
“physiology is unnecessary”
It’s a simple question—are you having trouble understanding (3)?
“mental contents is not the same as mental capacity”
Did you reread the above section for (4)? What’s your understanding of (4)?
What people are exposed to necessarily constrains what their intelligence can be. Read Stephen Ceci and the reference I dropped to you about similar potential but differential crystallization due to knowledge exposure/acquisition and motivation. You’re just willfully ignorant at this point.
“the crystals are not in the body”
Haha what? Do you know what “crystallization” means? So how does that follow from (5)? Do you know the distinction between the two forms of causation?
How does that address (C3)?
I reject that crystallization of potential is due to genes, yes, due to the many arguments I made in my article. One of which we are discussing now—the Kim-Kripke normativity argument. What you said, of course, doesn’t address (C4).
That doesn’t answer the question. How many arguments are in my article? Do you know how to identify arguments, premises, conclusions and mere claims? Due to your writing, I’m going to guess no.
What’s the response to this argument?
“Higher psychological functions originate as social relations mediated by cultural tools which only later appear individual. If hereditarianism is true, then higher psychological functions originate as intra-individual genetic endowments. A function cannot originate both as inter-mental social relations and as intra-individual genetic endowments. So hereditarianism is false.
Intelligence is not something a sole individual possesses—it is something a person achieves within a cultural-historical scaffold. Intelligence is not an individual possession that cab be ranked by genes, it is a first-person indexical act that is performed within, and made possible by, that social scaffold.
Ultimately, Vygotsky’s claim is ontological, not merely developmental. Higher mental functions are constituted by social interaction and cultural tools. Thus, their ontological origin cannot be genetic because the property isn’t intrinsic, it’s relational. No amount of intra-individual genetic variation can produce a relational property.”
“rejected that proteins have shapes. differences exist and he rejects those as well”
My guy, what the fuck are you talking about? I just wrote 3500 words on WHY IQ differences exist. Are you slow or something? (Rhetorical question.)
What is the mereological fallacy? Go ahead and define it for me.
The best part is how people always get smaller when someone gives a valid argument in premise and conclusion form, and they can’t address the implications of it because they can’t think about the implications because they can’t think about things they haven’t thought about. Hmm wonder why that is? That argument I gave is obviously sound. You obviously have no response. If you did, you would have addressed the heart of the argument. That you didn’t shows that you don’t understand the argument in the slightest.
“So like rr say: the brain is a Mereological fallacy”
What? Can you keep these discussions to 2, preferably 1, thread? Addressing your ignorance should be kept to one place to not litter up PP’s blog with your non-understanding of the arguments.
You say that brains are necessary
you say genes are necessary
but then reject that belief?
because intelligence cannot be impacted by the bodies differences?
that is what I am addressing
genes are necessary to intelligence
brains are necessary
so you reject necessary things by saying I am wrong
crystallization happens in the body
if not then where is it?
I told you that brains and genes are required for intelligence necessarily. you called what I said a fallacy.
“You say that brains are necessary
you say genes are necessary”
Right.
“so you reject necessary things by saying I am wrong”
This isn’t a response to what I said.
“I told you that brains and genes are required for intelligence necessarily. you called what I said a fallacy.”
You said the brain does things that the self actually does. That’s why I said that. Go ahead and explain what a “mereological fallacy” is. Maybe then you’ll see your error.
brains are necessary for intelligence means brains are involved with intelligence.
mechanisms exist then for that necessity
you say no brain is necessary because you want me to be wrong thus the strawman of calling what I said a fallacy.
Stupid. Completely disregarding the argument now. Figures. It’s sound. Hereditarianism is logically impossible.
“Even the only plausible route to mind-body reduction that most physicalists still defend collapses a priori for intentional/cognitive states because no causal-functional definition can ever capture the normativity of meaning and rule following (Heikenhimo, 2008). Identity claims like water = h2O only work because the functional profile is already reducible. Since the functional profile of intentional intelligence is not reducible, there is no explanatory bridge from neural states to the normativity of thought. So identity claims fail—this just strengthens Davidson’s conclusions. Therefore, every reductionist strategy that could possibly license the move from “genetic variance -> variation in intelligence” is blocked a priori.”
hereditarianism has nothing to do with what I believe.
you are the one putting that assumption into play about me which is false and I can prove it.
gens and brain are both necessary for intelligence.
if you deny this then you contradict yourself.
and if they are necessary then intelligence involves them.
hereditarianism say that sufficient but I do not which is why you are an asshole for keep saying things i do not believe in.
because of Marxism tactics you avoid telling the truth: that my beliefs are not hereditarian but that the brain must be involved with intelligence and that as the brain grows as it does because of genes. both necessities do not preclude what is sufficient but you lie and say I believe what I do not believe.
Your lie that I believe they are sufficient is the worse kind of subversion there is because you do so on purpose to assassinate my character with the racist beliefs of hereditarianism making you a rotten human being.
You are wrong about me but you lie because you are evil.
“gens and brain are both necessary for intelligence.”
Knowing my belief about DST, what do you think I mean by that?
“hereditarianism say that sufficient but I do not”
When you say “gens (sic) and brain are both necessary for intelligence”, do you mean just them on their own/combined/gene-/brain-types?
Are you trying to argue something like “genes -> brains -> intelligence”? Can you explain?
“because of Marxism tactics”
Why do you keep saying things like this?
“Your lie that I believe they are sufficient is the worse kind of subversion there is because you do so on purpose to assassinate my character with the racist beliefs of hereditarianism”
Do you not remember that I distinguish between psychological hereditarianism and racial hereditarianism?
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/04/24/the-distinction-between-psychological-and-racial-hereditarianism/
because the body is necesary.
is you memory so bad that you forgot that brain damage can affect intelligence you admitted to that proposition.
the body exists in differennt forms
you cannot have two indivuiduals with the same body and genes play a role in this.
you are the one saying it must be my belief that 100% of anything is the result of genes. because of your hidden motives.
because you intuitionally lie about me and conveniently forget what I said and you said. you have a motivation to make me look bad.
so?
you lie about me so people will assume I am the same as all the racist hereditarians anyway.
You know and want this to happen because your evil.
The facts are that the brain is necessary and you reinforce false information for people to think I believe those are sufficient.
Your intentionally doing so.
(for hidden motives)
You are not stupid enough to be doing otherwise.
“because the body is necesary.
is you memory so bad that you forgot that brain damage can affect intelligence you admitted to that proposition.”
Right. I’ve been saying that for years. The above doesn’t really address my question though.
“the body exists in differennt forms
you cannot have two indivuiduals with the same body and genes play a role in this.
you are the one saying it must be my belief that 100% of anything is the result of genes. because of your hidden motives.”
This doesn’t address what I said.
“because you intuitionally lie about me and conveniently forget what I said and you said. you have a motivation to make me look bad.”
Even if that’s true (it’s not), how is that “Marxism tactics”? What even are “Marxism tactics”?
“you lie about me so people will assume I am the same as all the racist hereditarians anyway.
You know and want this to happen because your evil.
The facts are that the brain is necessary and you reinforce false information for people to think I believe those are sufficient.”
It’s not that serious bro. It’s a comment section on an blog. We’ve all known each other for years here.
I agree the brain is necessary. But you’re espousing neuroreductionism, when I’ve provided numerous defeaters for it (eg the psychophysical law argument).
No apogies. Puppy should do an unplugged Nirvana performance and sing that song. No apologies. Never admit you were wrong. So marsha and chris and everyone non autistic with a giant IQ says it and you start attacking them as fake and not educated.
Maybe you are fake and not educated? Have you entertained that possibility?
THats you are working for the bad guys?
hahaha I never said chris was fake or uneducated. We’re getting along great! And Marsha is incredibly educated but she’s fake in the sense that she does not exist.
Marxism fails because it leads to the fact that if a person is not following the social rules they need “reeducation”.
Thus to “reeducate” them they need to be manipulated into believing untrue things against their will.
to do so language is subverted to mean what it does not
i.e. if you define something as it is not then people have to follow the new definition.
Like how natural selection is no longer about survival
natural no longer means natural and selection no longer means a group of breeding subjects.
Darwin never said the group must be selected by an outside agent but he was using a metaphor for animals breeding.
Animals naturally change in the wild but some people subvert this understanding to say the term ‘natural’ and ‘selection’ cannot be used as a metaphor and must be eliminated from vocabulary of evolution.
This make cultural Marxism evil
it distorts the truth for an agenda
that is what the propaganda of it is for
but it doesn’t work on people that understand where the metaphor came from and how it works. word games to trick people is stupid.
Huh??? I feel like you understand Marxism as well as Donald Trump.
Actually one of the most (accidentally) marxist things I ever heard a politician say in public was when trump said that the definition of “black jobs” is “a job everyone has to do”.
If Marx was alive he would actually wonder if trump had a genius level VIQ as well.
The big Four of the 1800’s were
Karl Marx
Fredrich Nietzsche
Sigmond Freud
Charles Darwin
–
Capitalism is not the same as today in 1840’s
People thought that workers could unite
This is false, the elites control everything.
So people instead were brainwashed into following the elites as the utopian leaders. Problem was that without individual rights the elites say they were the utopian leaders where the workers followed the central controllers bureaucracy. To do so required huge brainwashing efforts. This effort revolved around fear.
You are a good worker in socialist utopia.
Because Capitalism is evil.
So anything about it must be brainwashed out of you.
Computers as example did not follow cybernetic principles because that was “capitalist”.
Wordsmithing propagandas to cover up all the failures increased until no one believed in the system anymore and the communist utopia collapsed.
Huxley wrote in brave new world.
That to control the masses with pleasure was way more effective than fear.
Tell people the truth: the elites are rich but the elites in American capitalism let you do what you want and do not pretend that they are not the elites. But because of individual rights the government cannot kill the workers on mass.
The elites in the socialist utopias killed workers and oppressed them so as to make sure the capitalists would not oppress them instead. This way any revolts would be suppressed as capitalist insurrectionists.
Lies within lies within lies
So that the elites can pretend that the workers were in charge but in reality oppressed them.
No individual rights = no protection of the workers
The elites can lie and say oppression is good for workers when they do not have guaranties of their rights.
That is why In America all school children are taught about the constitution and bill of rights.
This way they have legal protections against oppression burned into their minds.
Walt Disney Presents “Ben & Me” (1953)
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2025/11/30/the-conceptual-impossibility-of-hereditarian-intelligence/
If genes do not modulate the brains physiology then what causes the rate of learning to happen?
Obviously genes do something or we would not have embryogenesis that allows organisms to grow into what they are.
This does not mean social factors are not involved but it does mean people will grow at certain rates and when interacting with the environment become something.
you claim dynamic systems exist but in the past bullied me for saying feedback loops were involved.
My sister can draw in photo realism and I cannot.
That means she has capabilities I do not.
that means difference exist and are real.
you call me racist all the time which is a false assertion and your the one who was a white nationalist.
some people can do more than others and this is not because we are all the same.
if we were all the same no one could learn faster than anyone else or think of multiple things at the same time.
I know for a fact other people are more able to think than I can
we evolved from hominids that did not have polar cortex
we evolved from creatures without language at first
you reject that chemistry has affects on the mental
that there is not connection between them.
then you say mean things about others which are outright lies.
if the brain is not requires for intelligence because intentionality is not in the brain then brain damage can have no effects on intelligence which is false.
I don’t have anything nice to say about people that intentionally cannot reason properly with fallacious logic to hurt other reputation.
you don’t care about anyone but yourself.
you need to change but your down a deep hole.
stop lying about others first of all
you should stop pretending you have to be right all the time.
stop looking down on others
accept that others have the right to their opinions different from yours
Potential crystallizes differently due to knowledge exposure/acquisition and motivation.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2221311120
“if the brain is not requires for intelligence because intentionality is not in the brain then brain damage can have no effects on intelligence which is false.”
What is a dependency condition?
People have the right to their own opinions, but when someone writes dozens of arguments that have implications for their beliefs and there is no way out of them—as I’ve shown—they must then accept the argument. I did, and I’m sure you can too, one day. Maybe.
all implications of what I have said are apparent
physiology is necessary for intelligence
you reject all necessary things intelligence requires
calling it a Mereological fallacy
–
you do so because the implications are bad for your views
if intelligence requires physiology necessarily then difference in intelligence can happen by the body involved with those differences.
i.e. that crystallization of the brains intelligence can happen faster in some people making them more intelligent because there bodies are different.
some people have more high resolution vision and higher working memory than others because they absorb information faster due to physiology.
all necessary and thus you reject it
the necessary you must eliminate otherwise all your views fall apart.
thus you need to demonize me by calling me a “hereditarian”.
that is the subversive nature of cultural Marxism and those attracted to it for it appeal to them by its subversive nature.
This is just a rehash of your previous comment. Why do you waste my and your time repeating yourself, not addressing the argument and reference? I guess your…..special…..
I addressed them
you won’t understand them on purpose
genes are necessary for intelligence or they are not
which is it?
if genes are necessary then intelligence has a connection to physiology
you will refuse to understand again
Genes, like all developmental resources, are necessary. None on their own are sufficient. It seems you don’t understand the DST argument either.
There are literally dozens of arguments—both a priori and a posteriori—that refute hereditarianism. I gave at least 8 arguments in my article. Have you learned how to identify arguments yet?
necessity of genes mean intelligence involves genes
you deny it again and again
fuck you again for calling that hereditarianism
Doesn’t address my comment. Try again.
“brains are necessary but different people have different brains meaning the differences matter to intelligence.”
This is taken care of with the psychophysical law argument. What is the argument and what is the response? Can you articulate it?
you do not need mumbo jumbo words to understand that the brain is involved with uinteligence
look in the mirror and tell me that what your brain is doing right now.
I bet most people agree that healthy efficient brains can lead to more intelligence.
drink a red bull
my brain is more intelligent when it works
simple facts are that a better working brain = more intelligence
word games will not change these facts
“you do not need mumbo jumbo words to understand that the brain is involved with uinteligence”
What do you mean by “mumbo jumbo words”? Do you mean that my sentences have no content, nor do they effectively get across the ideas I’m espousing?
What do you mean by “a better working brain means = more intelligence”? Does “more” here mean something quantitative?
You are making strawmen arguments against me because I never argue for what you say I advocate for.
I simply am telling people what intelligence is and how it works and you lie about it because you are against people becoming less ignorant.
so you make shit up to prop up those false assumptions about me.
do not be dumb on purpose
you are linguistically intelligent enough to understand that from what I have said that the common understanding of better working brain is about the ability to think about multiple things simultaneously.
Do you reject the fact that people can do more or less of this?
People will see that you are playing dumb and reject this if you make out that that is not the case. Most people understand intelligence well enough to grasp what I am saying and see past the lies you tell about me.
“You are making strawmen arguments against me because I never argue for what you say I advocate for.
I simply am telling people what intelligence is and how it works and you lie about it because you are against people becoming less ignorant.”
Either my sentences have no content or they don’t effectively get across my ideas, which is it? I’m telling people what intelligence is and how it works and develops as well. Yours is theoretically empty and logically impossible. Unless you can tell me “Here is my theory: – – – – – _. Here is the logic: – – – – – -.”
“the common understanding of better working brain is about the ability to think about multiple things simultaneously.”
How is this a “common understanding”?
“Do you reject the fact that people can do more or less of this?”
Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean “multiple things simultaneously”?
“Most people understand intelligence well enough to grasp what I am saying and see past the lies you tell about me.”
Talk about “mumbo jumbo.”
people blame me for things I cannot do
I cannot speed read
so rr blames me for not reading
I cannot type with ten fingers only two
then I am tied all day after typing class
I cannot put the legos together fast enough
then I miss lunch
obviously some people can do more and were not trained to do it
but people blame me for pointing that out
some things are hard to do
but people do them
and many many other things
I am not retarded: I see others have more intelligence
I cannot memorize stuff
my vision is narrow and I cannot speed read, my fingers get cramped with ten fingers
have a nice day
[redacted by pp, 25-12-01]what would Marx think about neocons and Ben Shapiro. Thats a very fascinating debate that top philosophers could have.
I think Marx would have a dim view and not be best friends with a child predator like Chomsky, for sure.
But he would be open to the idea of Israel.
My best guess based on his works he wouldn’t be a racial supremacist. But I can’t say for sure.
Its really really strange. You reach out to all these people like Rushton or I guess maybe McDonald etc etc and also very high IQ people….
I mean, you seriously think they are also going to love blacks as much as you or not offend you?
Were you really banking on them agreeing with CNN? Honest Q.
I don’t love blacks lol. I’m an East Asian supremacist & they’re the opposite of blacks. The only blacks I talk about are Oprah (fascinating case study in brain size & success) & Tracy Chapman because great music:
The simplest truth:
proteins have shapes
by rejecting it you can reject the implications
differences in bodies can lead to differences in intelligence
necessary things must be rejected for the agenda to work
The reason I dislike subversion is that Rian Johnson subverted star wars.
Mark Hamill said we should make the movie for the fans but Jonson said no we should make it for us.
Then Disney did a focus group and said the reason people disliked the movies was because no one was interested in star wars.
No, the reason is that Johnson subverted the hero’s journey that could have been done well as a female hero’s journey but he did not so the third move we understood nothing about the story and they brought back Palpatine unnecessarily.
–
So like rr say: the brain is a Mereological fallacy
but then say necessary but not suficet
so which is it?
the brain is necessary so when I say the brain has mechanisms then that’s not sufficient for the necessity of the brain being involved with intelligence?
this is subversion
The brain is necessary but when I say so its a fallacy?
rr is wrong
brains are necessary but different people have different brains meaning the differences matter to intelligence.
my two dogs have different personalities because their brain crystalized that way.
so why cannot rates or speeds of crystallization happen to make intelligence different in different people?
or right, because rr won’t admit differences exist in the body to effect the brain, the brain is necessary for intelligence but doesn’t effect it?
contradiction, contradiction, contradiction
brains being necessary for intelligence means its involved with intelligence meaning crystallization differences in rates will make people different in intelligence and make them more or less able to handle / deal with more or less information by absorption faster or slower and hold more in the thinking process. (can consider more information at any give time above the average person can do mentally)
crystallization speed = higher intelligence
people differ in this
thus people can be higher or lower in intelligence
and
crystallization speed has a mechanism in the brain by necessity for intelligence to exist. (the brain network complexifies by a mechanism)
socialization does little to increase the speed
I know because I still cannot do certain things requiring high speeds of crystallization.
only fake people will disagree
If intelligence exists it is stored somewhere.
Crystallization means it must be in the body or in nonphysical substance.
Since the body is all we have from a first person perspective.
I can 100% say that my body stores my intelligence.
I understand how it works.
as the brain models reality with a network
the network complexifies but updating / rewiring itself
this allows the model of reality to exist by prediction error correction
my brain changes to better model what come into it
I generalize this process to other people because they can model reality better and faster and thus are more intelligent
I understand the mechanisms my brain uses and others
some people have simpler brains and some more complex brains than me, its why they can do more or less than I can do relative to all factors involved.
I studied the brain alot
for a long time to understand intelligence
(multiple realizability still means people have differences in the size and control they have in their models of reality. rr said I was retarded (special) so he acknowledges people can be better or worse models of reality)
genes make up the bodies ability to self regulate growth so my body grows differently as does everyone uniquely does.
to say body growth has no effects on intelligence is to say the body has no necessity in the intelligence we have but that’s not true. again rr called me a retard (special) and their brains grow differently.
growth in the brain will make a model of reality different
so both socialization and genes effect intelligence
normative correctness might not be “intelligence” but people can still differ in there models ability to get things done. By getting things done I mean understand reality well enough to achieve goals not necessarily IQ tests but some models perform good on tests that’s not all intelligence is it just a way to see if a model is complex or not in certain ways and some models have complexity in ways that can do things other than conform to society rules but also be complex in the information it understands simultaneously together.
If rule following is bad because it is not intelligence then rr is wrong to try and force people to follow his “logic” because logic is just a set of rule we can call normative i.e. put on us by society to force us to conform.
I will not conform to the arbitrary rules rr sets out because they have nothing to do with intelligence.
Intelligence is a model of reality we use to understand multiple things in reality by thinking about them simultaneously together.
I understand how these models are formed
People with more complex models can think more than I can.
but it is important to use thinking for good not evil like rr does with his subversions.
I wish I could understand things better but to many parts are involved that need considerations at the same time for me to hold in my head to accomplish my goals.
I spend all day learning small things because that’s easier.
Just read Kripke’s argument on rule following and think about the implications for hereditarianism. I know you can do it, champ. I laid it out for you.
Can you tell me the rule following argument as I laid it out against hereditarianism?
Fuck you, I am not a hereditarian.
genes you said are necessary for intelligence
Just answer the question.
I will never admit to being a hereditarianism because it has nothing to do with what I believe.
Interrogate all you want.
You cannot prove the brain is unnecessary for intelligence.
Better working brains = more intelligence
“Can you tell me the rule following argument as I laid it out against hereditarianism?”
Do you read and digest my comments before you respond, or do you just go off on your mostly nonsense tangents that don’t address anything about what I said and the arguments I’m providing?
This is not what I believe in so you are trying to get people to believe I am a hereditarian again.
That is wrong as hereditarianism views are not my views.
you lie too much about me for me to remain neutral about your behaviors.
your arguments all focused on getting others to think I am a hereditarian when that is not true so fuck you.
you never address my actual views because that means you would need to change your hidden motives against me. You agenda is dominated by making innocent people like me look bad to discredit what intelligence actually is and not what you want people to think it is i.e. you want people to think intelligence has not relationship to physicality when in fat brain damage can affect it and other things can enhance it and people have differences in the physical makeup of the body.
If the body is not a dependency condition then you have no way to counter what I actually believe. You would contradict yourself and you will so as to make up more lies about me. And you will play dumb more and more often. That is the rotten human being you are.
“This is not what I believe in so you are trying to get people to believe I am a hereditarian again.
That is wrong as hereditarianism views are not my views.”
Can you tell me my argument or not? All of my arguments refute what, exactly? Can you elaborate on that?
“If the body is not a dependency condition then you have no way to counter what I actually believe. You would contradict yourself”
We’re almost getting somewhere. What’s the rest of the argument? How would it be a contradiction? Can you demonstrate the contradiction, preferably with a quote?
brains grow differently
that means difference in intelligence naturally follows
deny it all you want
thinking multiple things simultaneously is possible in individual people on a gradient of small to larger number of things in the population
I know two people that can see their thoughts like holograms
its true!
Tony Stark Discovers a New Element Scene – Iron-Man 2 (2010) Movie CLIP HD
https://youtu.be/Ddk9ci6geSs?si=fmBYQUh01nu-tk13
Pumpkin
The movie quotient you have creates ridiculously low estimates for IQs
critic/audience
Once Upon a Forest becomes IQ 32
and
Rock a Doodle becomes IQ 36
These are kids movies: kids are not mentally handicap.
Instead I made a new formula (quotient * 15) + 100
Then the two movies become 104 and 105
Your movies: become 116 instead of 107
and my movies become 112
I don not think Chris Langan is IQ 195
The mega test only goes up to 170 max
IQ 195 is 1 in 10 billion yet only 8 billion people are on the planet currently. Standard Deviation 15
The world population is projected to reach 10 billion people by around the year 2050
You cannot go to IQ 200 without 100 billion people. 195 is the limit.
I also think that people that work in the movie industry are more intelligent than Langan. They understand how to make movies about high IQ people with special effects.
Toney Stark would be 195 because he might live in the year 2050
Ironman’s suite is not possible until that date?
Batman is the second smartest IQ
This picture is what I think of certain people by what they did in the movies, comics, cartoons and just overall cannon.
Mega Test used SD 16 so his score was 189 on the 15 sigma scale