How Do You Argue that Effectively with Midwits?


— “One of the most critical premises to your whole thing is that **neural adaptability (intelligence)* is largely genetic. Without that, the whole narrative of the left is plausible. Problem is that there is plenty of “science” you can cite to defend the nature side. How do you argue that effectively with midwits?” –*

I would say instead that the rate of neural adaptiability achieved by evolutionary neoteny (pedomorphism) is the cause of meaningful genetic differences regardelss of race (subspecies, species, whatever). And that this rate of neural adaptiability, the sex differences in cognition, and minor variations in brain and body chemistry combine to produce variations in demonstrated ability and behavior. So yes, to say that neural adaptability is the first principle of human evolutionary competition, and that the classes (and races, and subraces) manifest differences in rate of neural adaptation that we call empathizing vs systematizing, intelligence, concientiousness, and agency (anti-neuroticism). There is no exception to this first principle and first cause of human differences. In general, most mutation is harmful and diveresity and density increase the difficulty in selecting out defects, so defects accumulate in the lower classes.

(a) we are providing a (The One) most parsimonious universal logic (paradigm, first principles, vocabulary, grammar) built from the one first principle, into all first principles, of all dimensions that unifies the sciences…

(b) this method allows the falsification of all logical, scientific, AND rational and moral statements one claims is ‘true’ (testifiable as unambiguous, consistent, correspondent, possible, rational, reciprocal, parsimonious complete and within limits.

(c) In the battle for nature-nurture the science is (very) clear that it’s somewhere above 60% and likely 80% genetic, that the rest is kaleidic, not nurture, and that nurture (c.1) can largely harm genetic expression (c.2) provides no durable change to genetic expression. That’s all period.

(d) and most importantly, that just as all nurture ‘dissipates’ with time, resulting in a genetic+kaleidic (idiosyncratic) outcome in adulthood independent of nurture.

(e) Likewise what applies to the individual applies to the polity – we eventually express our genetics at scale over time.

(f) this is why
.. (i) mostly what matters is genetics
.. (ii) most genetics that matters is size, conscientiousness and intelligence (neurological scale and health)
.. (iii) the genetic expression in your polity has more influence on your condition than you do on your condition.

(g) the left is cognitively female (empathizing) and so will always apply NAXALT intuition and MOTHER intuition instead of empirical evidence at scale: male systematizing. This is what we see. In other words, the mere popular existence of the left’s argument proves our argument.

Leave a Reply