So you admit that *not all human action is owed to biological processes*? If so, __how does it follow that we cannot and should not do anything about our biology__, and ***how does it follow that we will always be living with the same actually-existing barriers (rather than highly-generalised, static abstractions which are either trivial or nonexistent) to doing what we want and need to do***?

__***Why bother even hiding behind biological determinism as an argument against ruthless self-engineering if you admit that human action is not in perfect correspondence with biology? If the limitations of our present biologies can be overcome, then what's the point of screaming about any kind of determinism which relates to that?***__

```>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism```

>Biological determinism, also known as genetic determinism[1] is the belief that human behaviour is controlled by an individual's genes or some component of their physiology, generally at the expense of the role of the environment, whether in embryonic development or in learning.[2] __Genetic reductionism is a similar concept, but it is distinct from genetic determinism in that the former refers to the level of understanding, while the latter refers to the supposedly causal role of genes.[3]__ It has been associated with movements in science and society including eugenics, scientific racism, the debate around the heritability of IQ,[4] the biological basis for gender roles,[5] and the sociobiology debate.

**You could weasel your way out here and say 'oh, see, biological determinism is not about causal links. That's biological reductionism! I never said that because I never neglected the environment!'**

But this is simply a matter of terminology, because *the fact remains that you also think that changes in the environment are also owed to biology*. Even if you think it's a two-way street of both affecting each other, you still leave human subjectivity and the dimension of human thought out of the question. **So if we switch to the style of terminology that the article is using, *you're also a biological reductionist*.**

```Biological determinism, also known as genetic determinism[1] is the belief that human behaviour is controlled by an individual's genes or some component of their physiology
i already showed you several biological determinated traits
And now you ask for it again
Cranium capacity relates to genes, genes relate to skin color. genetics relate to iq.```

Bringing up pseudo-Mortonite analyses and correlations which relate to IQ (a notion which is fundamentally based upon some notion of 'general intelligence', referred to as *g*) does not prove biological reductionism.

Nor does it prove that our actions are in fact *determined/caused* by our biology, or even that there is a hard limit on what people can do with regards to their mental capacity.

I could talk about neuroplasticity, sure, but the notion of *g* is itself owed to extrapolations and quantifications of what it means to be 'intelligent' and 'cognitively-powerful'.

Such quantifications can be warranted, but only insofar as they analyse *the past*, and *in hindsight*.

**In fact, *g* is related to success in performing tasks which seem trivial enough to be part of any possibly-existing society - for example, noticing patterns - when those patterns might not exist at all. At best it relates to how one deals with patterns which, without the context of the existing order putting some kind of emphasis on them, are ultimately meaningless in themselves.**

__**It follows that *g* is closely linked with the valuations of the existing order more that it is with the kinds of societies which radicals might seek to build. In our times, this order is none other than CAPITAL, and whatever is 'valuable' is that which grows profit rates, often those which the dominant hegemonies enjoy.**__

When you talk about how people have low IQs and aren't as successful, in truth it's about how profitable it is for them to exist and keep substantial portions of their ways of life. Whoever maintains capitalism, even if they're a different hegemony, usually gets a big reward in the form of having society licking their boot society knows it or not.

*The fact that your valuations are aligned with those of __capital__ betrays your anti-Communism (which was the original point of controversy between us) since it is the Communists who want to destroy capitalism and overcome the very things which justify the valuations made by dominant hegemonies under capitalism!*

**Instead of saying 'we should work to abolish this', you say 'it's a good thing to keep since we'll always be this way because the valuations of a particular hegemony that wields a significant chunk of the total mass of capital are accurate and will always be so'!**

Anyway, after all that, *you still dodged my question*: __***if biology is what causes human actions, then how can you account for what you're doing right now which must necessarily include the act of you thinking about how your present actions are biologically-determined?***__

I called you out for creating strawmen, then you claim i made a strawmen heer ?

When i clearly debunk your assumtion. I have said this numerous of times already. biology sets the potential, enviorment determinates if you reach it or not.
Parrents have a influance on the child. So if their biology is bad the influance the child in a bad way. On top of this child having bad gentics

its prety simple. yet you argue against sceince and statistical facts here

You dont even know that human is not a biological term but a poetic one

you follow mainstream dogmas thinking evry one is human with out knowing the root meaing

You are btw not human as you are so self absorebed trying to prove your that you are right when you dont have a single valid realistic point that even relates to a single thing. You are driven by this inner instictive rage. You are a biological being and a animal. I love how you made that argument earlier saying that homo sapien is not a animal.

You are crazy bruh

Like this line, in which you admit that your previous claims on biological reductism not being true are true , but false . Because it looks at the past and not at the current "neuroplastic " state
"Such quantifications can be warranted, but only insofar as they analyse the past, and in hindsight."

So if you look at the "plastic" state of it all it is not true what i say (your opinion) but in the past looking in hindsight it is true what i say .

An intelegence is in deed set and determinated by genetics

To which i already proved the statistical evidence

of the "past "

This is the pinicale. You are arguing against me whilst taking the same stance.
" I never said that because I never neglected the environment!'"

```When i clearly debunk your assumtion. I have said this numerous of times already. biology sets the potential, enviorment determinates if you reach it or not.```

I asked you if biological factors *cause* environmental factors. You replied "yes".

You are the one saying that the environmental changes are *entirely* owed to changes in biology and that biology is the main driving factor.

This is not just biological determinism but in fact *biological reductionism*, since you believe biology to be the fundamental determining factor.

So saying "Parrents have a influance on the child. So if their biology is bad the influance the child in a bad way. On top of this child having bad gentics" is not a get-out clause for you because you have already admitted to me that you believe that biology is what causes the 'environment' which the parents participate in and set up.

**My point is that this must stretch to include the actions of other people which enable the phenotype to express itself in the ways which it has done, and that 'other people' includes *you* - but at the moment that you try to prove the notion that you're determined by biological factors, you have already changed due to your self-reflective thinking about this.**

```its prety simple. yet you argue against sceince and statistical facts here
You dont even know that human is not a biological term but a poetic one```

Again, statistics don't reveal the whole picture (again, this is like using statistics to decide between epicycle theory and heliocentrism). All that you have shown is that correlations between biological factors exist, not that there is a *causal* mechanism which means that people act wholly in accordance with biological factors.

**Can you prove that Ptolemy, a key epicycles theorist, was wrong based in statistics alone?**

```you follow mainstream dogmas thinking evry one is human with out knowing the root meaing
```

Well, to be sure, 'human' *can* be used to mean *Homo sapiens sapiens*, but that's obviously not the focus here. It's not poetic but *philosophical*. I am talking about human subjectivity, which you seem so keen on neglecting to include your analysis.