**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.

**You talk about mainstream dogmas when in fact you're parroting a very major trend in philosophy: *the empiricist trend*.**

Empiricists argue that sense data (i.e. 'statistics') about the world is our primary if not our only source of knowledge about the world.

This is what you're doing when you say 'you're rejecting statistics and science'. You take the data to mean something in itself when it simply does not - there is no *moral* dimension which is inherently attached to data, for example.

You claim that we can know everything that we possibly can about ourselves entirely through statistics and 'science' alone, hence your biological determinism and reductionism.

**My argument - which you've been dodging the whole time - is that this must include you and your own actions.**

***The problem that you face is that __even if you picked up an infinite number of studies__ to show that you act in a certain way because your biology is at the very least setting the limits of what you can do, by doing this, you'd have something new to include: the very act of you thinking about performing that action and motioning to do so. There is a fundamental gap between what you've studied and what you are at the moment that you perform that study.***

__***Do you know how mainstream the empiricist dogma is? Have you even seen what the New Atheists and the Analytic vulgar materialists have been arguing for the last 50 years at the very least?***__

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Empiricism is quite diverse, yes - even encompassing traditions which deny that there is an objective reality outside our minds (idealism). But in the sciences, a vulgar materialism is dominant.

It is asserted that we can know about things which exist right now as we exist in them entirely through formalisations of them. This is seen in things like behavioural economics and sociobiology.

It also manifests itself in ideologies like ethical veganism, where it's asserted that since our social world is fundamentally similar to those of animal societies, we might as well raise animals to a similar ethical level as humans are placed upon.