A tumour, a runaway thing which dictates the successes and failures of what we do. It is the big Other of capitalism - the thing which sets the stage of our politics.

"This is an entirely different kind of thing. It exists, but it is not a thing which can be understood using biological models." It can and it has, here is one example

But what is the dimension of the meaning of shooting and stabbing?

I could pull an infinity of studies which claim that some genes lead to certain behaviours which manifest themselves in certain ways in our society.

No alleles casually determine us as subjects. This does nothing to deal with the paradox that I brought up earlier.

This is not an argument about 'data', but what it means. You have to use philosophical argumentation, or if you don't like the word 'philosophical': arguments which are about how we can know that biological processes casually determine us as humans.

Biological factors have effects, yes, that's obvious even insofar as them being used for political argumentation is concerned. Hormonal differences between people and over time can be shown to correlate with certain kinds of behaviour. The point is that the kinds of behaviours themselves as they presently exist are not formalisable to a full extent.

I mean, you could say 'certain genes make someone more contrarian', and I'd respond by saying 'that's not contrarian enough, that's now normalcy; I can think of something infinitely more contrarian with regards to the present state of the world and even potential future states'.

Moreover, none of these factors are things which we cannot work our way towards controlling.

You should not only read *Critique of the Gotha Programme* but also ZIzek's *Less Than Nothing* and some of his other books.

Hell, you might as well read Rafiq's angry walls on this. Ignore the text in the bubble underneath the link, it doesn't show up on the page that I've linked to.

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/193195-The-Friendzone?p=2834771#post2834771

If you can look past your laughter at his comically-absurd display of anger, you'll find plenty of arguments which are not only more effective than mine *but also wider in scope*.

(So much for a 'big ego' when I'm saying 'Rafiq knows more than I do about this', implying that he deserves to be called a Communist much more than I do!)

"This is not an argument about 'data', but what it means. You have to use philosophical argumentation, or if you don't like the word 'philosophical': arguments which are about how we can know that biological processes casually determine us as humans."
Lol that dodge. we can measure it. we dont need to use philosophical argumentation

Lol, i love how you argue that you dont have a big ego, because you say that some one else knows more doesnt means you have no ego. You have sjown your bloated ego already, ever y one knows

```Lol that dodge. we can measure it.
```

Not a dodge. You have to figure out what data means first.

It's somewhat similar to deciding between heliocentrism and geocentrism with epicycles.

*There's no data which exclusively confirms one or the other from these two. What matters with regards to that is that the heliocentrist theory requires less variables, less ad-hoc constants and less pseudo-physical voodoo.*

Similarly, there is absolutely no data which confirms that genes *causally* make people act in certain ways. You talk about differences in alleles leading to predispositions to perform stabbings, but why *stabbings*, for example? **Moreover, how do you overcome the paradox of self-reflection which I described earlier?**

**Interesting how you say that I'm dodging your points *when you dodged that one*.**

We can measure things but we first have to figure out how they are put together. __Every one of your studies lacks control variables with wide enough scopes, as it happens: none talk about radically-different kinds of alternative societies; at most your claims are valid *for our past*, i.e. *in hindsight* at most.__

The fact remains that you have to find infinite combinations of genes to explain different thought processes, i.e. motivations for the stabbings, the social structures involved, the transmission of ideology and the conscious understandings of the world.

***Can you explain your own arguments through genes, or broader - through biology? Biological determinism has to include you too, does it not?***

__***Can you explain whether the people performing the stabbings are doing it for utilitarian reasons using biological science?***__

```we dont need to use philosophical argumentation```

You clearly don't know how science works or how it even began. Science rests upon *philosophical assumptions* - our modern sciences themselves came from natural philosophy for the most part.

For example, falsificationism (still upheld in bourgeois science to some degree) is a *philosophical* attempt at understanding what makes theories scientific.

The philosophy of science is by no means an uncontroversial area, either. Popper's falsificationism is at odds with the theories of Thomas Kuhn, for example.

Your claim of biological determinism itself rests upon philosophical assumptions, too. Your data does not say 'allele differences cause people who have those differences to stab other people'.

Here's the study you brought up.

>The results of these studies have consistently revealed that low activity MAOA alleles are related to antisocial behaviors for males __who were maltreated as children__.

You ignored *this* risk factor too *even though it was mentioned in your screenshot of the abstract*.

**Notice the lack of anything about what actually motivates one to shoot and stab.**

***Even if specific genes and alleles can be correlated with 'specific' behaviours like shooting and stabbing, for biological determinism to be true, those motivations need to be __at the very least__ correlated with differences in biological stuctures such as but not exclusively alleles. And so do the social structures which play parts in this, too. And so do thoughts. __You'd need an infinity of differences to understand the world, all ad-hoc, all ignoring the fact that we can consciously control this shit and already do to some degree in capitalism.__***

```Lol, i love how you argue that you dont have a big ego, because you say that some one else knows more doesnt means you have no ego. You have sjown your bloated ego already, ever y one knows
```

You said that I thought of myself as 'Communism', but if I say that someone else has more of a right to be called 'Communist' than me, then by my own metrics, I am not as much of a Communist as them.

If I'm saying that I'm dirt next to someone else, then maybe I don't have as big an ego as you previously alleged by saying 'you think you're Communism'.