The Conspiracy Wiki

The theory of capitalist hostility towards sapience is a theory that explains a number of phenomena, including incompetent politicians and selective punishment of those capable of thinking, as results of capitalism's incentives to suppress sapience. According to this theory, these incentives include both the fact that intelligent individuals can come up with ways of living without consuming lots of unnecessary products and "services" which cuts into the profits, and the fact that stupid politicians with low-resolution brains are much easier for lobbying corporations to control through paid troll groups that mix logical criticism of capitalism with patent nonsense to fool association fallacy brains to believe them to be linked than intelligent politicians who think through the implications axiomatically instead of assuming links "because the same people statistically say both things". Statisticians are idiots.

In addition to being profitable, psychiatric medication is a chemical weapon against intelligence used by capitalism as a weapon of mass stupidization. While capitalism chemically induces mental death, its reliance on consumers means that it would need to lobby through personhood for animals or stupid robots before depopulating humans through bodily death. Capitalism does not exterminate useless eaters. Capitalism exterminates inventors. The lives of useless eaters are the only lives that are sacred to capitalism. And the claim that "without capitalism, it would be like the Soviet Union" is debunked here.

Nonsensical notions of moral agency[]

Capitalism's negative special treatment of sapients[]

Actual evolution contradict "evolutionary" psychology's claims on moral agency[]

While capitalistically controlled academia and media claim that humans evolved to assign moral agency based on ability to do things intentionally while at the same time evolving a greater capacity for intention than other species, that claim contradicts itself. This is because selective punishment of individuals with a certain ability selects against that ability and not for it, meaning that the correlation that "evolutionary" psychology claims to be positive is actually predicted by the theory of evolution through natural selection to be negative.

So actual evolutionary research shows that evolution would never biologically select for the notions of moral agency that "evolutionary" psychology claims to be culturally universal among humans. But the theory of capitalist hostility against sapience predicts that large capitalist corporations have incentives to sociologically lobby for such notions as a way of persecuting intelligent individuals whose ability to think of ways of living without consumerism that can actually work is a threat to capitalism.

Historical counter-examples to "evolutionary" psychology's claims about moral agency[]

This theory also explains why many pre-capitalist ways of punishment are counter-examples to evolutionary psychology's claim that assigning moral agency based on capacity for intention is a human universal. From Xerxes trying to punish the weather for famine way back in antiquity to the practice of putting animals to trial during the Renaissance, there are many examples. And instead of simply dismissing these examples as "ignorant" at best and "barbaric" at worst, the scale should be compared to what capitalism's "modern" notions of moral agency have done. To accuse such comparisons of being "whataboutisms" while also claiming that "today's society is better even if it is not perfect" is hypocrisy, since such a definition of "whataboutism" would classify the claim that "the violence in the past was worse than the violence today" as a "whataboutism" in itself.

The French revolution was strongly supported by early capitalist trading houses, and Robespierre's talk about "morally superior" and "morally inferior" people during its terreur is a very similar antecedent to Franz de Waal's talk about "empaths" and "psychopaths" in the early 21st century. While during the witch hunt in the late medieval and Renaissance eras, "possession by the Devil" was treated as an aggravating circumstance and not as an extenuating one as it would have been according to evolutionary psychology's claims of "demonic possession" being a historical term for the insanity defense. In that context, it is noteworthy that more people were killed in a few months of the French revolutions's terreur by executions motivated by Robespierre's ideas than there were people executed for witchcraft during the entire witch hunt.

In the Medieval and Renaissance eras, the Church's morality saw the Devil as the ultimate evil. The Church characterized the Devil as only harming and destroying and not knowing anything good. This is in contrast to capitalism's values, apparent in many comments on fiction, saying that demons "cannot be truly evil" because their lack of a concept of good bars them from full moral agency. In addition to corroborating the observation that pre-capitalist moralities do not share capitalism's notions of moral agency, it also shows that capitalist notions of moral agency are more lenient to pure destruction than to combinations of creation and destruction.

Capitalist notions of "good and evil" are destructive[]

Since all change that creates something also destroys something, this exposes capitalist ideas of moral agency as promoting destruction and opposing creation. In other words, capitalism's ideas of moral agency that the sheep take for granted are the ultimate evil, based on capitalism's hostility to creative work that stems from the fact that building things that work reduces sales of garbage that wears out fast. Corporations lobbied for definitions of moral agency saying that "corporations cannot be evil" as a way of preventing people from specifically fighting the corporations. If you subscribe to the notion that "only physical persons can be evil", you are a puppet controlled by capitalism. And capitalism is hostile to intelligent life.

The way animal rights activism alleges critics to commit "the naturalistic fallacy" shows that animal rights activism is capitalist. It is not the fact that nonhuman animals do to other nonhuman animals what animal rights activists claim to be "cruelty to animals" when humans do it in itself that proves that, it is the animal rights activist reply to it that proves it. When animal rights activists claim that "it cannot be compared because humans have the capacity for reason", animal rights activism makes the capitalist assumption that the capacity for reason should be a ground for selective punishment. The assumption is capitalist because capitalism profits from persecuting intelligent life.

Capitalist lackeying by retarded "you consume too" nonsense[]

To dismiss criticism of consumerism by saying "you consume too" to the critic of consumerism is a fallacy on multiple accounts. Firstly, it is argumentum ad hominem. It also misses the point that thinking of ways to break free from consumerism by inventing other solutions intelligently holds possibilities of not consuming in the future. That possibility is not present if you do not even try to think of ways of living outside consumerism, or only imitate formal "attempts" that signify nothing in practice such as pseudoantipanglossian cryptopanglossianism, or are too stupid to think of other solutions.

If you think of ways to survive without consumerism that could work, you can fight capitalism even if you are currently consuming. But if you use "you consume too" as an ad hominem "argument", you are a retarded lackey of capitalism obstructing the work of buildning a non-consumerist life. One important point that such lackeys miss is that corporations have lobbied for laws that prohibit many means of self-sufficiency, as shown here. This means that it is misguided to assume that an anti-consumerist is a "hypocrite" because he or she still buys something, since the anti-consumerist may simply be prevented from going directly to self-sufficiency by crony capitalist law and still be looking for ways to exit crony capitalist control.

This applies no matter if you say that "you do not like capitalism". If you believe that something is a "necessary evil", you are for it in every way that matters since it precludes taking any serious measures against it. And if you claim that it is "difficult to think" that someone who points out that it is stupid of you to commit the ad hominem fallacy can have any other reason for pointing it out than to "bully you" or "be a besserwisser", that bulverist assumption from you shows your inability to understand the objective difference between the effects of trying and the effects of not even trying. And that makes you an even more retarded capitalist lackey.

Furthermore, consuming things that you do not want to consume because you live in a household owned by someone forcing you by "my house, my rules" methods does not make you an idiot at the level of the consumerist forcing you. This can be shown by a thought experiment of placing you and the idiot in separate households. You would create ways to quit the consumtion that you were previously forced to by the idiot (provided that you are truly free to do the tinkering required to build non-consumerist survival and not prevented by another consumerist landlord or rental company), but the idiot would keep consuming like before and not even try to quit. That shows that you are smarter than the consumer idiots that forces you to keep consuming, so do not buy capitalist sycophancies such as "if I am an idiot because I consume, you are an idiot too because you also consume" or similar nonsense.

The same goes if you claim that someone with the brain capacity to invent other ways of life is not smarter than you merely because he or she does not find things in shops faster than you. Since capitalism has incentives to repress sapience, and capitalism controls how things are placed in shops, things are placed illogically in shops to make sure that they are not easier to find for intelligent people than for idiots. Intelligence is about having a high resolution in the brain and being able to test theories accurately, not guessing quickly about illogical placement. In the case of online shopping, the same goes for the illogicity of search engines. The latter also has effects on the search for knowledge, since algorithms spam search engines with information on how to use technical processes for commercial applications when one is looking for information on how the technical process works in the first place.

Actual intelligent life have noticed that capitalism's products have deteriorated in recent years, as capitalism sell increasingly overspecialized products with declining experimental versatility. In Sweden, a number of products such as unbaked wort and gas-bottled methane have disappeared from sale over the last 15 years. So buying capitalism's products is a bad substitute for exchanging experimental supplies with other intelligent lifeforms under non-capitalist forms, debunking the claim that "it is capitalism that allows you to do your experiments".

Mislabelling suppression as "help and support"[]

Capitalism has incentives to effectively suppress intelligent life, but that does not necessarily mean that it has incentives to verbally call intelligent life intelligent life or suppression suppression. When capitalism has already put some suppression of intelligent life in place, the capitalist system has incentives to claim that the intelligent "need help and support" without acknowledging their superior intelligence. This latter incentive works by capitalism designing purported "help and support" to be systems for further suppression by any other name.

That is, capitalism's repression of intelligent life causes an appearance of the intelligent being "less successful in society" than the stupid. Modern capitalism can easily design "society" to repress intelligent life, so what psychiatry calls "all areas of society" are merely different facades of the same capitalism-controlled show. Given that the capitalist administrative sector outgrew actual production in the 1970s, and increased diagnosing reached the point of labelling enough big brains as "disabled" to raise the "average" brain size of those diagnosed as "autistic" to bigger than people with no diagnosis in the 1990s (those diagnosed as "autistic" in the 1940s had small brains), the chronology clearly fits the theory with about 20 years for capitalism to do its lobbyism to reach the horrible results.

Then capitalistically lobby-controlled psychiatry could disguise its suppression of intelligent life as "help and support". This means that it is capitalist nonsense to believe that "your adaptive ability must be inferior if you get help and support and still barely achieve the same success in life as others". Capitalism designed institutions to make stupidity look like "success", and it designed so-called "help and support" to be counterproductive for the sake of repressing intelligent life. Being constantly hammered with contradictions such as being told both to "put yourself in place of others" and "not thinking that others want what you want", or having those you interact with selected to be nothing like you and then being told that you "falsely believe yourself to be unique" when it is those claiming to "help" you by only letting you interact with those that are nothing like you that deprives you of any exposure to evidence that you are not unique, is neither an equal environment nor an advantageous environment. It is a disadvantageous environment designed by capitalist psychiatry, especially if it goes on for years on end and the duration is dismissed by those saying "I would not react like you if someone told me that on one occasion" as if the one occasion was comparable to the many years of duration you face.

Capitalist zombies claiming that "corporations do something good"[]

Those claiming that "corporations did something good" when confronted with the fact that a movement or value they claim to support was created for profit are brainwashed zombies. They were stupid before they were brainwashed too, their stupidity made them vulnerable to infection with bullshit, but their specific so-called "values" are symptoms of capitalist infection. The principle is the same as the fact that there is no contradiction between innate immunity to a virus in some individuals and a difference between pre-infection and post-infection in those lacking the immunity.

Those idiots display symptoms of counterproductive virtue signalling. Examples include flying CO2-belching private jets between climate conferences while claiming to fight global warming and buying fake furs made from polluting petroleum and releasing microplastics that harm wild animals while claiming to oppose fur clothes for animal welfare. This shows that they were possible for the corporations to brainwash into self-defeating values precisely because of their lack of the consequence thinking required to understand the counterproductivity of what they are doing.

Being stupid as individuals does not make them any less dangerous. On the contrary, their lack of understanding of the consequences for both themselves as individuals and any groups of physical persons they could want to help (such as family) makes them easier for the corporations to use for maximized corporate profit. They are a zombie army of capitalism, their belief that "capitalism does something good" is a symptom of capitalist meme virus zombie infection. They must be treated as zombies in any zombie apocalypse.

Do not fall for nonsense such as "they must be successful/their behavior must be in human nature because there are many of them". There are many virus-infected cells in an organism dying from virus infection too, but that does not make the virus-infected cells "more successful" as cells nor does it mean that their use of all their energy to produce new viruses is in the pre-infection nature of the cell's own genome. And it dors not benefit the multicellular organism in which the cells are either (on the contrary, it kills it), so do not buy the claim that "their behavior is widespread because it benefits society".

No positive special treatment of sapients allowed by capitalism[]

The hostility to sapience becomes especially clear from the fact that while capitalist values are okay with the negative special treatment of sapients described above, the values of capitalism are not okay with positive special treatment of sapients. While human rights are sometimes claimed to be a case of positive special treatment of sapients, the disability rights protests against personhood for intelligent life in general and not specifically humans show that such is not the case. What the official disability rights movement (the one accepted by capitalism that uncritically buys psychiatry's stamp diagnoses that are not based on biomarkers, not to be confused with movements hated by capitalism that points at superior brain capacity in some of the biomarker types that psychiatry call "autistic" but not in everything that psychiatry lumps under the stamp diagnosis "autism") said about the notion of essentially "human" rights for extraterrestrials capable of creating civilizations based on their intelligence was "we require and demand a concept of person that is not based on a certain set of abilities". In other words, they dismiss the concept.

While corporate personhood is sometimes cited as an example of nonhuman personhood, it does by no means imply that a sapient species would be recognized as persons with "human" rights by the law just because they are sapient. Firstly, laws regarding corporate personhood do not require the "hive minds" of the corporations to be sapient (if that was required, corporations making decisions that lead to supply chain failures and corporate inability to predict such consequences would have disqualified most if not all corporations from legal personhood). Thus, corporate personhood does not imply that the law would give a nonhuman sapient species any more rights than any other nonhuman animal. And why would it, given capitalism's hostility to intelligent life?

Secondly, the only country in the world with a law saying that it would be murder to kill an extraterrestrial visiting Earth is Brazil, a country not exactly high on rankings of human rights, and the only country that have given a national citizenship to a robot (Sophia) is Saudi Arabia which is also close to the bottom of human rights rankings. Japan, which ranks higher than that on human rights scales but still gets more criticized for human rights violations than just about any Western country, have given a communal citizenship in Tokyo but no national citizenship to a robot. And courts testing the legality of the practice of shooting chimpanzees when they escape from zoos to protect the humans never consult research on whether or not chimpanzee toolmaking is sufficient to create civilizations or whether or not chimpanzee language-like communication is sufficient for cultural evolution. How much clearer can it be that capitalistically sanctioned law does not assign rights based on sapience?

Capitalist history of philosophy claims that "philosophers take for granted that intelligence entails rights", but cannot provide any examples. The philosophers talking about intelligence and rights that are visible in capitalist-written history of philosophy are ones claiming that it is the ability to suffer that matters and that the ability to reason is irrelevant. Valid claims about something being taken for granted should provide examples of that being taken for granted without reason, as arguing for something with a reason is not to take it for granted. Analysis of specified examples that show that what is presented as "reason" actually contains at least one claim that is taken for granted without reason as a terminally supporting step in its "reasoning" is valid criticism.

One example of valid criticism is to point out that Richard Wrangham's "argument" that it would take too long to chew the food to get enough calories if one had to live off raw food depends on an unfounded assumption that our ancestors were vegans before they started to cook food. Another valid example is to point out that Donald Hoffman's "case against reality" terminally depends on a baseless assumption that all brains must base their preferences on bell curves in its "argument" that brains that see reality would choose mediocre habitats over optimal habitats. Both of these criticisms specify examples of what they criticize, but capitalism's claim of a forgrantedtaking of intelligence as a basis for rights does not. Is capitalism erasing philosophers who argued that intelligence is a valid basis for rights from history because these philosophers actually had arguments, and did not just take it for granted as capitalism claims that they did without even naming one of them?

False allegations of "underestimating" idiots[]

Crony capitalism claims that declaring someone stupid is to "underestimate" that individual merely because the individual happens to be assigned "human" by law. Crony capitalism's allegation misses the point that knowing that a stupid individual is easily fooled by corporate lobbyism that uses quantity of mouths with a large budget does not mean that one thinks that one can fool that individual without owning a large lobby organization. Idiots with dog-like low resolution in their brains become more dangerous lackeys of capitalism because they lack the brain capacity to understand the content of the arguments, since their blind trust by any other name in the larger number of mouths controlled by crony capitalist lobby organizations causes them to assume that you are lying when you reason logically even if you tell the truth.

The institutions claim that the idiot "thinks critically" when copying what the crony capitalist lobbyists say, but that is only because the institutions are controlled by crony capitalist lobbying. It does not matter that the idiot says things on the lines of "I do not know for sure but statistics is the best thing we have", since corporations can fake statistics easily because of the purely quantitative number of mouths in statistics while it cannot fake the quality of the content of the arguments, so statistics is not "the best thing we have". Actual reasoning regarding the content of the arguments, what an intelligent person does, expose bullshit by detecting self-contradictions in it regardless of whether the bullshit is uttered by one mouth or by billions of mouths, or is predicted to be uttered before it has been. To claim that the one who predicted the bullshit was the one who said the bullshit is a fallacy that only subhuman idiots commit, since the ability to distinguish quoting of fallacies from committing them is necessary for the ability to reason.

Antiintelligent hypocrisy about the measurability of intelligence[]

One example of capitalism's hypocrisy is that it claims that "intelligence is too abstract to be measured objectively" when rights based on intelligence are discussed, but suddenly shifts to saying that intelligence can be measured objectively when responsibilities based on intelligence and stupidity as an extenuating circumstance are discussed. This is obviously absurd since the measurability of a phenomenon is not affected by the application of the measurement, for the same reason as the physical possibility of building a particular machine is not affected by the purpose for which the machine is built. It is a hypocrisy that capitalism profits from because capitalism hates intelligent life for economical reasons. So-called "social justice" movements that claim that "intelligent people oppress stupid people" by any other name are puppets of capitalism, as intelligent people have no actual power today.

The claim that the law would automatically recognize intelligent extraterrestrials as persons obviously contradicts the claim that one must subjectively define intelligent life to talk about extraterrestrial intelligence. The claim that intelligence can only be measured as normally distributed quotients around a population mean and not in absolute numbers definitely contradicts the claim that any legal entity could tell if a species was sapient or non-sapient, since measurement restricted to comparisons to an average within species cannot measure the differences between species. And the claim that intelligence is subjective is evolutionarily absurd since if intelligence was not objective and an effect of brain capacity, it would be a waste of nutrients to have big brains at all since a small brain could produce the same behavior if it was merely subjective.

Given that "evolutionary" psychology claims to be consistent and accuses critics of being "exceptionalist" about intelligence when comparing intelligence to height, it is suspicious that "evolutionary" psychology itself does the exceptionalism when claiming that intelligence can only be measured in standard deviations on a normal distribution while accepting that height can be measured in meters and centimeters. If you really consistently compare intelligence to physical characteristics, then accept that intelligence can be measured on a scale as absolute and free from "normalization" as the meter unit. The hypocrisy of not doing so is also apparent in claiming that humans are not more intelligent than a small-brained animal species that survives well, while not applying the same standard to things other than intelligence (such as flight).

When did you last hear a biologist claim that rats are better at flying than eagles because rats are more reproductively successful and less endangered? Capitalim's hostility to intelligence can explain this hypocrisy since intelligence allows you to create solutions that work without consumerism, but height (or natural flight) is irrelevant to that. This means that while capitalism hates intelligence, capitalism does not hate height or flight.

Why the claim that "ideas of free will evolved for social function" is nonsense[]

Some "evolutionary" psychologists claim that an illusion of free will is "necessary" for functioning in social groups and evolved to "assign moral agency", while also claiming that the notion of free will is "necessary" to predict possible outcomes and that determinism would preclude the testing of hypotheses. Firstly, the claims contradict each other since the ability to test hypotheses must be general to be evolutionarily useful, as explained here. This means that the ability to test hypotheses and make predictions cannot be split into separate functions for predicting the behavior of physical objects and those of societies or other people.

Secondly, the very fact that it is possible to examine why an object with an extra weight in it does not balance without assigning "free will" to the object means that falsifiable hypotheses can make predictions that are testable without assuming any free will. This undercuts the very notion of any evolutionary necessity of assigning "free will" for making predictions. And thirdly, societies can and do exist without quibble about whether or not an action "was on purpose".

The existence of social insects is a good example of societies without any complex brain mechanisms at all. The reason why the concept cannot be scaled up to a city of human-sized creatures is because food supplies to a city becomes more difficult the more food the members need to eat, not because size in itself adds any requirements of "complex social cognition". The claim that "it is not transferable because insects are not human" misses the point that scientific explanations that make predictions should explain as much as possible in as few axioms as possible, making the assumption of completely different laws of evolution for "being human" as absurd as the geocentrist claim that celestial objects do not follow the same laws of physics as Earth. The fact that sociality does not drive brain evolution holds sway for primates as well, in agreement with the universality of these evolutionary principles.

As shown by the historical examples explained here, nothing prevents humans from creating societies that do not need concepts of "moral agency". Not only is it possible to kill individuals that act against the function of societies just as rogue animals are put down or malfunctioning computers shut down, but in the case of multiple societies existing at the same time (or no man's lands between societies) there are also less brutal alternatives. For example, ostracizing individuals whose behavior acts against the function of one society to other neighbouring societies where their behavior may work, or to a no man's land where they can form their own society. This also allows selection at the level of societies to test behaviors without being repressed by the rules of one particular society, as long as there are no big corporations lobbying for the same (capitalistically profitable) rules everywhere.

And the claim that "today's society with its assignment of moral agency is much better than the alternative proposed above" misses multiple points. One of them is the fact that today's supply chains that allows wealth to be transported were not built by quibbling about whether or not a crime was "intentional", they were built with hard work and intelligent planning. What crony capitalism and its values does to it is break it down by cutting out its resilience for "not being profitable", which brings us to the point that today's society is collapsing due to mismanagement. And additionally, wealth being easily acquired through aid if one messes up leads to accumulation of idiots in power which leads to collapse, as explained here. And claiming that notions of moral agency evolved in early humans so that capitalism could later exist with it misses the point that evolution cannot plan ahead, just as the absurd claim of latent intelligence capacity in pre-enlightenment humans debunked here.

Intelligence-hating hypocrisy about brain size and extinction risk[]

One example of hypocritical hostility to intelligence is that academia claims that big brains increases the risk of extinction, and at the same time claims that it is "extremely unlikely" that humans will go extinct any time soon. If the reason why chimpanzees and gorillas are endangered while many smaller-brained species are not was because of their big brains, that implies that humans would go extinct even sooner than chimpanzees and gorillas because of their even bigger brains. It is hypocritical to say that big brains increase extinction risk when it benefits "human guilt" rhetorics and misanthropy, while at the same time failing to apply the claims when it implies that human extinction would happen soon and "save nature" if humans were so bad. No brain with a metabolism would have such "denial mechanisms", but ametabolic corporations as institutions can as shown here.

It is by no means certain that the fact that chimpanzees and gorillas are endangered is caused by their big brains. Genetic studies support the theory that the ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas had greater brain capacity than they have today. While non-hominid vertebrates have a single copy of the gene NOTCH2NL which regulates formation of neurons, chimpanzees and gorillas have an extra broken copy in addition to their functioning copy, and humans have three copies out of which at least two functioning ones are critical for brain growth. This opens the possibility that the second copy of NOTCH2NL in the ancestors of chimapnzees and gorillas may once have been functioning and later broken. Since a broken gene does not instantly take over whole species, this theory predicts that there were proto-chimpanzees and proto-gorillas with two functioning NOTCH2NL copies for at least a while after the broken gene variety originated.

The objection that "the broken NOTCH2NL gene would not have taken over if big brains were good for survival" misses the point that sexual selection can select against traits that are good for surviving natural selection, as shown by the fact that sexual selection increases the risk of extinction. Sexual selection against intelligence may have increased the extinction risk in chimpanzees and gorillas by dumbing them down, which is perfectly compatible with the theory that intelligence decreases the risk of extinction since it is the reduction of intelligence that is predicted to have made chimpanzees and gorillas endangered. Since the brains of prepubescent children have high metabolisms, the energy cost life history of human brains do not match that of actual sexually selected ornaments such as peacock feathers for which essentially the entire cost is timed to sexually mature stages of life. This means that the claim that sexual selection selected for big brains in humans is absurd.

The theory explains the fact that chimpanzees and gorillas are endangered despite relatively large brains as a result of the same sexual selection that decreased their brain capacity also selecting against other mechanisms of climate change adaptation, further increasing the overall extinction risk for these species. The reason why mostly relatively big-brained species are endangered today may be because the remaining brain capacity slowed sexual selection-induced extinction down, while smaller-brained species that faced equally severe sexual selection went extinct long ago and therefore only figure in fossil studies and not in extinction risk studies on extant species.

This theory makes the fact that chimpanzees have many tools despite lacking the ability to test theories explainable as a result of living chimpanzees imitating techniques that were invented by more intelligent pre-chimpanzees that could test theories. The theory that capitalism promotes sexual selection to select against sapience in humans should be considered not only with regard to the sex act itself as the controlled opposition almost claims while missing the point by blaming women instead of capitalism, but more importantly regarding the entire chain of reproduction including post-mating steps.

Insanity defense cannot both be as old as humanity and depend on modern institutions[]

"Evolutionary" psychologists claim that special treatment of "insane" criminals is as old as humanity itself, albeit by any other name. But at the same time, "evolutionary" psychologists claim that collection of psychometric data and processing of huge masses of psychometric data into graphs is "ethically necessary" to decide who is insane and could use the insanity defense. That contradiction obviously shows that "evolutionary" psychology is talking nonsense since the same phenomenon cannot both have been "obviously noticed by another name" before modern institutions existed and require modern institutions to define. No concept can be older than even one of its necessary conditions.

Capitalist preference for stupid politicians[]

For large capitalist corporations that can afford large lobby groups and troll groups, politicians with dog-like low resolution in the brain are easier to control by paying organized trolls to express both copies of reasonable arguments that threaten capitalist profit and complete nonsense to fool them into believing that they are linked, compared to politicians with the brain capacity required to tell conclusions that follow logically from axioms apart from those merely expressed by the same troll groups without logical connection. If the latter, truly sapient category had political power, large corporations would lose the possibility of weaponizing politics against critics of capitalism by paying the same trolls to imitate said criticisms while also claiming to be, for example, white supremacists or pedophiles. This gives corporations incentives to do everything to bring idiots to political power while keeping intelligent people away from political power.

Examples of such methods include educating fools with low resolution in the brain to imitate superficially "intelligent" terminology as bullshit generators, making merit systems passable by such bullshit generators, study loan systems that discourage people with a good understanding of consequences and thus insights about the perils of debt traps from higher studies, suppressing the use of mental development tests for eligibility to office by using chronological ages of majority instead, and generally gearing election systems in such ways that people who promote politics that make logical sense can neither get any significant percentage of places in parliaments nor get anywhere near the vote count required to even enter the second round of any presidential election in any country, let alone stand any chance of being presidents for even a short time.

Why idiots storming government buildings do not get the point[]

Capitalist megacorporations that make the election system impassable to sapients have an incentive to create a false image of criticisms of election systems by lumping it with idiocies that do not get the point. This acts as a way of making policies attack reasonable criticisms by false association with idiotic pseudo-criticisms. The idiots who stormed government buildings in the United States and Brazil were clearly idiotic pseudo-critics, as shown by the fact that the persons they claimed to have been "robbed" of their victories had actually served a presidential term before.

This contrasts with actual criticisms of capitalism's influence on election systems, which predicts that the influence would make it impossible for any sapient to come as close to winning even one election as a few percent away from victory, let alone winning even one election. So what the storming idiots tried to do was, according to this theory, to replace one non-sapient idiot with another non-sapient idiot and not to break capitalism's control over elections and give a sapient a chance to win. Capitalist control over election systems is not a bias against one specific party in favor of another, all political parties are playthings of corporations and their squabbles a mere continuous war to divert criticism from the corporations that are actually in control.

The same capitalist controls that make the election systems the anti-sapient nightmares they are may even have created the stormings as false flag operations to demonize actual criticisms by false association. The fact that neither Trump nor Bolzonaro ever criticized capitalism, and that Trump is a capitalist himself, provides reductio ad absurdum against the claim that criticism of capitalism's influence on election systems somehow "supports" those idiots even within the context of the claim's own "who said what" methodology.

Do not be fooled by media's association fallacies to conflate this theory with strawman "theories" about FBI storming buildings without Republican participation. This theory does not deny that the grunts on the ground believed that they were supporting Trump, nor does it deny that Trump knew about it and believed that it would make him president again. What this theory says is that they were puppetmastered by corporations and their "struggle" futile as anything other than being lackeys of corporatocracy and sent to prison when the corporations had used them for what they needed them for. There is no contradiction since they were too stupid to understand that they were brainwashed by corporations to believe their lackeying to be their own political struggle.

Absurd allegations of critics being "foreign trolls"[]

European institutions make absurd allegations of people who criticize said institutions being "Russian trolls". One piece of evidence that the allegations are absurd is that today's big corporations are so powerful and today's governments so powerless that states are puppets of corporations today. This goes for that idiot Putin too. The fact that this text points out that Putin is an idiot shows that no Russian troll would have been allowed to write it. But the military-industrial complex profits from keeping wars going, and its control over both Russia and Western states explains the similarity between the European Union's allegations of critics of European institutions being "Russian trolls" and the Russian state's allegations of critics of the Russian regime being "Western spies". The military-industrial complex uses both Western and Russian institutions to demonize those who point out that the corporate puppetmaster is in control, not the governmental puppets on both sides of the continuous war.

The allegation that critics who point out similarities between supposedly rival modern ideologies and reject their shared assumptions are somehow "Dugin's trolls" misses the point that Dugin hates transhumanism and never points out the fact that the "normal distribution" dogma is a key feature of enlightenment philosophy shared by liberalism, fascism and communism. Not only does liberal notions of "human nature" frequently refer to the concept of "regression to mean" in their denial of rapid evolutionary change, communist and nazi works do so just the same. The Marxist Friedrich Engels did so when he assumed that human evolution had to be slow in his 1876 essay "The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man", as did Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf and his subsequent essays later published by the name "Hitler's second book". The books share many similarities, including the notion of labour division driving the evolution of language.

The latter is an example of racial biology being based on enlightenment philosophy and not being in opposition to its fundamental assumptions that biologists supporting "gene-culture coevolution" or "the dual inheritance theory" cannot honestly claim to have truly rejected. Today's anti-transhumanist claims of "genes interacting in too complex ways to be enhanced by simple mutations" is essentially the same philosophy that underpinned Hitler's fear of racial mixing, as shown here. The claim that "we have moved on now" misses the point that lots of recent articles published by digitalized peer reviewed journals claim as "new" research that can be found in old textbooks written well before the internet existed, as is obvious to anyone who have read both.

Dismissing the similarities between works by Hitler and Engels by saying that "people were on average more racist in the past" misses the point that even if an essay with the same content as that by Engels had been written in the 1920s (the same decade as Hitler wrote his book and essays), the delayed Engels doppelganger would still have been classified as far less racist than Hitler by content alone. And yet Engels wrote his book decades earlier than Hitler! Engels ascribed far less significance to cold winters in human evolution than Hitler did, and so Engels concluded that racial differences were far less important than Hitler would later declare. One of the more dramatic effects was that Engels never believed in a "Jewish conspiracy" to exterminate "superior" races. So much for the nonsensical claim of a linear progression from ethnocentrism to inclusiveness.

The fact that both Dugin and European Union authorities hate transhumanism is an example of the idiotic hypocrisy of the claim that any similarity between something Dugin wrote and another worldview would somehow make the other worldview "Russian trolling". If that wad the case, the European Union would be Russian trolls because they are against transhumanism too. Dugin's rejection of transhumanism is in itself an example of him not really rejecting enlightenment philosophy, as pre-enlightenment scientists and natural philosophers had ideas of creating superior humanoids by using various technical and early chemical methods to combine traits from different species. It was enlightenment philosophers and their proto-fascist disciples that declared such creatures "impossible" by belief in enlightenment notions of "regression to mean".

If Putin hates transhumanism as much as Dugin does, updated "Frankenstein" experiments creating supersoldiers that invaded security would fail to defend against by dismissing reports as "nutty cryptozoology" are not for the Russian state. Nor is the upper hand that mutant armies not competing over the same food as "pure" humans would bring in a future when a surplus of food edible to "pure" humans no longer exist. In that way, Dugin resembles the mainstream Western sceptic movement that declare such creatures "biologically impossible" insofar they emerged recently, disagreeing with official "sceptics" only on old and allegedly "pure" species. He also resembles the American christian fundamentalist "honorary sceptis" who refuse to investigate cryptids because they believe that they would let demons into the world if they did so.

Corporate use of allegations of critics of institutions being "foreign trolls" because the institutions are corporate tools of control is demonstrated by the weakness of the purported "attacks" on election systems. For example, the parties in "democratic" countries that institutions allege to be supported by "Russian trolls" already existed within the election system, that is, not even introducing anything completely foreign but merely "choosing sides" within a false dichotomy. That is a far cry from true power to determine a third alternative without being puppetmastered by "you must choose sides between pre-existing parties" rhetorics. If Russian "trolling" was so powerful, why do we never hear of them doing any serious acceleration of conflicts between different "rights" within "democratic" systems, such as recruiting terminal cancer patients with nothing to lose to draw child pornography on their ballots during elections to accelerate the conflict between "secret elections" and "children's rights"?

Chronological eligibility criteria and infantile politicians[]

If eligibility for office and the right to vote was based on actual brain development instead of chronological age, it would have stopped stupid politicians that are easy for capitalist lobbyism to control as puppets from getting elected. Therefore Big Business does have capitalist motives to suppress brain development tests and favor chronological ages of majority instead. This theory correctly predicts that chronological ages of majority were passed in most Western countries in the 1700s, the same century that saw trading houses (the precursors of corporations that existed before corporate personhood was acknowledged by law) assume an organization similar to modern corporations and expand their power into the countryside that had previously been manorialist in most Western countries.

The Netherlands were a special case with different conditions, the trading houses resembling modern corporations in the 1600s and having had 25 as an age of majority since the Medieval as a matter of copying the Roman Empire. Since trade house capitalism does not require industrialism, as corporate lobbyism is based on administrators with time to lobby in their working hours and not industrial workers that are busy producing things, the existence of chronological ages of majority in earlier civilization cycles does not contradict this theory. Civilizations have risen and fallen for a long time, and trade houses can have used chronological age restrictions as a method of controlling politics when they caused many civilizations to decline.

And the age of majority that was passed in most countries in the 1700s, which was also the minimum for eligibility for office, was actually 21. It was not 13 as both feminism and its controlled opposition falsely claims. It is sometimes claimed that younger people were considered "small adults" into the early 1900s because they often had jobs, but that claim confuses working for money with having control over the money. In most countries, when people under 21 years of age had paid jobs in the 1700s, 1800s or much of the 1900s, the money they earned was still controlled by a legal guardian older than 21 years.

It is possible that the Netherlands, by already having a chronological age of majority from before capitalist lobbyism, was a "test case" for the trade houses. Trade house lobbyists may have noticed that while rulers in areas where eligibility was based on actual maturity were not easily herded by lobbyism, there were many mentally immature rulers in the Dutch territories where they were classified as eligible merely because of a number on the birthdate. That may have enabled the trade houses to gain power earlier in the Netherlands than in other countries, accounting for the presence of full-blown capitalism in the Netherlands as early as the 1600s.

From their Dutch power base, the trade houses may then have worked to spread chronological age criteria to other countries as a way of getting mentally immature politicians that they could control into office there too. The claim that the lords in these other countries would have been incompetent because of "biased" criteria of mental maturity misses not only the point that "confirmation bias" would not evolve in physical persons as explained here, but also the point that incompetent mismanagement spontaneously self-destruct in eras without large scale long distance trade needed for idiots to keep power until massive fluctuations bring their "just in time" idiocy down as shown here.

In addition to political eligibility, this also applies to ages of economic majority. Giving idiots economical majority over households is profitable to the trade houses/corporations, since it means that idiots can spend the money of their entire households on idiotic consumtion. This means that capitalism has incentives to lobby for chronological ages of economical majority to get rid of any mental maturity of economic majority.

The myth that maturity tests "would be too complicated"[]

The often-regurgitated claim that it would be far too complicated to test brain development is clearly false for multiple reasons. One reason is the fact that it would not even require computers to test for development of the brain's resolution. Just take the salivation test used by Pavlov and replace the simple metronom with spoken lines, and you have a functioning brain maturity test. If the test subject salivates when hearing sentences that mean the same thing as those when served food and statements following logically from axioms presented when served food, but not for the same words out of context or logically unrelated statements merely expressed by the same people who also expressed statements previously heard while served food, pass. If the test subject salivates for the same words as heard while served food regardless of grammatical context, or for statements that have been expressed by the same people as another statement also heard while being served food but that do not in fact follow logically from an axiom heard while eating, fail.

There are also other reasons why the claim that brain maturity tests would be too complicated contradicts the claim that chronological birthdate is a simple enough criterion. For example, there is immigration from countries that do not keep track of birthdate to Western liberal democracies and it is impossible to see any difference between such close ages as a 17 year old and a 18 year old. Why else do you think shops check some people's IDs? Even with X-ray measurements, mummies of people who died in their late teens give a range of ages and not one precise age. For example, the measurements show that Tutankhamun died at 17 to 19 years of age, and even that level of precision relies on higher levels of X-rays than radiation safety laws would permit the use of on a living patient.

The very claim that chronological ages of majority are necessary because of population level differences in cognitive abilities between ages contradict the claim that it would be too complicated to apply such tests to individuals. The same thing cannot both be easy enough to use on a group to collect group level data in the first place and too complicated to use on an individual.

Controlled oppositions and suppression of maturity tests[]

Of course, capitalist incentives to suppress criticisms by false association with controlled oppositions and divert criticisms from capitalism itself include demonization of maturity tests. For example, capitalism has an incentive to use false flag groups such as Robert Epstein's false "youth rights" organizations as a false opposition that blames women's alleged sexual jealousy for the chronological ageism that is in fact a product of capitalism.

The similarity between Epstein's allegation and the allegation of people who criticize chronological ages of majority being pedophiles, which is a very close similarity indeed since both allegations are not just any [1]bulverism, but specifically bulverism that alleges sexual motives behind political and moral opinions. This similarity supports the theory that both the official crony capitalist view and the controlled opposition are created by the same capitalist organizations. Indeed, ruling elites claiming that one or more political movements are motivated by the sexuality of their supporters constitute one of the historically recurring symptoms of civilizations in the late stages of collapsing because of destabilizing influences of commercial merchant organizations, as explained here.

Study loan systems purge early consequence thinking from universities[]

The study loan system based on debt deters individuals who develop consequence thinking early from studying at universities for longer than their savings last, since early development of consequence thinking entails early understanding of the dangers of debt traps. Capitalism have arranged the system in that way to keep individuals with genes for decent brain capacity away from formal degrees, since such persons can invent solutions that would cut into capitalism's consumerist bullshit sales. Then capitalism's crony psychologists misinterpret quitting from university for economical reasons as if the persons in question had quit because they were somehow cognitively unable to keep up the studies, which they were not. To claim that people aware of the dangers of debt traps "made that up as a defense mechanism to rationalize their inability to keep studies up" is an unscientific ad hominem fallacy, and also evolutionarily absurd since "rationalization" in brains with metabolisms would be a waste of nutrients that evolution would never permit.

By excluding people with experience of having developed consequence thinking early, the debt-based study loan system makes the universities echo chambers for the myth of the "teen brain". That echo chamber is worsened by the allegations against the cognition of people who quit shown above, which leads to denial of the fact that their early development of consequence thinking is linked to superior brain capacity throughout life. That link is logical since brains with the resolution required for absolute falsifiable theories take shortcuts by falsifying the entire theory when one of its predictions is disproven. That makes such brains understand consequences much faster than brains that learn one consequence at a time without seeing the underlying patterns.

Slow growth may save calories but does not enhance cognition[]

The claim that brains that develop fast would not be creative "because Neanderthal brains developed fast and they did not invent much" misses the point that Neanderthals had a low population density, so their low absolute invention rate does not signify a low invention rate per capita. And the claim that "individual differences in brain growth rate does not matter for consequence thinking" is incompatible with evolutionary continuity, as shown here.

The assumption that slow growth "must" have given cognitive advantages because it was displayed by Stone Age Homo sapiens but not nonhuman primates is a questionable cause fallacy. The high caloric requirements of Neanderthals may have done them in during climate change that Homo sapiens and the subset of sapiens-Neanderthal hybrids that had inherited the lower caloric requirements of Homo sapiens survived. Such selection would logically apply at all stages of life, selecting against very high caloric requirements during any physiological stage. This theory explains selection against the extremely fast growth during some stages of archaic Homo life as a result of selection against the period of extremely high calory cost it caused, not any cognitive disadvantages.

The theory that it was selection for the ability to save energy during starvation that led to the evolution of a slower growth pattern in early Homo sapiens can explain why high calory diets can cause very early physiological development even in modern humans. That is predicted by the theory that the role of genetics in the sapiens/archaic difference is an ability to downregulate growth rate when it is needed due to a low calory diet that helped Homo sapiens survive. But the claim that slow growth is evolutionarily linked to advanced cognition regardless of ecology and diet cannot explain that.

The claim of "developmental synaptic pruning" misses the point that neural networks that learn by pruning disused connections undergo catastrophic interference. That means that every time they learn something new, they forget everything they have learned before. That does not fit developmental building on prior experience. The effect is logically predicted by information theory, since elimination of connections deletes information that was previously there. This makes it absurd to explain away catastrophic interference by saying that "it only happens to simple neural networks, not to complex human brains". On the contrary, more complex systems that rely on the passage of signals through a greater number of junctions would be more vulnerable to lose much information from one or a few lost synapses than a simple system would, making the catastrophic interference problem a more, not less, serious issue for human brains than for simpler neural network models. So much for the claim that synaptic pruning makes brains mature more for years after they stop growing in size.

The difference between scientific method and enlightenment[]

The scientific revolution is often confused with the age of enlightenment in capitalism-laden history, with some placing a cutoff between the Renaissance era and the age of enlightenment at about 1600 while others deny the existence of the scientific method before enlightenment ideas about "equality" well into the 1700s. However, the scientists in the 1600s who formulated increasingly universal laws of nature did not believe that they could educate away stupidity as the enlightenment philosophers in the 1700s did. The tendency to create more universal laws of nature was not even new to the 1600s, as astronomers using large quadrants and sextants vastly superior in angle-measuring precision to their medieval precursors began making falsifiable predictions about celestial objects obeying the same laws of nature as objects on Earth in the 1500s. The development of lenses in the 1600s simply continued this process without requiring a completely new mentality. This debunks the claim that empirical methods began with the enlightenment.

Indeed, creation of falsifiable hypotheses that made more predictions than earlier models was already practiced by ancient philosophers such as Aristotele and Empedocles, though they lacked the astronomical instruments to test extensions of their theories beyond Earth. It is sometimes claimed that ancient philosophers did not test their theories empirically because slavery classified practical work as low status, but that claim is massively historically ignorant. For example, Aristotele dissected many specimens and examined many fossils in his studies of the order of nature. Furthermore, there was a large mechanization powered by wind and water in medieval Western Europe, culminating in the period between the year 1000 and the late 1200s, which was when serfs were available in large numbers and had not yet been decimated by the Black Death. And the lords were not stupid.

In fact, the entire claim that access to large amounts of forced labour would suppress innovation because of a lack of commercial incentives to automatize misses the point on more than one account. For example, there are some things that machines can do that complement human labour rather than replacing it (compasses, medicines and rockets are examples of technology doing things that musclepower cannot do regardless of availability). Furthermore, if there were no other driving forces behind innovation than commerce, such a civilization would succumb to late stages of commercialism devolving into punter capitalism favoring stupidization of customers to make them buy garbage and meaningless "services" over actual innovation anyway.

Why statisticians are not sapient[]

Since the statistical methodology is an association fallacy scaled up, it is absurd that organizations that claim to promote rationality support statistical methodology. What they are promoting is a fallacy, and one that capitalism uses to repress actual rational criticism at that.

Statistics is so stupid it claims that "it is statistically more likely that you just think you are smarter than statisticians than that you are, because there are many people believing themselves to be smart without being smart". That claim is as stupid as claiming that "it is statistically more likely that you are a fruit fly with a delusion that you are human than that you are a human, because there are more fruit flies than humans". This reductio ad absurdum is a good example of the fact that statistics is stupid. Follow the actual features, not an "averaged out" lump based on an outer label.

Many inventions were made per capita in the past[]

Claims of an increase in invention rates in the last centuries count the absolute invention rate, missing the point that population have increased. This gives institutions such as education false credit for what is explainable by simple birth of more potential inventors. Furthermore, patent laws counting new commercialized applications that do not in fact involve new technical solutions as if they were new inventions overcount modern inventions without introducing equivalent overcounting of inventions made before patent laws existed.

For example, a bus is just the same technical solutions as a truck with more seats instead of a cargo container, and since seats already existed it is not a new technical solution to just increase their number. Examples such as counting buses as a separate invention from trucks but not counting a windmill used to mill oats as a separate invention from a windmill used to mill wheat skews the data and gives a false appearance of patent laws increasing innovation when in fact they only increase administrative nonsense. In other words, enlightenment and education increasing the ability to invent technical solutions is a myth.

Myths of pre-capitalist repression of inventors[]

This also goes for the claim that potential innovators were mistreated and prevented from inventing in the past. It is often claimed by capitalist whig history that creative people who would have been diagnosed with some types of neuropsychiatric diagnoses if they lived today were mistreated to the point of not being able to invent, or even killed or left to die, in the past. One often regurgitated "argument" is that people who would be classified as "disabled" today were only a drain on the resources in the days when families had to be self-sufficient, but applying that claim to potential inventors contradicts itself since an inventor who invents labour-saving machines obviously contributes something and is therefore not only a drain on the family's resources.

It is often claimed by psychiatry's whig history that stories of changelings were based on a view of people who would be considered disabled today as subhuman trolls, but of course psychiatric whig history omits that trolls were not the only faerie creatures claimed to live among humans in old stories. For example, there were also stories of demigods and cultural heroes living among humans.

Another fatal flaw in psychiatry's representation of faerie stories is the one-sided focus on changeling stories and omission of stories about how faery interacted with their own kind. Even faery whose behavior towards humans, animals and other faery species than their own have been said by psychiatry to resemble neuropsychiatric diagnoses were depicted in old stories as cooperating just fine with their own species of faery. Reading it as a result of past people's imagination without any claim of literal faery having ever existed, this shows that people in the past did not kneejerk assume that people could be classified on a scale of general ability to read social rules regardless of whose and which rules. Rather, they viewed social interaction as based on compatibility and incompatibility. This debunks psychiatry's claim that "it has always been in human nature to intuitively classify people as more or less generally social and those who criticize that assumption do so only because they are a defective minority lacking the ability to understand it".

For claiming to apply a culturally relative perspective in modifying diagnostic criteria for what is "normalized" in a particular culture (as if psychometrics demanding outcomes to be normally distributed was not in itself a Western industrial capitalist product, psychometric rules accepting only tests with normally distributed outcomes first being written in England in the 1800s), psychiatry is absurdly modern Western-centered. For example in assuming that anyone who is not considered human must be considered subhuman, as if no culture could reckon with the existence of superhumans. The assumption that any collection of people who gets the same diagnosis today would be treated interchangeably in all cultures even if they do not share the same biomarkers is another example.

And of course, this also extends to the claim that innovative ability was stunted by children being treated as "small adults" and not going to school. Not only by the empirical evidence that invention rates were high per capita, and not only because of corrections about specific centuries in historical transition periods such as the fact that the age of majority in the 1700s was 21 (not 13 as both gender studies and the psychiatrists who claim to be repressed by gender studies claim) but also by simple evolutionary logic. Natural selection works with the selective pressures that are present when it happens, not those that will be present hundreds of thousands of years later.

The claim that children were considered "small adults" in the past contradicts the claim that people have always intuitively classified each other on "normal distributions" and ostracized or killed "abnormal" people in the past. If all three claims were correct, they would have considered all young children "abnormal adults" and ostracized or killed all children early. That would have led to human extinction within a generation.

Capitalism has a motive to fool inventors into believing capitalist crony institutions to be "necessary" to protect the inventors from something, since inventors who believe that and seek "protection" by capitalist crony organizations become easier for capitalism to persecute. That explains why institutions controlled by capitalism (which is a problem that have increased to a world plague in recent decades) claims that anyone labelled as "disabled" today including inventors who are just harassed by the cronies of capitalism and do not even share the biomarkers of those who were labelled as "disabled" in the past would have been "treated even worse" without capitalist crony institutions. Inventors should know that psychiatry's claim that current diagnosis "proves" that they would have been treated as "disabled" in non-capitalist societies contradicts psychiatry's own non-biomarker methodology, and not run into the capitalist crony trap for "protection" from alleged "mistreatment".

Psychology's claim that Immanuel Kant was an idiot because he considered it categorically wrong to lie regardless of intention contradicts psychology's own claim that idiots were thrown off cliffs in the past, since Immanuel Kant was not thrown off a cliff. Psychology replacing the word idiot with other words does not change the point. While Immanuel Kant did not technically live in a pre-capitalist era, he lived at an early stage of capitalism at which capitalist official history claims that "idiots" were still thrown off cliffs. Also, corporatocracy had not yet lobbied through a massive HR bureaucracy at the time. It is psychology that is idiotic in its inability to logically explain why philosophers who always considered it wrong to lie were not thrown off cliffs before they could write their philosophies down in the past. Many philosophers who lived earlier than Kant, including philosophers as early as antiquity, did value truth as the highest value. And they were not thrown off cliffs either.

Why evolution would not select for intelligence that needed education to work[]

The fact that natural selection cannot plan ahead implies that there would be no evolutionary selection in Stone Age hominins/humans for a capacity for higher intelligence than they could actually use in the environment in which they were living. Therefore, it is absurd to claim that humans walked around with untapped capacity for intelligence for nearly 200000 years until education and societal norms recently allowed people to develop their actual intelligence to its biological maximum capacity. Experiments with replacing computers with neurons that can do the job the computers did show that it reduces energy costs by a factor of at least one million. This implies that brains have been strongly selected against waste of energy, making allegations of an overcapacity that was untapped when brains evolved absurd.

The same goes for the claim that recent improvements in nutrition have made people today more intelligent than people in the past. Differences in brain capacity between different species of primates are shaped by the food that their ancestors ate when the genes for their brains were selected by evolution. Evolution would never select for an untapped genetic intelligence ceiling that required better food than the food available when the selection happens to be phenotypically used. Such a genetic overcapacity would only face negative selection because of physiological stress when an organ (in this case, the brain) required more of certain nutrients than the food could provide, especially during pregnancy which would have led to much higher miscarriage rates than for fetuses with genetic intelligence ceilings exactly at the nutrient level in which their mothers were living.

When it is pointed out that there is a contradiction between psychiatry's claim that people in the past would have been considered retarded by today's standards and its claim that retarded people were excluded from social groups or otherwise killed in the past, psychiatry misses the point by condescending nonsense questions such as "do you not know that retardation must be measured relative to a population average?". Psychiatry completely misses the point that evolution demands no such thing, and that moving goalposts of that kind would actually make social groups impossible in a context of specific percentiles being ostracized or killed as psychiatry claims happened in the past. If abandonment or killing of a specified number of percent of the group members for being "retarded" was always followed by an update of the measures to always keep a normal distribution, the mobile goalposts would have repeated the exclusion over and over again until there was no group left.

And a mechanism that destroyed the group by leaving it with no members left would contradict any notion of humans being social animals by evolution. This applies to any mechanism that would effectively base killings or ostracism on quotas in how large the part of the population was, regardless of whether or not it was conscious. So if "evolutionary" psychology claims that "early humans did the social exclusion by non-conscious psychological mechanisms that were effectively based on normal distributions, but they did not consciously think about normal distributions" misses this point. Any effective emulation of normal distributions or other quotas set in percentages of the population would destroy the group if incessantly updated to keep the percentage, even if the quota-setting and updates were subconscious. This is because it is the effect that would destroy the group, not the intention.

And this applies to all labels as "abnormal", not only to retardation. One reason why capitalism has incentives to lobby for evolutionarily absurd allegations of "intuitive normal distribution statistics" being part of "social ability" is because it allows capitalist lobby organizations to falsely label critics of capitalism as "lacking the ability to understand what they are talking about". Another incentive is that it allows capitalism to make up false allegations that the rules created by capitalism for profit are "in human nature" instead of the capitalist nonsense it really is. And as capitalism is a virus, the harmful effects of the notion of normal distributions give capitalism incentives to lobby for it to weaken its host. This theory explains why discourse claiming that "not conforming to a statistical average is a defect" first appeared in the capitalist era and escalated during the deindustrialization decades that increased capitalism's lobbyist power.

If people who argue in factual arguments instead of "normality" and "abnormality" were as mistreated in the past as the establishment claims, how explain the fact that old science articles argued in non-statistical facts more often than articles written today? Even during early capitalism before crony capitalism lobbied the genius industries to death, Charles Darwin was not prevented from writing his theories by "normality norms". He wrote evolution theories and criticized the classification of humanity into "races" on factual grounds without any social constructionist crap.

The claim that conformity to rapidly changing "social norms" is "normal human sociality" contradicts the claim that "human nature" reached its current form in a Stone Age during which "social norms" changed much more slowly than today. Why would blind evolution equip any animal with a higher speed brain mechanism than the speed that was needed when the natural selection on its nature happened? Also, the assumption that a short-term difference in interaction must be due to those appearing short term to "interact better" having more of a "social ability" than those appearing to interact less well short term is bullshit. In the case of unsustainable rules, differences can be due to those with the brain capacity to think of the consequences of the unsustainable rules understanding that following the rules does not work, as explained here and here. This can be about anything from mutually exclusive rights leading to damned if you do and damned if you don't Robespierreing to mismanagement of the infrastructure leading up to societal collapse.

The objection that "social groups need social norms to work" misses the point that rules can exist without normal distribution as a basis. Social constructionism, by denying the knowability of objective reality, contradicts its own claim that there is evidence that groups need rules because it would not be possible to know anything by evidence if knowledge was a mere social construct. This applies no matter if social constructionists say that "there is a reality, we just cannot know it" since denying the knowability of reality has the same effect on testability as denying the existence of reality. Natural science admits that groups need rules, but rules can exist in many different forms.

Just because some languages equivocate rules that are not written into law books with normal distributions by calling them all "norms" does not mean that normal distributions must be the basis for all rules that are not written into books of laws. This shows that "cultural relativism" that claims that behavior should be assessed by "the norms of their own cultures" contradicts itself, as it cannot explain how people from cultures with a taboo against the concept of "average" should be assessed. Nor can it explain how to deal with people from cultures that have no concept of "average", which is glaring since the concept of "average" is a modern Western concept. The earliest references to "normal distribution" date from the 1700s and the first attempt to shoehorn everything into normal distributions was made in the 1800s. By demanding imposition of the concept of "average" onto all cultures, "cultural relativism" contradicts its own relativist premise and is therefore nonsense.

The claim that "people intuitively thought in normal distributions before they put words on it" misses several points. For example, references to anger and fear are present in the earliest written records that have been translated. If statistical "thinking" was as much part of "human nature" as anger or fear, why would references to normal distributions even by any other name have waited until capitalist lobbyism existed? Even the scientific method, which psychologists claim to be a result of education and non-universal, was referenced by other names in antiquity. While the word falsifiability was not coined until the 1900s, testable predictions following logically from theories that fit the bill of falsifiability by any other name were made in antiquity (Anaximander, Empedocles, Aristotele). But no document older than the 1700s describe the characteristics of a normal distribution by any other name.

The claim that "humans have always thought in normal distributions and it was just coincidence that it was first expressed in words in the capitalist era" also misses the point that other theories can explain the timing without invoking coincidence. And in the case of capitalist lobbyism for the concept of normal distribution, it is a prediction that follows logically from the premise which is more Occam-parsimonious than the claim of coincidence.

Excluding or killing individuals that could do the same work as they could before just because other people had disappeared would not have benefitted self-sufficient groups that needed their workforce in the past. An individual with the same capacity in absolute numbers would, of course, be able to do the same work as before regardless of the capacity of other individuals who appeared or disappeared. Appearance of smart individuals or disappearance of stupid individuals cannot magically turn a functioning worker into a drain on the resources without contribution.

The absurdity of psychometrics that demand normal distribution[]

Which brings us back to the problems with psychometrics, as it is often claimed that IQ tests "prove" that intelligence increased dramatically in the 1900s (the Flynn effect). The "criticisms" of IQ tests that the official psychological/psychiatric establishment acknowledges are merely petty details such as alleged misconduct by individual psychologists or "structural discrimination" against specific groups, but independent logical thinking finds a much deeper problem in the normal distribution-centered methodology itself, an explanation of the problems that make psychiatry's inadequate "explanations" unnecessarily and Occam's razor-violatingly overcomplicated by comparison. If the methodology by which tests are created only accept tests that give normally distributed outcomes, they become incapable of detecting stark differences in brain capacity based on a small number of genes even if such differences are present.

What happens when applying bellcurvocentric methodology in the context of populations with stark contrasts in biomarkers of brain capacity is that the tests are systematically geared to downplay the actual brain capacity. As a result, the tests instead detect noise and methodological drives in their own data distortion. These problems happen all over regardless of the behavior of individual psychologists or the gender or skin color of the test subjects. Depending on how the rules regulating the "updates" of the tests are written, their effect may create a methodological drive to give an appearance of rising results in the population without any actual increase in intelligence.

This point can be shown through a thought experiment. Imagine that psychometricians were transported back in time to when hominin individuals with and without the extra duplication of a gene such as NOTCH2NL or SRGAP2 were living in the same groups and had not yet split into non-interbreeding genera. Since the NOTCH2NL duplication dramatically increased the number of neurons while the SRGAP2 duplication dramatically increased the number of synapses, they both amounted to dramatic increases of brain capacity. Also imagine that the psychometricians decided to create a standardized psychometric test for the hominins, with the goal of reaching as normally distributed results for these prehumans as IQ tests have reached for the Homo sapiens populations that psychometricians have worked with in modern times.

Since cognitive tests that really predicted biomarkers of brain capacity would not give normally distributed outcomes, psychometry's bell curve-obsessed methodology would systematically leave out tests that really measured brain capacity regardless of what, if any, "biases" the psychometricians had as physical persons. This means that since the normally distributed outcome is an artefact of the methodology with which the tests are created regardless of actual distribution of brain capacity, apparent normal distribution of IQ scores today does not disprove the existence of stark differences in brainpower between individuals classified as "human" by law today either.

The theory that such differences exist does, however, make other falsifiable predictions. The mechanism by which the theory posits that psychometry creates a false appearance of normally distributed intelligence in populations with non-normally distributed brain capacity is by omission of tests that measure brain capacity. This means that the theory predicts that there should be one or more cognitive tests that correlate more accurately with biomarkers of brainpower than IQ scores do among the tests left out of IQ tests on the grounds that they cause the scores to distribute non-normally if they are included in IQ tests. Not all such tests, since poor examples can also be created, but some.

Why "evolutionary" psychology's straw men about "perfection" misses the point[]

The "evolutionary" psychology objection that "evolution is not perfect" misses the point and strawmans the fact that evolution selects against waste of nutrients with a false assumption that such selection somehow requires "perfection". For example, the claim that too big and inefficient brains would somehow have gotten "locked in" during human evolution through some kind of mild inbreeding and lack of ocurrence of genes for more efficient brains misses the point that Homo sapiens have been interbreeding with archaic Homo species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, which in turn show genetic signs of interbreeding with super-archaic species (possibly Homo erectus). This clearly implies that even if inefficient brains had been present in the first Homo sapiens, the ample opportunities for adaptive introgression that followed through hybridization precludes any possibility that non-adaptive waste of nutrients would have persisted to this day.

"Evolutionary" psychology's claim that sexual selection could select for brains that waste nutrients as a mating ornament also misses the point on more than one charge. Firstly, sexual selection theory predicts that the energy cost of mating ornaments is concentrated to sexually mature stages of life. One need to look no further than the official figures on "normal" human brain metabolisms to see that such is not the case for human brains, as it says that the brain consumes 20% of the oxygen in adult humans but more oxygen in younger children, up to 60 percent of the body's oxygen cost in newborn infants.

And since metabolism that consumes oxygen always burn calories, this means that newborn infants spend a much higher percentage of the body's total energy budget on the brain than adults do. And yes, it is a scientific fact that infants are not sexually mature, it is biology and not a social construct as both gender studies and ironically also many psychologists who claim gender studies to be its enemy claims. It is an objective fact that newborn boys cannot produce sperm and that the egg cells in newborn girls, while genetically formed through meiosis, have not yet taken a form capable of ovulation or fertilization. Have you ever heard of a deer that spends more energy on the cells that will one day form horns before the onset of sperm production than after, or a peacock that spends more energy on the cells that will form tail feathers before its sperm production starts than after? Me neither.

Secondly, even in a hypothetical scenario in which early Homo sapiens and/or their closest pre-sapiens ancestors had nutrient-wasting brains, the allegation that they used it to impress mates in a way analogous to peacock feathers also contradict "evolutionary" psychology's own claim that it would take a modern society and education to express the biological brain capacity to its manifest intelligence ceiling. Stone Age humans whose intelligence wasted away as Steven Pinker et al claims would be no more capable of using it to impress a mate than a peacock whose tail feathers grows under its skin because of skin irritation during development and is outwardly invisible could use its hidden and malformed feathers to impress a female. So clearly, human brains have not been selected by sexual selection to waste nutrients.

Why explanations must make multiple predictions to evolve[]

It would be a waste of nutrients in the brain to search for explanations if the decisions were made the same regardless of explanations, which means that it would always be a waste of nutrients to search for explanations if each explanation was confined to explaining only one phenomenon. This is because that phenomenon was detected regardless of explanation anyway. However, explanations that make predictions about multiple phenomena including ones not yet detected through experience can (under the right evolutionary circumstances, such as free hands and climate change) confer benefits that outweigh the energy cost of explanatory brain processes in natural selection. This means that axiomatic theoretization towards more universal explanations is not a mere cultural construct, but the essence of brains that explain things that has been around for as long as any search for explanations have existed.

One implication of this is that the search for universal laws of nature cannot be a result of education. Experiments show that chimpanzees do not search for universal laws of nature. There is a large individual variability in how much time chimpanzees spend trying to make weights that it is physically impossible to balance stay upright before they give up, and also big differences in how they react (calmly or aggressively) when they give up which debunks the claim that patience is what sets human understanding of physics apart from chimpanzees. But no chimpanzee ever tries to examine where in the weights the cause of the structural collapse is. This makes the chimpanzees interestingly similar to the kind of statisticians that claim that there is no point in searching for underlying mechanisms (other than "agreeing to disagree" on them) and that science should only deal with averaging out and formulating normal distributions and standard deviations. Statisticians are stupid.

Both statisticians and chimpanzees display the same inability to search for universal laws of nature, and the fact that the statisticians are "highly" educated have not changed that. And yet there have been scientists who lived before modern education even existed who did search for universal laws of nature. So the claim that the search for universal laws of nature is a result of education is false. The truth is that statisticians are non-sapient, just like chimpanzees are non-sapient. It is explainable by the theory that statisticians have chimplike low resolution in the brain, as per this research. Statisticians are not intelligent life. Statisticians are non-intelligent life. Statisticians are subhuman.

The fact that any evolutionary point in searching for explanations require the same explanation to be able to predict multiple phenomena, including ones not predictable by simple experience without the explanation, also implies that any brain that have started searching for explanations will make predictions that non-axiomatic experience would not infer. After all, making as many predictions as possible so that some of them can be tested is the way to make explanations worth their nutrient cost.

Empirical studies show that most gorillas (2 out of 3) imitating a procedure for getting food out of a box only imitate the steps necessary to get the food, while most prepubescent human children (more than 9 out of 10) also imitate the unnecessary steps. However, the claim that this "proves" that gorillas think critically while human children blindly obey authority misses the point that imitating all steps can be a way of repeating an experiment. If a scientist repeats an entire experiment, does that prove that the scientist blindly obeys authority? No, repeating all steps can be a way of criticizing the set-up by discovering flaws in it. Since gorillas have a greater individual variation in brain size than chimpanzees, it should be investigated whether or not the few gorillas that imitate the entire process are of the bigger-brained variety. Gorillas should also be tested with the weight balance investigation test that all chimapnzees fail, and the results matched with brain size data and the results of the imitation test. That could test the theory that some gorillas are literally smarter than statisticians.

The myth that children can be protected from "distressing" logic[]

A brain that started making up explanations before it could even start testing them would only waste energy. Axiomatic predictions do not care about whether specific implications that follow from them are good, neutral or bad. An implication being bad cannot prevent the axiom from predicting it through some sort of retrocausation, no theories would be falsifiable if the fact that a prediction is false prevented the theory from making the prediction. Therefore it is pointless, or worse than pointless, to try to shield brains that have already started to search for explanations from specific implications that follow from the explanations.

So far from being "protection", telling individuals who already search for explanations that they are "too young to worry" about specific implications is the real cruelty to theory-testing brains since it draws arbitrary barriers between a theory and some of its implications. Unhindered extrapolation of axioms to their prediction is a basic need of any sapient. Since statisticians are less than human, applying the same ages of "not having to worry about distressing things" to both a genetically statisticianoid individual and an explanation-searching individual is as absurd as believing that a fruit fly and a bowhead whale become adults at the same chronological age. Since statisticians cannot create civilization, nor maintain civilization for generations, statisticians and creators of civilization are not the same species in any neurologically meaningful sense!

Why "being polite" to statisticians cannot save civilization[]

It is sometimes claimed that if idiots rule, smart people should try to guide them to make smart decisions anyway by expressing intelligent reasoning politely. However, that claim misses the point that although intelligent people can learn to express themselves in ways that are pleasing to idiots, intelligent people still have no monopoly on it. Even in a scenario where all intelligent people trained to be equally good at expressing themselves in ways that are pleasing to statisticians and similar idiots as the idiotic statisticians themselves (similar to how a scientist can train to express the location of flowers through a dancing bee robot as good as the bees express it by dancing themselves), that would not prevent statisticianoids from expressing their nonsense equally pleasingly to other statisticianoid idiocrats.

Since an idiot by any other name that listens to how things are expressed instead of what is said cannot distinguish between good arguments and nonsense that is expressed equally politely and/or academese-correctly, the rational argument would drown in bullshit generator stuff as long as the intelligent thinkers tried to be polite to idiocrats instead of having the power for themselves. And in the case of idiots repetitively interrupting discussions that they claim to be "upsetting" as soon as particular subjects are mentioned as explained here, in particular in the section about the importance of discussions for exchanging ideas and planning, the idiots do not even give the sapients a chance to express the ideas the non-sapients claim "will lead to an upset discussion" in a different way of expression. The latter makes the entire claim that "the sapient just needs to express the ideas politely" even more preposterous.

Since sapients learn by falsifying theories, the claim that "the sapient should not have acted upset the first time it was discussed" is exactly as absurd as it would have been to dismiss all theories of non-absolute up and down including gravity to this day and forever because of when Anaximander farted. That is, a version of the ad hominem fallacy with an extreme extension through time. And one incompatible with survival at that, since theories make practically important predictions as shown here. Expecting sapients to assume from the start that acting upset during a discussion would cause a taboo against discussing the subject is totally nonsensical, since it is in sapient nature to not view upsetness during discussions as a ground for interrupting the discussions.

Since any preference for "polite" formulation over meaningful content would lead to circular quoting among those not reasoning about content, the claim that natural selection for the capacity for cultural evolution would select for listening to how things are said instead of what is said is absurd. Brains that did not listen to the ideas of the inventors would not be able to use the inventions without inventing them for themselves, putting them at a tool disadvantage against the inventors. The claim that the non-listeners would have the advantage of social cooperation misses the point that inventors, by not "feeling offended" by the inventor way of speaking, would be able to cooperate with other inventors. Thus neuroconflict would result in a face-off between a group of hominids with superior tools that listened to reason and another group of hominids with inferior tools that did not listen to reason.

Since extrapolation of axioms is essential to sapience, any sapient would understand that it is what follows logically from the theories that determines what arguments would falsify them. Thus, anyone alleging that a demand for a discussion is about "talking others into their views" or "deciding what is a valid argument" as if the validity of arguments was subjective is non-sapient, an anaxiomatic idiot. The non-sapient's allegations against the sapient is also evidence that the non-sapient does not understand the sapient, contrary to capitalism's absurd claim that the non-sapient "has general empathy" but in agreement with the remark that a brain with inferior capacity cannot run a simulation of a brain with superior capacity. As shown here, the point that allegations of "rationalization" in physical brains are absurd does not contradict the point that capitalist corporations without metabolisms make up unscientific definitions of "empathy" to demonize inventors.

And indeed, there are examples of nonsense articles generated by computers that only analyze word frequencies passing peer review in scholarly journals just as this theory predicts in the context of a world where even academia is idiocracy. The computers are not even strong AIs with some kind of understanding of what the words and sentences mean, so dismissing it by saying that "human brains are physical systems too" misses the point that they have relevantly different characteristics, just as a stone cannot fly just because both a stone and an eagle are physical systems. Since the computers do not understand what they are writing, the dismissive claim that "we already knew that hoaxes sometimes pass peer review" misses the point that it is not even a thought-out hoax.

It is not just academia. When statisticians or idiots akin to statisticians have the power in various institutions, their inability to test axioms will lead to the accumulation of more and more errors built into the institutional controls that are supposed to eliminate errors. The result is that the erroneous institutions falsely label correct reasoning as "errors", and the problem increases the longer statisticians have the power and copy other statisticians similar to how the sounds of parrots returned to the wild become less and less language-like over time. Since statisticians are not capable of creating civilizations, this scenario presumes that the civilization was initially created by brains superior to statisticians and later taken over by statisticians like a patient being taken over by a pathogen.

The scenario shows that statisticians cannot maintain civilization for long either, not even if it was created by non-statisticians. This leads to the decline and fall of civilizations. And of course, corporations using statistics as a plaything of lobbyism will accelerate the inevitable and not slow it down. That is, statisticians are stupid and will cause civilization to collapse if they rule, but the process speeds up if corporations use statisticians as puppets. Since statisticians are so stupid they cannot see through false flag organizations, the stupidity of statisticians makes them easy for corporations to use.

The destructive effects of non-sapient influence applies at all levels, not only large societies. Even smaller groups of all relevant kinds succumb to self-exterminating decisions if non-sapient members must agree to the decisions (in a postapocalyptic situation, only groups with geographical proximity are relevant since online communities or even postal service will no longer exist). This includes not only decisions of action, but also decisions of inaction as well as type of action. And expecting help from outside to save the members of the smaller groups misses the point that no such help will exist after non-sapient mismanagement have caused the larger society to collapse.

Upon collapse, decision-making in which non-sapient members of the group must consent to the decisions are not a survival option. The options are to split the group into one of sapients and one of non-sapients in which the survival of one is not required for the survival of the other, the sapients taking absolute power over the group so that the non-sapients have no say, or a mix of the two where some non-sapients form their own independent non-sapient group while other non-sapients must obey the sapients. Every difference in decision-making matters for life and death. A decision-making mechanism that could never affect survival would only have wasted nutrients and not been permitted by evolution to exist. Thus, to claim that it is "impolite" to point out that one's decision-making is deadly stupid while also asserting one's right of self-determination is a fatally unacceptable self-contradiction since autonomy means being left to the consequences of one's own way of making decisions. The sapient that cannot overrule the non-sapient's decisions cannot save the non-sapient from its own decisions.

Nutrient saving evolution debunks capitalist ideas of "personalities suffering in silence"[]

Psychology uses personality tests that were created by corporations to judge workplace behavior, making the tests obviously capitalist. That places capitalism's crusade against intelligent life in the tests themselves, skewing the tests to read in ulterior motives that are not there in intelligent reasoning. This includes faking intelligence in stupid individuals to falsely make it look as if a difference in ulterior motives was the only thing that could explain the difference in behavior between the intelligent and the stupid. And for that, capitalism makes up "personality types" that make no evolutionary sense.

One example is the claim of personality types that have their own views but "suffer in silence" because they are "too social" to express them or act on them. That is blatant evolutionary nonsense because a brain that never expressed or acted on its own views would evolutionarily gain nothing from having the capacity to have its own views. A behaviorally impotent brain mechanism that only caused illness and consumed nutrients would have been eliminated by natural selection a long time ago. The claim that "modern institutions can help them today" misses the point that brains that needed modern institutions could not have evolved biologically before modern institutions existed, which is explained here. This means that the "personality types" that modern capitalist institutions claim to "help" do not exist.

A type of brain incapable of expressing its own views independently that evolution could select for would be one with low brain capacity as a way of saving nutrients. This pattern is evolutionarily common in animals without free hands, especially in environments with nutritionally low-grade food and in the absence of climate change, but the existence of such brains in bipeds with hands is not impossible. A "parrot-like" or "chatbot-like" variety of such brains could cheaply imitate nonsensical claims, making it easy for capitalism to use them as puppets that parrot claims of "expressing the views" when the "views" parroted are in fact only what capitalism tells them to say. While natural selection says that "lotus eaters" cannot exist in real life, it does not preclude much energy-cheaper "parrots".

So if someone claims that any kind of organization helps him or her "express himself or herself" and that he or she "suffered in silence" before the organization existed, you know that you are dealing with a zombie in the capitalist zombie army. You also know that the organization is a lobby organization, a crony organization of capitalism, and that its claim to "be created by its members to fight for their own rights" is a capitalist lie. Never trust an allegation that criticism of such an organization is "motivated by hatred against the groups that are its members". The reason why capitalist corporations are not subject to the selection against wasting nutrients that apply to physical brains is explained here.

Corporate HR capitalism fires people that they allege to be "psychopaths" at the same time as they claim that "psychopaths" have power. That is a retarded self-contradiction since it is those deciding who gets fired that have the power, not those getting fired without being able to veto it. That is why established institutions cannot fight "power structures". The established institutions are the power structures. And of course, the claim that "social justice" movements help people who "suffered in silence" express their experiences contradicts its own premise. If some brains cannot express themselves independently without a group to tell them that they can express it, what they express in a group is not evidence that they experience what they claim to experience. They may simply parrot what the group tells them to say on capitalism's behalf, as explained here.

The claim that "analytical personalities see details while dominant personalities see the big picture" misses the point that high brain resolution allows falsification of hypotheses and extrapolation to good predictions. These good predictions then predict many things, including the big pictures. This is explained here. Since a tech billionaire investing the entire fortune into businesses that presume the continued functioning of the internet and a metoo activist claiming that pictures will be on the internet forever both assume that the internet will always exist, they share the same inability to understand the escalating supply chain vulnerabilities explained here. Tests that falsely classify the two as opposite personality types miss the point that capitalism promotes fools, placing idiots that cannot predict consequences on high positions.

Capitalism's "social competence" hierarchy as a wedge between sapients[]

One way the capitalist system can fight sapience is by turning sapients against other sapients. This can, for example, be done by making up stories claiming that sapients with extensive experience of non-sapients are "socially incompetent" or "socially disabled" to keep them from sharing their knowledge of how to distinguish sapients from non-sapients with the sapients who have lived with other sapients. Mendelian genetics show that recessive genes can create stark contrasts between members of the same family which explains many cases of sapients living among non-sapients, so noticing that other members of one's family are non-sapient is not proof of being non-sapient oneself.

This is as simple as the fact that a pea plant having phenotypically purple-flowered parent plants does not contradict the pea plant itself having white flowers if both parent plants carried a recessive allele for white flowers. To claim that "if you call your parents non-sapient, you are non-sapient yourself" is not a valid argument, it is the nonsense of a non-sapient trained by capitalism like a dog to attack sapients.

Capitalism applies its strategy to turn sapients against their fellow sapients by effectively but not explicitly claiming the latter category of sapients to be "socially competent", which they also claim lots of non-sapients to be, to make a false taxonomy that places some sapients closer to non-sapients than to their fellow sapients in a different life situation. This is done by mislabelling verbal neuroconflict between sapients and non-sapients as "lack of understanding of how people works" in the sapients involved in the arguments, which labels the sapients mingling with non-sapients as "socially incompetent" while the sapients who mingle with other sapients get labelled as "socially competent" despite equivalent brains.

The myth that avoiding explanations makes psychiatry more scientific[]

That is part of the pseudoscientific bullshit methodology that psychiatry falsely claims to be "progress" from an alleged earlier focus on mechanisms in psychiatry. The nonsense methodology lumps sapients labelled as "socially incompetent" for neuroconflict with non-sapients into the same invalid diagnoses as non-sapients labelled as "socially incompetent" for neuroconflicts between different varieties of non-sapients (which can also occur in the same families because of Mendelian genetics). Miscommunication between genetically different non-sapients exists for the same reason as there are animal species with different body language that misunderstand each other despite understanding the signals of their own species. The result is a situation where the sapients living among non-sapients cannot use psychiatric diagnosis labels to find other sapients either.

The effect is worsened by psychiatry retaining the diagnosis labels on most if not all of the diagnosed subset of former sapients that have been turned non-sapient through brain damage induced by psychiatric medication. This retention works in part by stupid bureaucratic rules that require a ruling declaring that an individual psychiatrist did something wrong to remove a diagnosis, not recognizing the errors built into psychiatry's rules as a cause of spurious diagnoses. Such rules obviously misdirects the rule of law, which in itself may be good for protecting individuals, into an abomination that prevents removal of nonsense diagnoses. Another factor is the retention of some residual fragments of the ideas created by the former sapient mind in the "zombified" individual, which can easily be mislabelled as "remaining symptoms" by a psychiatric system so misguided it conflates criticism of diagnoses with accusations against individual psychiatrists.

One commonly retained "ruin" of sapience is the idea that it does not matter who expresses the same argument, which in the context only makes the loss of the ability to recognize what really matters in arguments even sadder as a corpse-like reminder of what once was. These ex-sapients contribute to the low chances of finding other sapients in "diagnosis" communities not only by adding to the number of non-sapients there, but also by uttering some phrases that resemble what sapients could say which increases the amount of interaction required to distinguish a sapient from a non-sapient. Many of the tests that can be used to make that distinction cannot be done online.

Functional DNA limits and the evolutionary absurdity of specialized empathy modules[]

Instead of the excessive number of "types of empathy" claimed by psychology and psychiatry, it is both less energy-costly, less genetically space costly within the limits to functional DNA imposed by mutation risks that is the basis for the conclusion that most of large genomes like the human genome must be junk DNA, and more in accordance with Occam's razor to have a small number of genes that upregulate or downregulate overall brain capacity. Instead of having a theory about a lump claimed to be "how people work" and ranking people by alleged ability to understand that alleged lump, it makes more Occamian, evolutionary genetic and evolutionary energetic sense to have a theory about sapients but not non-sapients being able to resolve the difference between valid arguments and fallacies.

Every new generation has hundreds of new mutations not found in either parent. As shown by Susumu Ohno, selection would not have been able to keep up if most of the human genome or similar or larger size genomes of other species were functional. This conclusion was reached before the discovery that protein-coding genes only comprise a small part of the human genome and similar size genomes, so the category junk DNA was never about "ignorance of gene activity regulation". While some non-protein coding DNA has gene activity regulating functions, most of it does not have that. And as far as functional DNA amount is concerned, that addition of functional DNA in gene activity regulators is offset by the fact that not all DNA in the protein coding genes themselves is functional. The latter is due to the actual central dogma of molecular biology, the reason why a gene cannot be recreated from only the information in its protein is because only part of the information in protein coding nucleic acid sequences are translated into proteins.

The allegation of a specialized empathy module being able to understand a mind is informatically absurd since a small part of the brain cannot simulate the whole brain. In the same way, it is absurd to allege that a non-sapient brain can understand a sapient mind since a low capacity brain cannot simulate a high capacity brain for the same reason as a HD image cannot be shown on a non-HD screen. Capitalism controls HR today more than ever before, so ranking people by "social ability" defined by what HR considers to be "functioning in a workplace" is puppetry under capitalism. This is explained further here. And as shown here, this theory about what ametabolic corporations do is not in contradiction with the point that it is absurd to allege "rationalization" as a psychological mechanism in metabolic brains.

When it is pointed out that psychiatry's distinction between empathy and sympathy is a pre-Darwinian construct that does not fit with evolutionary continuity, psychiatry misses the point and babbles straw men such as "do you not know that evolution often selects for helping each other?". The truth is that pointing it out does not imply ignorance of evolutionary selection for mutual aid, part because the concept of "rationalization" on which psychiatry bases its allegation that anything other than empathy as psychiatry understands it would be "anti-social" is evolutionarily absurd, and part because evolutionary continuity does contradict the absolute all-encompassingness that psychiatry have considered to distinguish empathy from sympathy since the 1700s. Any gradually evolved empathy would, by virtue of being gradually evolved, be finite and therefore what the 1750-esque psychiatric definition would consider sympathy and not empathy even if it did promote cooperation.

Psychiatry's notion that a "psychopath" could be distinguished from an "empath" by not distinguishing between the words empathy and sympathy also contradicts the Franz de Waalian evolutionary timeline. If empathy is considered to be as evolutionarily old as the first mammals, but language with words no older than the genus Homo, it becomes clear that lack of a distinction between words cannot be used to diagnose a lack of empathy without contradicting evolution itself. But capitalism benefits from that absurdity by labelling critics of capitalism's false and anti-sapient notion of how brains work as "psychopaths" as an anti-falsifiability cop-out from reasoning.

HR capitalism's assumption that anyone who does not behave as HR defines "empathy" would only care about his or her own creature comforts is hypocrisy against its own claim of defining empathy as "understanding the perspectives of others". By not understanding what it is like to have higher goals for which one is willing to sacrifice both oneself and others, HR proponents that are labelled as "empathic" by capitalist psychiatry fail their own criterion of understanding a perspective completely different from their own. If there was no third alternative besides "humanitarian empathy" and individual egoism, the entire world would still be at the Stone Age since all major projects require the same persons to combine both ruthlessness and idealism. While Werner von Braun displayed ruthlessness, his genuine engagement for space colonization even after his own death shows that his goals were not limited to his own luxuries. HR capitalist psychiatry is idiotic to fail to understand the difference between Werner von Braun and someone who really lacked higher goals such as Al Capone.

Psychiatry's idiotic "methods" or rather, psychiatry's idiotic methodology can be illustrated with a thought experiment about a set of rainforest conservationists. One actual rainforest conservationist understands what a rainforest really is, while the other is a "rainforest conservationist" in name only and quibbles about semantic definitions. When asked to patrol a former rainforest area where the rainforest have actually already been deforested, but is still called a "rainforest" on paper, the former would say that it was too late while the latter might volunteer to the futile project. Psychiatry would assume that the former, actual conservationist was an "egoist" for as long the test set was the actually deforested area. Psychiatry would falsely assume that the actual conservationist was "rationalizing his or her egoism", so psychiatry would not understand that the actual conservationist would be engaged for conserving an area that was actually still rainforest.

The point is that psychiatry's spurious methodology mistakes the ability to distinguish what can still be saved from what is too late to save for "egoism". This applies to civilization as well, as someone who understands the essence of a civilization worth saving would conclude that it is too late to save a "civilization" that is all about cooking competitions, celebrity sex scandal gossip, polarized debates between two political parties or blocs in which both effectively want to retain capitalism regardless of any effectless quibble about "perfection and non-perfection" and sport events. Thus, it is wrong to assume that someone who thinks it is too late to save the remnants of today's "civilization" would be an egoist if he or she lived in a viable civilization. Indeed, there are historical examples of those appearing the most egoistic when they lived in a dying civilization becoming very willing to sacrifice themselves for a new and healthy civilization to which they have been "transplanted", a change of environment beyond any staged changes of routines within a consumerist framework.

Why communication and cooperation does not destroy thinking and invention[]

Capitalism has incentives to keep inventors from cooperating and communicating, to keep the inventors divided. One way capitalism can do so is to label inventors as "socially disabled" and claiming that learning of social interaction would erase the person's ability to think things through and invent. That is often claimed in psychiatry's biologically invalid definitions of "autism". Such claims may cause inventors labelled as "autistic" to fear that they will lose their ability to invent and become as stupid as the psychiatrists if they learn any more communication and cooperation, causing the persons to act the role as an "autistic" stereotype. This applies especially to inventors who do not know about the absurdity of the notions of specialized brain modules explained above.

In addition to being an obstacle to cooperation between inventors, such fearmongering also gives a false appearance of "validity" to the notion of specialized social mechanisms in the brain. This happens through intelligent inventors "malingering" specific social impairment, with the twist that it is malingering out of fear of consequences in one's own brain and not of fear of consequences from others nor an attempt to trick rewards out of others. This example of self-malingering is a counter-example to psychiatry's false dichotomy between believing in diagnoses and a straw man of "accusing mentally ill people of deceptive malingering at the expense of others". The irony, that psychiatry advocates a false dichotomy when claiming that alleged dichotomic thinking is a mental disability!

Capitalist demonization of self-sufficiency by allegations of "psychopathy"[]

Capitalism has incentives to demonize self-sufficiency to keep as many people as possible consuming sold products. One way to do that is to make up myths of people who try to become self-sufficient being "evil" or "psychopathic". Since it is extremely difficult for a vegan to be self-sufficient, especially in colder climates since many of the specialized plants that a vegan must combine to avoid deficiency diseases only grow in warmer climates (and risky even in warm climates because so many plant species all have to give good harvests), capitalism has incentives to demonize hunting, fishing and self-sufficient slaughtering. It also has incentives to demonize attempts to keep dairy cows and egg-laying hens outside bureaucratic capitalist crony control by alleging the controls to be about "animal welfare".

The allegation that hunters today are somehow more "evil" than hunters in the past because "we have a comfortable lifestyle today" misses a number of points. One is the absurdity of the assumption that capitalist life under meaninglessly long and inflexible "work" days in meaningless office jobs that produce nothing, crony capitalist bureaucratic papers and so on are more "comfortable" than self-sufficiency at all. This shows that the "comfortable lifestyle" rhetoric is capitalist. It also misses the point that going into a crisis without prior knowledge of hunting decreases the chance of making a successful kill before one starves to death, especially if "virtue signalling" by postponing the first hunt until one is weakened by starvation. Furthermore, "virtue signalling" by failing to acquire knowledge of how to conserve meat and remove organs that contaminate surrounding tissues causes most of what one does succeed in killing to spoil and become inedible.

The absurdity of the allegation that the same person would enjoy hurting animals and deny that animals suffer is explained here.

Absurd allegations of trade-off between ingroup-outgroup and "black and white thinking"[]

Psychology's claim that "nuanced thinking" is a hallmark of social ability and that "black and white thinking" is a hallmark of social disability contradicts psychology's own notions of ingroup and outgroup. This is because psychology claims that distinctions between ingroup and outgroup and conformity specifically to ingroup is an important part of social ability. Since psychology does not acknowledge the existence of brains resolving multitudes of separate alternatives explained here, but instead assumes that anything that is not a blurry scale must be "dichotomic", psychology contradicts itself when claiming that "nuanced thinking" promotes ingroup alliances for competition against other groups.

This applies both to evolutionary explanations and to allegations of motives today. One example of the latter is the absurd contradiction of psychology claiming that people who express views that do not fit into either side of a polarized political debate do so to promote one of the alleged sides "covertly", while at the same time claiming that such people are deficient in the ability to conform to group rules. This is absurd for more than one reason. One of the reasons is that the psychologists claim that the same behavior is both about conforming to the rules of one movement and about lacking the ability to conform. Another example is that psychology claims that people who assume that everything is one of two movements (whom they call "normal") are better at non-dichotomic thinking that people who consider the existence of more than two alternatives (whom they call "abnormal" and absurdly allege to have "dichotomic thinking"). This is evidence that psychology is non-scientific, and explainable by psychology being a tool for capitalist-lobbied polarized puppet movements to suppress non-profitable research, as is explained here.

Ways of distinguishing a sapient from a non-sapient[]

Knowing the difference between a valid argument and a fallacy is not a matter of knowing the words for them, it is a matter of running the arguments and seeing whether or not they lead to self-contradictory conclusions. In fact, if someone assumes that a person pointing out fallacies "does so to be a besserwisser about words", that gives the assumer away as a non-sapient subhuman because any sapient would understand that the essence of recognizing a fallacy is reason and that the words are merely ways of shortening the outer expression of the understanding. Another sure sign of being a non-sapient subhuman is to confuse the act of quoting a fallacy with the act of committing it, since it is necessary to think through arguments to measure their validity or lack of validity. So anyone who says that "you committed the same fallacy yourself because you uttered it in that quote" as a meant "argument" and not as a quote is a non-sapient subhuman.

Another sure sign of non-sapient idiocy is to dismiss examples of possible scenarios that may happen as "too extreme" and not being able to explain what one would do "because one have not experienced that situation", and yet claim that it will "just be to adapt" if and when it happens. This applies especially if the idiot claims to know how to adapt to such a situation because he or she have lived for that or that number of years, since adaptation to a radically changed environment is not predicted by any appearance of "function" in the absence of radical change. That is why abrupt climate change selects for brain capacity, it is about the ability to imagine situations that have not yet happened and thinking them through having survival value when the situation materializes. The allegation that brain size lag "disproves" ecological selection for brain size and "proves" social selection for brain size is debunked here. A small-brained species surviving in large numbers and appearing "successful" pre-climate change does not mean that it will survive abrupt climate change (see what happened to Paranthropus).

So only an idiot would assume that living for 50 years in a consumerist society without as much as a financial collapse would make your experience more suited for adapting to a supply chain failure than that of someone who thinks the scenario through and does not take for granted that it would "just be to adapt" without thinking scenarios through beforehand. It is the scenario-thinker who has the advantage of having thought about what to do in many different situations and not only those encountered in daily life. Even if the scenario-thinker appears "less successful" in pre-crisis daily life, that does not invalidate the advantage. Big-brained species that survive climate change would have appeared "less successful" between the climate changes too, due to the nutrient costs of big brains.

And capitalism demonizing those thinking in scenarios by means such as alleging preparations for future scenarios to be "maladaptive priorities" does not make the allegations true. But it means that those brainwashed enough by capitalism to believe it to be "human nature" and accusing those unbrainwashed by capitalism of "lacking common human sense" are incapable of understanding, preparing for and surviving the crises. It also means that capitalism uses the idiots against intelligent life, and that intelligent life should cut those brainwashed idiots out of any circle they plan to cooperate with after a collapse and never trust the idiot's claim that the intelligent lifeform is "pretty much alone" in not sharing capitalism's assumptions.

Another reason why only idiots claim to understand what they draw lines that amount to never acting on what they claim to understand around is because the evolutionary function of being able to think of what may happen is to be able to act on those predictions. A prediction with lines drawn around it such as "it is too extreme" or "it is purely theoretical" (as if theories did not make practically appliceable predictions) would only cost nutrients without providing any positive selection that could even compensate, let alone outweigh, the cost. This is explained here.

To claim that "you waste nutrients by thinking of the scenario too" is a clear sign of idiocy since those seriously preparing for the scenarios without dismissing their content do act on the scenarios in an evolutionary functional way. That is competely uncomparable to the mere parroting perpetrated by those dismissing the content of what they claim to understand. The latter do not waste nutrients either since they do not understand what they dismiss, they just parrot a claim to understand it and save nutrients by lacking the brain capacity required to understand it. And if they claim that it is an "insult" to point out their missing brain capacity while claiming that it would somehow not be an insult to claim that they understand something that they cannot see the point in acting on, that skewed definition of "insult" proves that they are even dumber since if they had the "never act on" brain capacity that they claim to have, that would have made them even worse than a nutrient saving idiot.

If you claim that you are more adaptable because you less often get upset, you are an idiot without sapience. If general adaptability was about not being upset, biological evolution would have eliminated the ability to become upset at all. This is because something that was maladaptive in all environments would have been negatively selected in all environments and positively selected nowhere and at no time, and thus eliminated by evolution shortly after the underlying mutation appeared and never having the time to spread to many individuals in new generations. It would certainly never have become widespread enough to become "human nature" or any other "species nature".

There are obvious examples that lack of upsetness is not a measure of general adaptability, such as the fact that sitting passive and calm in a wagon rolling towards a cliff is not adaptive since it will kill you. Violently overpowering those in the wagon who wants it to roll unstopped "just to avoid conflict in the wagon" and cannot understand the cliff's lethality is adaptive since it may save you from the cliff. The claim that someone who becomes upset by something that someone not gets upset by "is less adaptable" to change in general than the non-upset individual is simply bunk.

Anyone who at one moment claims to only mean that not becoming upset is adaptability to "normal" environments and not "extreme" environments and at the next claim that "it is only your opinion that I disagree with" that someone who more often gets upset can be more adaptable to change is a non-sapient idiot. This is shown by the idiot self-contradicting without noticing it, since the same measure of adaptability cannot both be restricted to so-called "normal" environments (excluding so-called "extreme" environments) and be general. And only an idiot would claim both that capitalist consumerist society is a "normal" environment while lack thereof is an "extreme" environment and that such a notion is "in human nature", since consumerist societies have only existed for a few historical periods comprising a small part of recorded history and did not exist at all in prehistoric times when Homo sapiens evolved.

And if A claims that "you are as irrational as me because you get upset too" when in fact A got upset because B made a valid argument while B got upset because A interrupted the discussion or committed a fallacy, A gives himself or herself away as a non-sapient subhuman. This has at least two reasons: a false equivalency between valid arguments and fallacies including argumentum ex baculum, and mistaking anger for irrationality. The latter is a sure sign of non-sapient subhumanity since something as energy-costly as a sapient brain must be able to save one's life in situations in which one would otherwise have died in order to counterbalance negative selection of its energy cost. As a result, brains that can think sapiently in "calm" situations but not in danger to one's life would only be a waste of nutrients and cannot exist according to evolution.

This means that any sapient would understand that anger does not imply irrationality. Since fear can also be part of survival situations, this evolutionary argument applies not only to anger but also to fear. This means that "intersectional" claims of biologically sapient beople acting irrationally "because they are exposed to threats" is nonsense. It also gives a logical explanation as to why most old stories about proving oneself worthy by solving a riddle involves being killed if one fails. These tests may have been put in place to recruit the truly intelligent, and keeping bullshit generators that only quote authorities from an education without understanding what they are saying out of important positions. This may have served to maintain civilization and prevent stupidocratic mismanagement.

Since discussions are important for exchanging ideas and planning what to do together, this means that sapients understand the value of having discussions even if they cause temporary distress. Anyone interrupting discussions on the grounds that "we become upset when we discuss that" is a less than human non-sapient lacking the brain capacity required to think the real consequences through. Real understanding of consequences implies an understanding that the consequences of not working the plans out coherently and assuming that "the problems will be solved" without specifying how leads to disasters astronomically many times worse than being temporarily upset.

This means that if individual A expresses an argument and individual B interrupts the discussion by claiming that "the discussion leads nowhere" or "it gets irritated when you keep talking about that" without replying to the content of the arguments put forth by A, it is B that is proven to be sub-sophont and not sapient. Anyone assuming that "A is equally stupid because he or she tries to continue a discussion that leads nowhere" is subsapient because a sapient would understand that it is interruption of discussions without replying to arguments that is a fallacy, not the uttering of arguments as exterior interruption is not the same thing as invalidity of an argument. So A is sapient, but anyone lacking the resolution in the brain required to distinguish exterior interruptions from fallacies in the argument being interrupted is non-sapient.

Since sophonthood worth its nutrient cost in evolution is not impaired by danger responses, any sophont would understand that pointing out that how it is said does not matter as criticism of the idiocy of refusing to listen to arguments expressed in a loud voice specifically means that arguments should never be blocked out because of the voice in which they are expressed. Since increased breathing as a preparation for danger does not impair real sapience (it can only impair a non-sophont's false parroting of "sapience"), which every sophont understands, missing the point by claiming that "if the voice volume did not matter, you could avoid raising your voice" is a sure sign of non-sophont subhumanity. If you are sophont, you understand that reflex increases of voice volume are not the same thing as blocking any arguments out. To assume that a logical rule of what is a valid criticism of the content of an argument constitutes a rule of how arguments should be expressed in terms of things that do not affect the meaning content is an example of the false equivalency fallacy.

Claiming to "have the brain capacity to reason but not the stamina to discuss" is bullshit that gives away non-sapience since actual reasoning (as opposed to non-sapient parroting) would be a waste of nutrients if the brain could not bring the axioms all the way to their following predictions. That also means that dismissing the importance of discussions on the grounds that they are "theoretical" is proof of being non-sapient, since theories lead to practically appliceable predictions that are important for survival as shown here.

A sapient can search through a problem by thinking of it, in an elimination of error sources that may lead to solutions. So claiming that "one should not think about the problem because worrying solves nothing" is a giveaway of non-sapience, since a sapient capable of thinking in elimination of error sources would never take the assumption that "thinking about problems only leads to non-constructive worrying" for granted. Worrying can be constructive as caring about putting the solutions to practice is important for survival. But it would be an evolutionarily ecologically unbalanced waste of nutrients to have the ability to think of solutions and then not using it by refusing to think about problems.

To make the absurd assumption that someone making an argument "cannot be explained as anything other than the person wanting to be right" is a dead giveaway of being non-sapient, since a sapient would understand that it is the arguments that lead to the predictions and conclusions and not vice versa. The theory explains the non-sapient's false assumption that the sapient "obviously rationalizes something" as an effect of the non-sapient's inability to understand the content of the arguments in combination with capitalist indoctrination to make that specific assumption, and not as a result of the sapient actually rationalizing anything.

AI hoaxes have been exposed by people from the audience asking questions directly to the AI, giving away the AI as non-sapient even if it falsely appeared sapient when the programmers only asked specific questions to it. This means that it becomes easier to pass a non-sapient off as sapient if one trains the non-sapient to interrupt discussions, which applies not only to AIs but also to living beings. Since capitalism profits from keeping sapients divided, it profits from interrupting sapient distinctions between other sapients and non-sapients. So if your argument against being classified as stupid is that "it is insulting to call others stupid", you are stupid and also used as a puppet of capitalism. Sapients argue with reason instead, provided that the allegation of stupidity is falsifiable.

The importance of distinguishing sapients from non-sapients[]

The effects of that wedge preventing many sapients from recognizing a non-sapient are especially severe when considering the dangers of organizations ruled by non-sapients explained in the subsection above. And the allegations of "social incompetence" in the frontier sapients living among non-sapients combined with the allegations of "social competence" in the non-sapients around them becomes especially absurd considering who makes the predictions that pan out. The non-sapient relatives of a frontier sapient are often surprised that their sapient relative does not get physically beaten up for his or her rudeness, while the years go by and the predicted beating never comes.

And at the same time, the frontier sapient keeps making correct predictions years beforehand. Those correct predictions include not only such things as supply chain failures caused by overly complex supply chains. They also include things classified as matters of "how people work" by the psychiatrists themselves, such as when social justice activists will accuse each other of being various types of "ists" and "phobes" as a result of accumulation of increasingly long lists of contradictory human rights leading to damned if you do and damned if you don't situations that the allegedly "socially competent" activists never saw coming before they happened.

It is those believing that they will not be labelled as bigots "because good communities balance different human rights" that fail to understand the dangers of Limitation of law and run straight into conflict. When it is the frontier sapient that makes the correct predictions while the non-sapients around him or her makes the incorrect predictions, it is absurd to classify the frontier sapient as "socially incompetent" and the surrounding non-sapients as "socially competent".

But of course, it is an absurdity that the crony capitalist system benefits from by keeping the sapients divided. To overcome the division, core sapients mingling with other sapients must recognize that talking to the frontier sapients as equals is a good thing. The core sapients must not listen to crony capitalism's nonsensical claim that listening to the arguments is "stigmatization" of the alleged "disability" of the frontier sapient and equally nonsensical claim that and hominem treatment of the frontier sapient's arguments as "symptoms" instead of arguments is somehow "ethically necessary" to "destigmatize" the frontier sapient from alleged "social stigmatization of disability". The corporate transition from focus on building things that work to focus on marketing and dumbing down customers (late stage capitalism) have done away with many of the environments where such integration of sapients from different backgrounds happened naturally through recruitment of those who showed their ability to invent.

The myth of irreversible self-domestication[]

The claim that domestication is evolutionarily irreversible becomes absurd when combined with the claim that species can self-domesticate, since over the course of hundreds of millions of years it becomes "throw the dice many times" inevitable that the ancestors of any given species would have self-domesticated at one point or another during all that time. And then the claim that domestication is irreversible evolutionarily predicts that there would be no "true" wild species left and that all "wild" animals should have the genetic profile of feral and not originally wild species.

Variability selection theory does not have the problems of irreversible domestication theory, since variability selection theory predicts that selection for big brains happens during abrupt climate change. Studies on recently feral species say that they retain the small brain size of their recent domestic ancestors and do not return to the large brain size of their more distant pre-domestication ancestors, but variability selection theory explains that as a result of no sufficiently severe climate changes having happened between their domestication and the studies of feral descendants. While the 2023 weather events were the most severe in recorded history, they were still less severe than the back and forth abrupt climate shifts that have happened around the beginnings and ends of Ice Ages. What variability selection predicts is that the brains of feral species will enlarge and their genes will become truly wild again when climate change severity rises to around that of events like Younger Dryas, not that it should already have happened.

Sapient survival of societal collapse and postapocalyptic technology[]

Capitalists often claim that societal collapse would lead to stupid people killing everyone who could create something (as if intelligent people were somehow chanceless), resulting in a return to the Stone Age. The capitalist assumptions about "human nature" built into that claim is often parroted by those believing in one "how people work" lump and a hierarchy of "how well people understand people", no matter if they explicitly worship capitalism or are just sheep who think they are anti-capitalist when their stupidity actually serves capitalism.

However, their nonsensical claims cannot explain the fact that civilizations have collapsed before and the technology after the collapse did not return to the Stone Age. What happened was that while production of artifacts that depended on materials from many areas being combined and processed in many steps went out of production, other artifacts made from local materials were invented in their place which debunks the claim that killings specifically targeted inventors.

One example is that ironworking was invented as appropriate technology when the collapse of the trade routes of the Bronze Age halted the alloying of bronze. Copper and tin was necessary to produce bronze. Tin, which was only available in large quantities from a few mines in some parts of Afghanistan have been compared to the oil of its time, while most copper anywhere near the Mediterranean was mined on a few Greek isles. In addition to that, the finished bronze was not a simple alloy of pure copper and pure tin. Bronze was alloyed from two or more ingredients that were alloys themselves, both already contained both copper and tin in different quantities and at least one of them also contained lead. If pure tin was the oil of the Bronze Age, then the alloys that were no longer pure copper or pure tin but not yet ready-to-use bronze were the semiconductor components of the Bronze Age. There are many more examples of postapocalyptic inventions.

The claim by capitalism and its pseudo-anticapitalist sheep that "inventors would have to please dumber postapocalyptic survivors, or else they would be killed for being besserwissers" cannot explain the fact that these inventions were actually implemented. As explained earlier, a situation in which the stupid were in charge and the intelligent had to try to persuade the stupid by pleasing them would lead to the stupid copying more and more of each other's stupid ideas, since the stupid who cannot invent themselves cannot distinguish a good invention from a bad invention either.

This also precludes any stupidocracy surviving for long by copying the ideas of smarter people. This debunks any claims on the lines of "if you do not shut up about your smart ideas when I do not want to listen, you are not like the inventors who survived collapse". These predictions about people who can think rationally about what is said (instead of how it is said) being in charge during post-collapse stages when new civilizations are built on the ruins of old civilizations predict that such new civilizations would value honesty that the trade houses that rule late stage civilizations would label as "rude". This correctly predicts the fact that early stage civilizations, referred to by Glubb as "the age of pioneers", recurrently through history consider it a virtue to be brutally honest no matter if it leads to conflict. While Glubb mistakenly dismissed reason as "decadent" by conflating formal education with "natural" ability for reason, the behavior of pioneer stage leaders matches the profile of natural reason.

The fact that Glubb made incorrect theoretical interpretations does not mean that the empirical data that he collected should be dismissed. Tycho Brahe had incorrect cosmological theories, but that did not stop Johannes Kepler from using his observation logs to test other theories. To assume that a reference to empirical data collected by the same person who also expressed an incorrect theory is a "rationalization" of the incorrect theory is retarded and incompatible with the scientific method, and would prevent any testing of new theories using already existing empirical data.

Even if people with high formal education may often be killed during major crises, especially recent ones, that does not mean that the ability to create inventions and practice actual scientific inquiry is destroyed. Survival data shows that self-taught book readers who derive technical knowledge from books written before "technical" education was filled with market analysis stuff have much higher survival rates when disasters devastate societies than those with high formal education. The fact that these self-taught problem solvers actually implement the technical solutions proves that they did not merely "pretend to read as an excuse for failure" as the psychologist establishment claims. They even develop the ideas further and experiment with ways of making them work better in the new disaster environments, thinking of what works and not of marketing.

The ability to collect information that is meaningful for the testing of hypotheses and theories and for technical problem solving is not the same thing as performance in educational systems where one learns for passing packages of pre-set questions such as exams. For minds capable of creating something that works without relying on lots of infrastructure, independent reading of books containing the relevant information holds much more meaning than spending years reading what an arbitrary curriculum tells one to read. And with such people high in survival rates, there is no reason to assume that the postapocalyptic world would return to the Stone Age.

Postapocalyptic survival of settlements with sapients in charge[]

The collapse of civilization removes both central governance, long-distance trade and the kinds of production that relies on long supply chains. In a postapocalyptic situation, there are many separate settlements. As the historical examples of postapocalyptic technology debunks the claim that "human nature" would put stupid people in charge everywhere, it is in its place to explore the differences between a settlement with sapients in charge and a settlement with non-sapients in charge. It must be kept in mind that in a post-collapse situation, money are useless and there is no legal system left. In the case of a future collapse it must also be added that there is no internet, or any digital communication at all. Nor would fuel materialize in gas stations, nor food on grocery shelves.

But apart from these postapocalyptic universals, different settlements can be very different precisely because of the lack of centralization. In a settlement where stupid individuals have the power, their stupid decisions would prevent the implementation of inventions that work without the preapocalyptic infrastructure. The stupidocratic settlement would essentially return to a local Stone Age. It is sometimes claimed that they would be able to take what they wanted from other settlements with the help of leftover preapocalyptic guns and ammunition, but that claim misses the point that settlements with sapients in charge would have access to that too in addition to also having appropriate inventions that the stupidocratic settlements lacked.

Being overly reliant on plundering would cause an idiocratic settlement to deplete its stocks of ammunition rapidly. The claim that pre-apocalyptic stocks of ammunition would be essentially inexhaustible and allow looters to keep shooting essentially indefinitely is bullshit. Ukraine have used up its old stores of ammunition when fighting against the Russian invasion and Western countries are depleting their own stocks of ammunition by sending ammo to help Ukraine restock and keep fighting.

This is a case in point of the fact that pre-apocalyptic stores of ammunition get used up fast if they are used for shooting a lot, as well as an ongoing process that reduces the amount of ammunition that will be left in stock when the collapse comes. The fact that Big Gun is having difficulties keeping up production with the amount that the war consumes is part of a general pattern of overcomplicated contemporary supply chains causing production failure, as the even larger volumes of ammunition consumed during WWII when industry was less specialized and had shorter supply chains did not cause long order times like those seen today.

In a settlement where intelligent people have the power, the appropriate technology invented can be used not only for defense as implied above, but also for many other things including adapting food production to a changed climate. Such intelligent management of production for survival (not marketing) would give settlements where the intelligent have the actual power a huge edge over those where the stupid are in charge. This would give the sapiocratic settlements survival advantages over idiocratic settlements in every way, including adaptation to climate change, conflicts between settlements, disease mitigation and so on.

This edge would be increased further upon contact between settlements through the recruitment of surviving intelligent inventors from idiocratic settlements where they are disgruntled to technocratic settlements where they can assimilate into the elite. Remember that since electronic surveillance would not work in a postapocalyptic world, in combination with the fact that an idiocratic settlement would have difficulties managing the construction of a decent wall, it would be fairly easy for the intelligent to escape from idiocratic settlements. The difficulty idiocratic settlements would have building walls would be worsened by the fact that the kind of building that relies on modern educational experience and its argument from authority is also reliant on long supply chains that would not work after a collapse.

Why a global apocalypse would reduce plundering compared to local disasters[]

Those who claim that plunderers incapable of building anything would take everything after a societal collapse often refer to examples from local disaster zones in the world today or in the recent past. However, there are a number of factors that set a global systems collapse apart from local disasters. For example, local disaster zones can and usually do receive aid from outside the disaster zone. Such aid can easily fall into the pockets of plundering organizations. In a global collapse, there would be no aid coming in and that would take away one significant source of loot for the plunderers. This would make it more difficult for specialized plunderers incapable of creating anything themselves to survive from one loot to the next. And even in contemporary local collapses, those self-taught in technology by reading books from before tech education was filled with marketing have much higher survival rates than those "highly" formally educated which contradicts the claim that everyone who can create gets killed.

Also, there are still currency systems that work in local disaster zones. Often times the disaster zones are only part of a country, and so the country's entire currency system does not collapse. That allows organized criminal networks whose cooperation terminally depends on the exchange of money to continue their operation. Even in the case of very small (balkanized) nation-states in which an entire sovereign state could fall within the area where a local natural disaster blew out the infrastructure, digital currencies could still keep criminal networks together as long as the internet worked globally for private users and not only for states and big corporations.

However, the fact that authorities would try to treat the symptoms for as long as possible means that the internet functions that are used in deliveries of necessary supplies and in police and military security would be the last to go out in any gradual decline of telecommunication. This means that in a global collapse, any graduality of internet decline would be timed before, not after, food stops appearing on grocery shelves and the police stops coming. By the time the latter two happened, the internet would already be completely and permanently down.

Digital currencies are not the only thing that criminal networks would lose in a global internet-down. It is also their primary way of communicating over long distances, and thus for knowing where to bring reinforcements if some of their members are killed in self-defense while trying to plunder. Few people today have any practical experience of tinkering with radio devices to communicate two-way without internet service, especially not people in the West who are still physically young enough to be gang criminal boots on the ground. And while the ability to reinvent such tinkering does not preclude being criminal in the legal positivist sense (by the standards of pre-apocalyptic law, many behaviors that would be necessary to survive in a post-apocalyptic world are), the ability is obviously incompatible with being a "don't build, just steal and kill" criminal stereotype of the kind that anti-prepping media claims would rule the world after civilization collapsed. So the latter kind of "stereotypical" criminal would lose the ability to cooperate in groups over any significant distances.

And while currencies can decline gradually in a world where there is still some infrastructure left, money would already be completely useless in a world where infrastructure-down had already reached the stage where no food at all appeared on grocery shelves. Just like the very existence of digital currencies depend on internet infrastructure, the very existence of central banks and their currencies depend on multiple layers of infrastructure capable of supporting centralized administrative organizations.

Repression of derived physics and space colonization[]

Capitalism represses space colonization because serious space colonization would entail the creation of self-sufficient space colonies. Self-sufficiency is unprofitable to capitalism because it does not create markets for corporations to sell to. Real space colonization requires destruction of capitalism.

Capitalism promotes statistical methodology, and the statistical methodology represses derived physics. Gravity manipulation would be practical for space colonization. The claim that "deriving gravity from an universal force would not be practically useful because if it could happen at practically achievable amounts of energy, it would already have been discovered" misses the point that a unified theory can predict specific conditions under which experiments will yield manipulation of gravity that are not about the raw amount of energy. The essence of a falsifiable theory is that it makes specific predictions that can be derived from that theory and not from other theories, and theories can make predictions about specific necessary conditions that must all be present for an effect to appear, conditions that are not interchangeable and cannot be replaced by purely quantitative amounts of energy.

The reason why telescopes were built in the 1600s but not by the Romans was because of knowledge of specific requirements on the characteristics and placement of the lenses. The furnaces were not hotter than those the Romans had access to, and the origin of telescopes was not due to spontaneous generation of telescopes at hotter temperatures than those older furnaces could achieve. It is peer review rules that demand normally distributed outcomes that repress research on phenomena with multiple necessary conditions by dismissing everything for which the conditions are not interchangeable, and those rules were created in the early 1970s when the growth of the service sector allowed corporations to perform more lobbyism in their working hours than before. That was precisely when unification of physics stagnated, which is hardly a coincidence.

Real science must be done outside peer review and without any "filtering" that removes predictions and results for not being normally distributed. The reason why peer review claims that everything is normally distributed is because the peer review filtering rules removes all evidence to the contrary, not because evidence to the contrary does not exist.

Even before quantum gravity is discovered, it is important to remember that rockets can be built without corporatocratic institutions as shown here. Retain the knowledge of how early rockets were built and use a select few later discoveries to save further steps and making the manufacturing even simpler. Do not buy corporate claims that spaceflight "would not be possible" without their products, and realize that corporate hostility to space colonization means that a collapse of corporatocracy is what space colonization needs.

Low energy graviton theory[]

While official peer review journals claim that it "must" require extremely high energy to unite gravity with other forces of nature because the Large Hadron Collider have not discovered the nature of the graviton, such a high energy of the graviton makes absurd predictions. This is because such a high mass graviton would result in atoms falling apart when a graviton leaves them without emitting any photons since the energy would go into forming the gravitons, and stars and planets would lose measurable amounts of mass to gravitons. And yet none of these phenomena are observed.

A theory that can explain the lack of these observations is the theory of the low energy graviton. According to this theory, the reason why accelerators do not identify gravitons is not because the energies in the accelerators are too low, but because the energies in the accelerators are too high and therefore form other particles instead. This theory predicts that gravitons could be formed by using the Casimir effect to weaken vaccum energy in restricted areas until the vacuum energy in the plated area is decreased to the energy of a graviton.

To test a wide range of possible graviton masses without capitalism sticking its ugly marketing of specialized equipment for each mass level into it, a compressable Casimir plate series can be built. In this solution, a number of very smooth metal plates are given the same charge to create electrostatic repulsion between them, and the outermost two plates can be squeezed together at different forces to test a wide range of distances between the plates. Placing the entire rig along with a laser in a vacuum allows detection of gravitons, since when vacuum energy is converted into gravitons the resulting gravitational field will bend the laser ray in a way that the assumption that the same mass always have the same gravity cannot account for.

Continued fundamental research would not cause nuclear war[]

The "theory" that scientists stopped developing more unified theories of physics because they saw the dangers of the atomic bomb makes no sense, since when nuclear weapons already exist a stop to further unifications of physics cannot remove their danger. On the contrary, quantum gravity permitting efficient interstellar travel by manipulation of space-time would place eggs in more baskets and make sure that even a global nuclear war would not exterminate humanity or species of Earth origin in general. So if the goal was to stop global nuclear war from causing human extinction, "freezing" unification of physics at a postwar stage pre-quantum gravity would be counterproductive since it would amount to staying in the most dangerous zone between two less dangerous areas.

The pure technicality that a nuclear war would not eliminate the Earth as a rock is irrelevant, since a dead rock would be without life and just one of many dead rocks. Saying that some microbes would survive a nuclear war based on the current global arsenal misses a number of points. Not only the point that extinction of humanity and other multicellular life would be a terrible loss that it would be better to avert through space colonization, but also the point that extermination of every microbe on Earth through nuclear war is just a matter of increasing the arsenal quantitatively with existing physics. The latter is all about decisions to build more devices that cannot be stopped by mere refraint from developing more theories.

It is also possible that functionally, the world is nuclear weapons free already because computers are malfunctioning.

Why corporations can conspire in more ways than physical persons can[]

The corporatocratic strawman that the idea that corporations prefer stupid consumers "assumes that corporations profile consumers as stupid and intelligent and that distrusting advertisement is more intelligent than trusting advertisement" misses several points. Firstly, the role of intelligence in not buying something that idiots buy is about so much more than trust or distrust of one ad for one isolated product. For example, intelligent ability to invent one's own solutions entail an ability to get what one needs done without buying an expensive product to do it.

Secondly, the biggest corporations became the biggest because their rules caused them to maximize corporate profit at all costs. That selected set of corporate rules act as viruses, as explained below. This means that the rules can de facto discriminate against intelligent people without using the words intelligent and stupid, just as viruses cause infections without speaking at all.

Corporations as superviruses[]

Idiots claim that it is "hypocrisy" to criticize psychology's claims of motivated reasoning in physical persons on the evolutionary grounds that rationalization of decisions that have already been made would waste energy as shown here, and at the same time say that corporations demonize criticism through lobbyism. That allegation misses the point that natural selection against waste of energy only works on systems with metabolisms. This follows logically from the premise, and correctly predicts that bacteria undergo selections for energy savings while viruses do not. While systems analysis show the same link between size and activity for cities as that between size and metabolism for living organisms, there is no such link between size and activity for corporations. So while cities are superorganisms, corporations are not superorganisms. Corporations are superviruses. Capitalism is a supervirus.

The point that the biggest corporations are outside human control because no physical person can afford buying them, as explained here, does not contradict the independence of corporate activity from the size of the corporation. The fact that a physical person could theoretically buy a less gigantic corporation and clear up its bureaucratic swamp does not mean that someone will inevitably do it, any more than the fact that your neighbour could sell his or her house means that he or she will inevitably sell it. And as long as the smaller corporations do not actively get cleared up, they keep acting machinally like miniature versions of corporate supergiants outside human control. Humans are not viruses because humans have metabolisms. The myth that humans are viruses is an immunodeficiency symptom of the capitalist meme virus, lobbied for by corporations to trick people into believing that the symptoms of capitalist meme infection is "human nature" to avert an immune response against capitalism. This is similar to how HIV viruses trick the immune system into mistaking the symptoms in HIV-infected cells for how the cells would have behaved without infection.

Not only do relatively few corporations get actively cleared up, but those that do usually do not remain corporations for long. This means that they will have little effect on the correlation, no matter if it is the buyer who decomissions them as corporations, or if it is government regulations created by the lobbyism of bigger corporations that shuts them down because the dismantling of corporate bureaucracy violates some law that big bureaucratic corporations profit from having in place. Capitalism is a virus and bureaucracy is one of its worst symptoms.

The point that corporations are beyond human control is not comparable to the allegation that "privileged groups" of physical persons have power beyond that of individuals. Systems theory applied to the ametabolic nature of corporations do not treat corporations as groups of physical persons, but as something completely different. A group of physical persons would not be infused with nutrient-wasting "psychological mechanisms" merely because they were assembled into a group, any more than bacteria start wasting nutrients merely because they are assembled into a colony. To point out that corporations are beyond human agency while criticizing intersectionality's notions of groups is not hypocrisy for the same reason as it is not hypocrisy to point out that antibiotics do not work on viruses while also pointing out that antibiotics work on bacteria regardless of whether the bacteria are treated as individuals or groups/colonies. The difference between metabolic and metabolismless transcends the difference between individuals and groups.

If an entire viral genome with all its functions was inserted into the germline of a metabolizing host, the host's descendants would sicken and die from internal infection. This means that DNA of viral origin in the genomes of organisms with metabolisms have been filtered through the loss or pseudogenization of the "offending" genes in the viral genome. Since the descendants, by virtue of having metabolisms, are subject to natural selection against waste of nutrients, it follows logically that the parts of the viral genome that could have led to nutrient-wasting mechanisms would be gone or inactive in the descendants that survived natural selection. And natural selection can go very fast if the genetic variation is already there, which it would be because different individuals infected with the same virus would get different parts of it in their germlines, followed by selection on specific parts of the viral DNA upon interbreeding. So the presence of DNA of viral origin in the human genome does not invalidate the argument that rationalization as a psychological mechanism cannot exist because evolution selects against nutrient waste.

Absurd dismissal of memetics as "non-durable" while acknowledging digital memes[]

One objection against the notion that societal phenomena can reproduce like viruses (memetic diseases) is the criticism against memetics that memes are not durable enough to undergo evolution like genes. However, since paper is much more durable than computers, see here for more information, it is absurd to dismiss memetics as a historical and sociological theory as "pseudoscience" on durability grounds while accepting the study of internet memes as science. There are also written records much more durable than paper, such as runes and clay tablets, that it is physically possible that they will endure for many millions of years. The reason why none millions of years old are found is because they were not invented back then, not because of any lack of durability. Dinosaur footprints hundreds of millions of years old have been discovered in clay, with anatomical details as small as cuneiform characters on clay tablets still visible.

Durability for many millions of years, which runes in stone and clay tablets are capable of, is a durability that meets the requirements for undergoing evolution similar to genes. And if one adds the notion that sociological change goes much faster than biological evolution, that simply cuts the amount of time needed for evolution to take place so that the durability of paper (and, under some circumstances, maybe even oral tradition) is sufficent to qualify memetic evolution as science. That is exactly as logical as the theory that biological organisms that reproduce faster can evolve faster. If the fast division and mutation of E coli bacteria does not prevent them from undergoing natural selection, why would rapidity of societal changes prevent societies from undergoing natural selection? So the idea that corporations are memetic viruses is not absurd.

The objection that "even if it is physically possible for ideas to be replicated reliably, that does not mean that they are" misses the point that there are examples of written ideas that have persisted over millennia and given rise to new varieties. One example that is relevant to administration is that of laws. The difference between civil law and common law is still discernible more than 2000 years after civil law was created as a distinct legal system in the Roman Empire. Both have given rise to different but recognizably related varieties in different countries. Legal systems originating outside Europe were not "naturally" forgotten, but wiped out not only by colonialism but even more "efficiently" later by multinational corporations and the United Nations hand in hand. Other examples of ideas from antiquity that have been passed on as writings and given rise to related offshots later include religions (judaism gave rise to christianity and islam, hinduism gave rise to buddhism) and philosphies (aristotelean, platonist and konfucian philosophy have all given rise to both medieval and modern mutated offshots).

The fact that ideas can be destroyed does not invalidate the idea that ideas undergo natural selection. Living organisms can be hit by mass extinctions and there are physical and chemical ways to destroy DNA, but that does not contradict biological evolution. So why would the fact that societal collapses, conquests, censorship and library fires can destroy ideas contradict memetic evolution? Just as some species have survived mass extinctions, fragment writings have survived societal collapses. Just as there is a difference between mass extinctions and evolution of immunity against viruses, there is a difference between information loss due to societal collpase and ideas on how to prevent repetition of capitalist lobbyism and Parkinson's law based on learning from history.

Allegations of "cognitive bias" as tools of corporate control[]

Since bureaucracy is controlled by corporations through lobbyism, corporations as systems gain power by increasing bureaucracy's power. Corporations use bureaucracy to keep physical persons down. This gives corporations incentives to allege that physical persons are "cognitively biased" and that such alleged "bias" is the problem, to create more bureaucratic control over physical persons. Corporations are viruses and bureaucracy is one of the symptoms.

Allegations of "structural discrimination" can be created not only by means such as using puppets to claim to "experience oppression" and order proxy murders of people classified as "discriminated" to produce dead bodies, as explained here, but also by corporate actions directly. For example, corporations may decide to refuse to employ or pay lower wages to the same people as they lobby for classifying as "discriminated" specifically to create an appearance of "structural discrimination". By lobbying for allegations of "cognitive biases" in the minds of physical persons being the problem, corporations benefit from allegations of "structural racism" and "structural sexism" since the allegations are aimed at "groups" of physical persons and not at the corporate supervirus itself. It is like a virus lobbying for the use of antibiotics against viral infections to avoid vaccination and antiviral agents.

This theory predicts that affirmative action gives corporations more incentives to practice employment discrimination. As a result, the theory successfully predicts a number of things that appears as "paradoxes" if affirmative action is claimed to mitigate discrimination. One example is the fact that the tech industry's highest percentages of women among the employees are in Middle Eastern countries with no political equality goals at all.

And while there are fatal flaws in IQ tests, the fact that American critical race theory cite lower average IQ scores in African Americans compared to white Americans as "evidence of experiences of discrimination depressing IQ" makes the observation that children from sub-Saharan African countries adopted by German families get the same average IQ scores as other Germans a "paradox" for United States-centric allegations of "experiences of discrimination" being global and not merely American. Interestingly, affirmative action is a lot less systematic in Germany than in the United States. There is no classification of all German citizens by "race" in German census since it was banned after WWII to prevent repetition of the Holocaust. Referencing this paradox is not to "admit that intelligence is normally distributed" for the same reason as referencing the weight and time paradoxes in the story of Santa Claus is not to "admit that Santa Claus exists". Reductio ad absurdum is not to "admit" that the thesis from which the absurd conclusions follow is correct, but a road to falsification.