[perl4ever]

I wasn't asserting that it was true, and it seems that you want to argue with someone who both thinks that "it" is true and has a different definition of it from what I was using, in context.

It's a morass I'm uninterested in getting into.

[zepto]

Once again you violate the spirit of the group with ad hominem.

I agree your original comment used the conditional ‘if’ about the truth of fixed intelligence.

Such a proposition naturally invites examination of whether the conditions are in supported by evidence, which is all I am doing.

I am curious if you have a definition of intelligence that sheds light on your original argument.

I have no stake in what truth you believe.

However I think your argument is clearly incorrect.

As you suggest, I could be basing my conclusion on a different definition to the one you are using.

But if you won’t produce a clarifying definition, you can’t reasonably make claim to be operating under any principle of cooperation.