[verisimi]

> You're either outright refusing or unable to see the point I've been making about the breeds: The traits are physically programmed in, whether individual or familial, not "already inside" the individual's soul. You aren't tracking that part of our conversation properly.

I don't dispute traits. But the traits idea fails to address the unique characteristics of each dog.

It seems I'm not tracking the things you want me to track, terminology, science, traits. But then, as I said in the first place:

> For me 'intelligence' would be knowing why you are doing what you are doing without dismissing the question with reference to 'convention', 'consensus', someone/something else.

I can tell you are sincere with your investigations, but I can't help wondering whether direct observations of reality, the development of a personal outlook on reality, use personal experience as primary source, is ultimately more valuable than familiarity with a corpus. But then I would say that. And you would disagree.

[Dilettante_]

Again, you are not getting what I was saying about the corpus. I am pulling from a vocabulary to express my personal outlook from personal experience, from direct observation. It's not either/or. You are the one completely rejecting half of all power-of-truth-finding available to you, and calling it intelligent? I'm explaining mathematics to you and you're complaining that I'm leaning on centuries of established proofs instead of, what, inventing a new lexicon just for talking to you?

I am giving up. You are engaging with the points in your head instead of those on the page.

You match the spirit that you comprehend, not me.