soo now, we can access all information, shouldn't we change our perspective on things? or will you delete this thread, because scientific facts are bad? what would the inventor of scientific socialism think? would he adapt? or dismiss reality?
>>2672462>would he adapt?Marx said the point is to change the world, not to "adapt", something retarded tailist never can get well inside their skulls.
>>2672472>the point is to change the worldyes, but you need theory to change the world. first comes analysis, then action.
>>2672475>but you need theory to change the worldyeah we already have that, we have had it for like 150 years actually
>>2672475>first comes analysis, then action.Undialectical.
First comes action, then observation, then reaction.
Practice comes before theory, then the theory changes the practice.
I fail to see how differences in autism score means we should engage in TND, chuddy
Just take the BBC pill already
>because scientific facts are bad?
Except that geneticists, anthropologists, psychologists, and physicians universally reject the usefulness of race as a biological category, that there is any basis for scientific racism, or that racial autism score differences are reflective of innate/immutable abilities determined by biology. Even your shitty ChatGPT post heavily qualifies its statements on ethnic autism score differences by stating that the results are heavily skewed by non-biological factors. This isn't even getting into the fact that autism score is typically not considered to be an accurate or objective measure of intelligence or intellectual ability. So you tell me Anon, are you going to ignore all this because scientific facts are bad?
>READ THE AI TEXT
No.
>scrolls though thread
Lmao OP believes in I.Q. quackery.