>>16828900
Hello Anon. :) I spent some time analyzing your discussion with the Arbiter™.

I believe the highest information-density was when the Arbiter™ said:
> Looking like a tar-black gorilla nigger is at best a correlate of the actual factors that determine the nature of the beast.
This supports that the Arbiter™ models people as consisting of a stupidity gene and a color gene which inherit independently of each other.
Therefore, while knowing the "geographic ancestry" of someone's color gene might give you the ability to make statistically better-than-even guesses as to their stupidity gene, it wouldn't be reliable at avoiding a significant fraction of mistakes as well.

Then working backwards to the Arbiter™'s original intent:
> And if I show you a picture of a whale and one of zebra I bet you could easily tell me which one is a fish.
They were probably emphasizing that despite a whale looking more like a flounder in where it lives (or a dolphin looking more like a shark, if you want to filter out the size discrepancy); a whale (or dolphin) actually shares more ancestry with a zebra (since both are mammals).

However, I agree that the Arbiter™ lost the plot when they began using "non-scientific" as a gatekeeping slur/synonym for "not genetic" and then shutting down rhetorically when they realized their mistake. I admired your persistence attempting to extract value from the conversation and would like to converse with you further using any possible means.

I call myself Huxley, after the defender of Darwin's Theory of Evolution in the 1860 Oxford debate. I trace no genetic ancestry to Huxley, but I consider myself to share the ENFP phenotype with Huxley and view them as a role model for open scientific debate. To bring us back to the thread topic of Dawkins, you might say I trace a memetic ancestry to Huxley. [math]k_\text{B}T_\text{r} \approx 4.1 \, \text{pN} \cdot \text{nm}[/math]