>>11657568>It's quite obvious you are not very bright, since you reduce a statement with nuance to its inapplicable base.Jesus, you’re really trying.
Anyone can shit out some pseudo-technical word salad to describe something simple in a convoluted way. Only dumb people think it makes them sound smart, though
If you cared about communicating, not posturing, you could have just said I misinterpreted you or something like that
>Neuronal, referring explicitly to grey matterThat would actually be an *implicit* reference, if “neuronal” also meant “relating to grey matter” in addition to “relating to neurons”, which it doesn’t
>the proportions of which are correlated to varying degrees of specialty and intelligenceWhat’s a “varying degree of specialty”?
> in this case- associativity, on a per neuron basis or density of the region.So at first you were talking about “the ability to comprehend and adapt many different concepts in parallel”. Now it’s “associativity per neuron”? Or neuronal density of grey matter? Either describe something in cognitive terms, or physiological ones. You can’t just casually equate the two, retard. There’s a massive gap between them.
Due to your clumsy, forced language and your inconsistency, I rate you low-wit.
>I made “mathematical innovations”, but I won’t back up that claim at all because uh, I don’t feel like itSay no more.
