Don't be ridiculous – I can read "percentage of the children under 5 who are more than 2 SD stunted"
Reading, understanding, and using correctly, are three different things.
When I said: "some of the kids in these Third World countries are growth stunted up to 50% "
I obviously meant "up to 50% of the kids in these Third World countries are growth stunted.
Ok, but then you're simply using data that has no bearing on the conclusions you're looking to reach from it.
To wit:
You have tried to use that data to support your assertion that humans are, on average, 10-20% stunted - i.e. their "phenotype" is c.15% under-developed compared to their "genotype".
Which you then tried to link to the claim that this ties in to the same 15% of the brain that operates at a subconscious level.
You tried to offer support for this c.15% assertion of growth stunting, but all you've done is provide support for maybe that % of children aged 0-5 being stunted.
Nothing about the degree of stunting.
So not only are you demonstrably incompetent, you are clearly dishonest in your making excuses that it was only a slip of the keyboard.
Ah, well.
You've got no scientific credentials ...
So you keep asserting, and so you keep appealing to authority, despite knowing that it's fallacious to do so, making you either stupid (to continue doing it) or dishonest... and likely both.
... and obviously are scientifically incompetent to even understand this theory.
"Theory" or "proof"?
You increasingly flip-flop between the two.
Given the array of errors in facts and logic that have so far been uncovered, I'm not doing too badly for someone you claim is "scientifically incompetent".
You wouldn't know statistical variance from relativistic covariance.
If you want to think that, feel free.
You think this is a theory by a scientific simpleton because you are provably a scientific simpleton yourself !
1. No, I don't think it's written by a scientific simpleton, only by someone who demonstrably doesn't know how to link disparate ideas together coherently, validly, or with any support, and by someone who is too invested in what they have so far written that they aren't open to accepting the glaring flaws and issues in it that other people identify.
I think it is therefore written by a crank, and a dishonest one at that.
2. Given you are seemingly unable to address any of the issues that I, a "scientific simpleton", have raised, it doesn't speak much for your own competence, does it.
3. Whether or not I am such a simpleton, relying on that assessment, and your belief that I lack scientific credentials, to dismiss any/all of my points, is, as you know, a fallacious appeal to authority.
The rest of your post is even worth reading.
Said the dishonest crank who doesn't want to confront the glaring flaws in the "proof" (or is it just a theory) that he's spent years developing.
Perhaps my first reply to your last message was a bit hasty.
You're obviously not a simpleton – but what I meant was that your under the impression the theory is "much simpler" than it actually is – and that is why your comments appear ludicrously simplistic.
It
is simple.
The underlying science that other people have conducted isn't simple, but your "theory" actually is, once you get past the complexity of the detail that you're trying to link.
See, your "theory" is those links, and that makes it surprisingly simple.
You take outputs from the individual complex areas and equate them, but do so with no logic, no support, no reasonable argument whatsoever.
Sure, you understand pscyhometrics to a point, but ultimately the entire psychometric content of your "proof"/"theory" comes down to the identification of the GFP.
You link that to "God" - and even more to "God of the Bible" - yet you offer nothing scientific, no research, no analysis, no reasonable argument as to why that link should be granted.
You try to wave your hands that it's all contained in the complexity of the underlying work that others have done... but it really isn't.
Your "theory"/"proof" requires you to actually provide the details to convince people of the validity of those links.
Not rely on claims that it is "obvious", "clear", "intuitive" etc, as you do throughout.
No, your theory is surprisingly simple.
Which makes it easy to spot that it's actually garbage.
And until you address the reasons why it is considered garbage, and convince that there really are links where you assert, through actual science, valid reasoning etc, then it will continue to be considered garbage.
There are several major areas of the theory that you are apparently not even aware of !
Possible, although I think I have addressed most of what you have put in your "proof" in the OP, at least.
For instance – there is the whole matter of my discovering (and even peer publishing) the fact that Gray's well known SHS (septo- hippocampal system) confirms NEUROLOGICALLY how my 13 axis cubic brain produces 13 personality types.
I have already addressed this in #965.
In summary: you have done nothing of the sort, but, once again, merely claimed that you have.
Your paper, if it is the one you have already linked, also does no such thing.
If it is in another paper, please link that one.
And beyond that – you're really not aware of the psychometric proof of the 13 axis cube of the SMOP (structural model of personality) which I explained the proof of in posts #963, 964 and 966 – which I mentioned to you several times and you completely ignored.
No, I addressed all that in #988, and why it is still all garbage with regard what you're trying to do.
It is FAR, FAR MORE IMPORTANT to comprehend the entire theory – that it is present a high school science level "line item critique" of a huge as yet uncomprehended theory..
No, it's not important to comprehend the entire theory.
That is an appeal to complexity, and is fallacious.
Errors in the various parts do two things: 1. show that there are errors, and that the conclusions from those parts are therefore unsound/invalid; 2. speak to the lack of rigour of the author.
The subsequent attempt to brush over, evade, ignore those errors and criticisms speak further to the character of the author.
What is more, if it had been one or two small errors then okay, but it is almost every single link you try to make that seems to be prone to error.
One does not need to understand the entirety to know that garbage is garbage.
The intention of carrying water to the thirsty might be honourable, but if the bottom of the bucket is so full of holes that it doesn't do what you claim, one doesn't need to look at the sides, or the handle.
Of course my suspicion is – that you have no intention of getting at the TRUTH – and as a matter of fact your intention is exactly the opposite – to OBFUSCATE the truth – because you feel very comfortable and successful
WITHOUT a God – and we are very aware of people like you.
I would love to get to the truth, I honestly would (although my intentions, and your suspicions of them, are irrelevant, btw).
Unfortunately your "theory" is garbage, as demonstrated repeatedly, and as remains unaddressed by you.
I am not obfuscating here, rather just pointing out the glaring flaws.
You are doing all the evading, ignoring, avoidance, and, yes, obfuscation, so as not to have to face up to and address those flaws.
Whether I am an atheist or a theist is also simply of no relevance, as you have claimed the "proof" to be scientific, and it is on that basis I have ripped it apart.
But I can assure you that no level of OBFUSCATION will ever prevail against a world full of people who absolutely WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE REALLY IS A GOD
Nice straw man. 
Of course it won't.
But your "proof" / "theory" is not going to give them the answer.
Unless they're ignorant and are just swayed by the complexity rather than what it is actually saying.
And then they'd be just as wrong as you are.
Which is no place to be for someone supposedly looking for the truth, is it.
