What is Constructivism? Common Denominators

[Iwannaplato]

All good and pertinent questions, to which VA has no cogent answers. All we'll get is droning repetition of stock answers that don't actually address what your questions are getting at.

But it gets better....
Talk about Constructivism.
In Wizard's future thread VA says the following.....

At present, evolution wise all humans are more likely to be crocodilian-humans than being human-humans.
It was only relatively a short while ago, our ancestors were animals and thus the present Humans are being more animals than being more humans.
As such, it is the present default, as being more animal, all humans are programmed to focus their attention on the past rather than the future; this is most effective to facilitate survival and preservation of the species.

So many humorous things in here.
1) Why crocodilian-humans? Why not primate humans? Mammalian-humans?
2) Given that the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable according to VA, why does he not agree with it that homo sapians are primates and animals?
3) Where does he get this idea that animals focus their attention on the past? Generally animals focus on the present and near future: the latter, for example, when hunting. What is his evidence that animals focus their attention on the past?

Then comes this...

It is also a natural evolutionary default that a certain small % [say less than 1%] of humans are programmed [with mutations] to deviate from the norm to explore and think [philosophize] about of the greater threats in the future. It is this small % who unknowingly has to face greater risks of fatalities; this is so evident with the adventurous who deviated from the norms.

1) Where did he get his <1% figure? Does it come from the scientific FSK? if so perhaps he could link to research.
2) It seems he considers himself to have a genetic mutation programming himself to explore and philosophize about the greater threats of the future. How did he determine this? Was it via the scientific FSK? Was it through the sociology FSK that he found the <1% claim?
3) He implies that he and his fellow mutants are at greater risk of fatality because the adventurous who deviated from norms have been so evidently at greater risk. What is all this based on? Which FSK?

And now the kicker.....

But unfortunately, 90% of the posters here are very dogmatic in sticking to what they are naturally programmed with, i.e. stuck with the past and the norm.
This is why they are dogmatic with philosophical realism, [the evolutionary default] i.e. reality is mind-independent and many get very nasty [will even kill oppositions] when faced with disagreements.

VA is actually saying here that his life is in danger from other posters here. Now to be fair, English is not his first language. He may not realize that his wording means that posters here are a threat to his life. He may simply have meant that realists in general are a threat to his life and the lives of other antirealists.

If you know VA's history, this means that VA is viewing realists like he has in the past viewed Muslims.

Here is the post in context. I posted my response here because I think it gives a sense of what VA's contructivism is capable of.
viewtopic.php?p=642924#p642924