Reminds of Daniel Everett's work with the Pirahã, who have non-existent recursion in language. Unfortunately one exception in biology is not evidence of generality. Proof by contradiction works in math, doesn't work very well in biology. Doesn't even work well in physics e.g. room temperature super conductors are extremely rare even if they exist.
Physically you can make people do anything, but what they want internally is a completely different matter and there is no way today to probe that.
Let's assume there is a large section of people who can only love their direct off springs, the author could perhaps claim that that would be immoral - is this gaslighting or what. What's the end game for this kind of stuff - it's to eliminate all preferences - quite akin to slavery.
Not everyone is a good debater. You'll not be able to logically convince everyone, but it is possible that you'll be able to move a percentage toward your side of the argument.
At the minimum good debating requires taking perspectives, it isn't sufficient to shoot down or simply argue against the other side.
Therein lies the difficulty - to allow yourself to take perspective of the other side opens you up to the possibility of losing because you do not have the skills to navigate the complexity of debating.
People who can take perspectives and then still choose their side, are naturally much more rational and that is evidence to those who are watching.
The more complex the languages for building web pages become, the more complex browsers become, the harder it is for someone to build or continue to build a Chrome alternative, the harder it becomes to challenge Google.
The more complex these languages are, the more SEO content gets generated ad nauseum.
Yet it is impossible to learn CSS from searching Google.
Physically you can make people do anything, but what they want internally is a completely different matter and there is no way today to probe that.
Let's assume there is a large section of people who can only love their direct off springs, the author could perhaps claim that that would be immoral - is this gaslighting or what. What's the end game for this kind of stuff - it's to eliminate all preferences - quite akin to slavery.