The Gospel of the Toothpaste Cap: Kurgan’s Neuroscience of Bitterness

Every once in a while, The Kurgan attempts to solve all of human nature in one post.

In his latest, titled “Implications of the theory of dual brain processing on relations between the sexes”, he claims to have discovered the root cause of most modern conflict between men and women: women are biologically incapable of logic, men are too logical to be understood, and all of this proves… something. It's hard to tell.

The irony? For a man claiming left-brain supremacy, the post is a disorganized torrent of emotional reflections, failed marriages, and forgotten toothpaste caps. What follows isn’t science, and it certainly isn’t theology.

It’s autobiography disguised as theory.

---

🧠 A “Theory” With No Author, No Structure, No Proof

The essay is built on something he calls the “Dual Brain Processing Theory,” which he attributes to someone named “Gaius Baltar” — yes, like the villain from Battlestar Galactica. He gives no citations, no publication, and no scientific sourcing. He simply “names” it and proceeds to reinterpret all of human history through its lens.

The supposed theory itself is a recycled pop-psychology myth:

• Left brain = logic

• Right brain = emotion

Real neuroscience abandoned this oversimplification decades ago. Brain function is far more distributed and integrated. But for The Kurgan, this old chestnut becomes a pseudo-scientific cudgel he uses to explain why he can’t communicate with women, or anyone with a different emotional style.

It’s not his fault, you see. It’s your corpus callosum.

---

📉 From Relationships to Rants — and Back Again

Rather than offer coherent applications of this theory, The Kurgan immediately launches into a narrative about:

• How women at ATM machines are proof of feminine irrationality,

• Why checkout lines reveal female solipsism,

• How his two failed marriages couldn’t possibly have been his fault,

• And why his 155 IQ made it impossible for him to stay married to anyone who can’t recite Euclid.

He compares women to narcissists.
He claims they have “limited computing power.”
He uses the phrase “feral and rabid ferrets.”

And yet, at the same time, he insists this isn’t misogyny — it’s just “statistical modeling.”

---

🪞 Projection Dressed as Principle

While the post is ostensibly about female irrationality, what’s most revealing is the emotional tone of the piece. It reads more like a late-night journal entry from a man trying to make sense of his pain than the detached analysis he claims it is.

• He revisits his divorces.

• He relives past arguments.

• He reinterprets old frustrations through this “theory.”

• He holds up a toothpaste cap as a metaphor for the fall of Western marriage.

The conclusion? If only women had better left-brain function, they’d appreciate him. But since they don’t, and the IQ gap is “unbridgeable,” the failure must lie with biology — not behavior.

He mistakes his own inability to form long-term, fruitful relationships as evidence of global, neurological dysfunction.

It’s not a theory.
It’s therapy.
Public, unfiltered, unstructured therapy.

---

🧨 The Final Irony

For a man so proud of his supposed logical dominance, the post is emotionally indulgent, frequently incoherent, and full of sweeping generalizations without evidence.

Even worse, he makes claims that:

• Contradict modern neuroscience,

• Ignore Catholic teaching on male-female complementarity,

• And explain away his own shortcomings under the guise of “left-brain clarity.”

His "solution" is for men (like him) to either:

• Evolve beyond their frustrations,

• Or leave their irrational wives,

• Because women, biologically, just don’t get it.

So once again, it’s not love, grace, sacrifice, or self-awareness that fixes relationships — it’s men adapting to women’s flaws because women are neurologically unequipped to meet them halfway.

---

🎯 Conclusion: When the Theory is Just a Cry for Help

Let’s be clear: there’s nothing wrong with trying to understand relationships.
There’s even value in considering how different people process emotion, logic, or memory.

But if every failed marriage becomes a data point, and every checkout line becomes a sociological experiment, you’re not doing science.
You’re rationalizing resentment.

And if you use your “high IQ” to explain why you’re the only one who gets it, while everyone else — ex-wives, Protestants, checkout clerks — are lost in their feelings, you haven’t discovered a theory.

You’ve discovered a very elaborate way to avoid taking responsibility.

So perhaps the Gospel of the Toothpaste Cap isn’t about neuroscience at all.

Perhaps it’s just what happens when a man’s crusade becomes so lonely, he starts explaining away the silence with imaginary science.