"Four legs good." "Two-legged failures"
How can one explain the stereotypically stunted reasoning pattern of many self-proclaimed leftists?
You begin a debate with a typical leftist, and they start spouting ideological slogans from their sect: "fighting for democracy," "combating fascism," "ending racism"—all brought up completely at random, even in a simple, one-on-one discussion between two ordinary people. Then, when you start asking them questions about the very concepts they are invoking—or about the topics they feel qualified to opine on—they either cannot develop their own line of reasoning regarding these overused terms, or they simply fail to engage with the actual complexity of the interconnected subjects at hand. Instead, they limit themselves to repeating what others within their "conformity bubbles" echo—things they mistake for solid arguments or established facts. Even when they happen to be right about something, if you possess a strong capacity for analytical intelligence—specifically rational intelligence—you will quickly notice how deficient they are when it comes to developing arguments in real-time. They rely on canned phrases, make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, employ moral or logical fallacies, and engage in gross oversimplifications—all while feigning intellectual depth. Furthermore, they frequently fall into self-contradiction. This apparent lack of genuinely intelligent reasoning—even when used to rationalize beliefs that are factually incorrect or poorly considered—seems widespread among this group and its various sub-factions (activists and the like: LGBTQ+ advocates, feminists, anti-racists, Marxists, etc.). Only a small minority among them are actually capable of performing-frequently truly intelligent mental gymnastics.
A more holistic right-winger, and..a more specialized leftist??
It has become common to observe—both in online debates between those on the right and the left, and in everyday life—a marked disparity in the ability to reason in real-time, with the former proving significantly more capable than the latter. For starters, the simple act of defending certain obvious facts—which are highly consequential to our lives but systematically denied by the left—makes things easier for a right-leaning debater. Consider, for instance, the argument that men and women cannot transition from one sex to the other—a position that rejects the pseudoscience underpinning radical trans activism. This pattern, frequently seen in online discourse and political debates, typically involves the leftist repeating slogans while struggling to construct a coherent line of reasoning, whereas the right-leaning individual tends to do the opposite.
But what could explain this??
Beyond the left’s pronounced tendency to distort obvious facts—which leaves its supporters less equipped to debate effectively or defend their own beliefs—another explanation is that those on the right (as well as those not aligned with the left) tend, on average or disproportionately, to possess a more "holistic" cognitive profile: a "know-a-little-bit-about-everything" approach, regardless of how superficial that knowledge might be. This could account for the correlation between a "know-it-all" attitude and a right-wing political-ideological affiliation; a certain aptitude—however minimal—for interdisciplinary thinking (at least regarding the fundamentals of the humanities) might lead some individuals to become overconfident in their own rational faculties. Conversely, the leftist, on average or disproportionately, tends to exhibit a more specialized, technocratic profile—developing their cognitive capacities in a more qualitatively restricted manner, the polar opposite of the "know-a-little-bit-about-everything" approach...it would render one more limited as a thinker and as a participant in political and social debate—precisely because such knowledge demands a greater capacity for dialogue and interdisciplinary agility...
Another explanation—complementary to, or perhaps even more significant than, the one previously presented—is that individuals who consistently identify with the right on the political-ideological spectrum are more "aligned with a more natural order." Consequently, they may find it easier to accept certain fundamental aspects of reality, such as the inherent, average differences between human groups. Conversely, for many who exhibit some form of psychopathology or other underlying deviation, leftist narratives—especially those centered on identity—prove far more attractive; they foster self-indulgence and victimhood rather than personal accountability and maturity...
And since, fundamentally, we think in accordance with who or what we are, an individual with a more pronounced deviation tends to reflect that very deviation as an integral part of themselves and....and the way one thinks or what one believes can result in an inability to transcend one’s own primary subjectivity—over-personalizing one’s own perceptions and transforming personal truths into universal ones...
Therefore, as mentioned above, understanding politics and the human sciences requires an interdisciplinary approach.
The true philosopher versus the technician
...And the cognitive essence of pseudo-intellectualism: a specialist who imagines they can be, or become, a true intellectual or philosopher?
Most teachers are, by definition, specialists—individuals who focus on teaching specific subjects. This is also true for the majority of people in our species, regardless of their professional field. However—in the real world, rather than in an ideal scenario—most teachers, especially those who graduate from "humanities" programs, do not become true experts in their fields. Firstly, because true expertise would require specializing in a "philosophical-scientific interdisciplinarity"—that is, the capacity for genuine understanding and dialogue both among these disciplines (history, psychology, philosophy, geography, etc.) and with adjacent fields (biology, economics, law, etc.). Secondly, the content taught in humanities programs has become heavily skewed toward a specific ideological stance, distorting what it ought to be: a cumulative body of authentic knowledge drawn from all the relevant disciplines, free from ideological filters that twist facts to fit a dogmatic—and often tenuously factual—worldview based on social, cultural, or philosophical (in short, "human") prisms.
* This implies a broader form of specialization, given that the humanities are highly interrelated, offering significant potential for dialogue and collaborative contribution.
In other words, a true "humanist" should be like a genuine philosopher—an "expert in generalization," as I have defined (or identified) it. Philosophy itself—as a "love of knowledge"—demands discipline in reasoning and judgment, engaging the fundamental aspects of intelligence that we employ at every moment. Hence, this "specialization in generalization"—the capacity to discern or judge—is, in fact, a broader, more generalist skill that is ever-present in our lives. This stands in relative contrast to the Sciences, which I would characterize as a "generalization of specialization" (where every scientific domain, through deep inquiry, evolves into a specific, distinct discipline). Furthermore, it is likely that the majority of humanities graduates fail to attain even a consistent technical specialization—that is, one grounded in concrete knowledge and practical utility—with the exception of those who go on to specialize in specific sub-disciplines..vaguely related within that "humanistic core"—such as those found in physical geography. In any case, true specialization in these fields would—to reiterate what was mentioned above—inevitably entail a related form of interdisciplinarity.
In reality, however, rather than genuine humanists, what we have increasingly seen—across different generations—is the emergence of "technicists" in pseudoscience. Many of these individuals behave explicitly as political actvists; not only do they show contempt for genuine interdisciplinarity—which, as argued here, is essential for specialization in the humanities—but the very specializations offered within these academic departments often fail to meet their true, ideal standard. The level of ideological plurality is extremely low, leading to a profound intellectual, factual, and even moral distortion of legitimate knowledge within the humanities.
Consequently, we are left with a faculty body that is largely "pseudo-technicist," yet its members remain convinced that they are intellectuals, true philosophers, or humanists.
But why?
What causes people with above-average intelligence to be so profoundly mistaken about themselves?
An obvious explanation for why someone might believe they are something they are not—or something they are incapable of becoming—is a chronic lack of self-awareness. This leads the individual to construct a caricatured self-image; for instance, they may exaggerate their own intelligence—whether in terms of its level, potential, or nature. In this context, we might see someone who has developed cognitively as a specialist, yet believes they possess the full capacity to think like an "intellectual"—the relative opposite of a specialist. An intellectual, by contrast, is someone capable of engaging in dialogue across the various disciplines that constitute the humanities—the core of the foundational sciences, along with the fields that serve as their complements—within the framework of the aforementioned interdisciplinarity.
This may stem from...for example, the belief held by a teacher that they can be an intellectual (and thus a humanist or philosopher) simply by practicing this profession. It is a hasty and misguided extrapolation—an appeal to authority, applied to oneself and amplified to the nth degree of ego—rather than a genuine vocation consistently put into practice.
However, these shortcomings—manifested as an attitude of pseudo-authority in matters where one demonstrates little or only a distorted grasp—are also evident in many self-proclaimed leftists who are neither teachers nor academics. A case in point is the significant segment of the artistic community that leans toward the political left. And perhaps—beyond "mere stupidity," though that may well be a factor—the hypothesis I am proposing here is that such individuals tend to possess a "specialist" cognitive profile. When they venture into debates on topics within the humanities and related fields—defending beliefs tied to these subjects, regardless of their factual accuracy—they reveal an inability to consistently apply sound judgment or discernment. They struggle to construct coherent arguments, even when defending their own (often misguided) ideas—a task at which a true intellectual excels.
Evidence for my hypothesis can be found precisely in this incapacity for independent reasoning or argumentation.
If you ask a technocrat or a specialist about their specific field, they will demonstrate a reasonable, or even excellent, level of "knowledge." However, true philosophical and scientific proficiency is not merely a matter of memorizing and replicating specialized information; it requires the ability to engage in a dialogue across a broader spectrum of human knowledge—particularly those domains most directly linked to the fundamental aspects (or facts) of our lives, such as the humanities and related disciplines. A deficiency in reasoning is clearly manifested by a lack of intellectual freedom and fluidity. Such individuals frequently resort to catchphrases, slogans, or other evasive tactics to avoid developing their own arguments or directly confronting their opponents—as well as their own ideas and beliefs. Instead of providing a well-founded justification for their positions, they merely seek to confirm what they already believe, revealing what may be a permanent underdevelopment in their capacity for reasoning. Therefore, one way to understand these qualitative differences in real-time reasoning—as suggested here—is that those who exhibit such deficits are cognitively "specialists," whereas more agile thinkers... and those who are truly sharp tend to be cognitively generalist—focused primarily on the most fundamental and influential knowledge in our lives. The first group, by contrast, reveals its deficiencies the moment it begins to express its own opinions and challenge the views of others. This also highlights a distinction in narcissism: between the person who keeps their thoughts to themselves and the one who loves to share what they "think" with others—and to "debate" it.
"Qualitative differences"
It is not merely, or even primarily, a matter of learning mathematics, writing beautifully, or memorizing a collection of facts. Rather, it concerns pure, straightforward reasoning, self-knowledge, intellectual honesty and humility, rationality, and even emotional intelligence—which is especially significant when directed inward.
A typical pseudo-intellectual is the antithesis of all this: intellectually arrogant and dishonest. They conflate opinion with fact and ideology with truth; they fail to recognize their own limitations—which is precisely why they end up behaving the way they do.
This does not imply that such individuals are found exclusively on the left side of the political-ideological spectrum. Rather, according to the cognitive hypothesis presented here, this cognitive profile is simply the most common one among them. This deficiency is often exacerbated by underlying deviations from a more natural order—such as psychiatric or neurological disorders—which impair higher-order cognitive functions like rationality. Indeed, a hallmark of many forms of psychopathology is a reduction in behavioral plasticity alongside a distortion of perception. (A mentally troubled individual may become increasingly self-absorbed—either as a defensive, hyper-vigilant reaction to the constant struggle to adapt, or because the disorder itself actively hinders the development of a more nuanced capacity for perception and understanding.)
Another symptomatic example of pseudo-intellectualism is an inability on avoiding contradiction
When you constantly fall into contradiction within your own thoughts, ideas, or beliefs, it tends to indicate that you have a poor grasp of what you defend or claim to believe—at least in any deep or precise sense. For if you truly understood that a contradiction—especially an absolute one—logically invalidates the belief or idea you are championing, you would revise that belief or the arguments you use to defend it—first and foremost to oneself. While contradictions are an inherent part of life, they vary in degree; a significant presence of absolute contradictions is a strong indicator of a poor grasp of one’s own beliefs. It is also important to emphasize that depth is not the same as complexity. One can understand an idea or thought with both precision and simplicity; conversely, one can become so mired in nuances that it results in "complexism"—an exaggerated or distorted mode of thinking that misses the most essential point.
Does the "specialist" type have a natural affinity for collectivism?
Although mediocre or simplistic* thinkers can be found anywhere across the political spectrum, they tend to be more densely concentrated on the Left—specifically within identity-based and Marxist circles.
* Not to be confused with a verbose pseudo-intellectual; a true thinker possesses genuine sophistication.
But why?
One possible explanation is that a stronger inclination toward the Left of the political-ideological spectrum correlates with a more narrow, "specialist" cognitive profile. This, in turn, often corresponds to deficiencies in broader, more generalized reasoning capabilities—a fact evidenced by individuals who, while possessing strong technical skills, prove simplistic or flawed as thinkers and debaters. Fair enough—but the "why" remains. A narrower cognitive profile may draw an individual toward collectivist social systems: first, because such systems are organized to function like a "superorganism," in which individuals serve as mere components; and second, because these "specialist" types—by virtue of their own specialized cognitive makeup—find themselves more naturally compatible with such systems than with social structures that are more atomized or based on individual competition. An attraction "toward cooperation"—a psychological aspect that also reflects one’s own cognitive nature. In other words, even though many may appear more psychologically individualistic—particularly those who self-identify with the Left—it has been shown that they are, in fact, more collectivist in this regard, given how closely they adhere to the collective standardization of their groups, both in thought and behavior.
While a collectivist nature is a very common tendency in social species—including humans, and spanning individuals from the center to the other side of the political-ideological spectrum—it is a byproduct of how such species have evolved. This evolution involved a rigorous division of adaptive tasks that benefit the group, even at the cost of suppressing individual autonomy. The degree of these collectivist cognitive and psychological tendencies appears to manifest more intensely at the extremes of the political-ideological spectrum. A key distinction is that, for those on the Left, these tendencies may be even more deeply rooted; they represent a departure from a more "natural" order—often accompanied by chronic feelings of inadequacy. In contrast, the Right has historically and structurally organized itself more in alignment with this "natural" order (hierarchies, family, reproduction, etc.). Consequently, those on the Left become even more committed to collectivist thought and behavior—much like how a significant deviation or imbalance creates greater dependency, or how a disorder increases behavioral stereotypy (limiting adaptive plasticity), thereby establishing a self-perpetuating cycle of dependency.
It is not merely "brainwashing."
If it were, many of these individuals would still be capable of arguing with a degree of intellectual freedom and fluency—even if only to defend erratic ideas or rigid, dogmatic beliefs. Since the opposite is what we observe, my "cognitive hypothesis" may hold more weight: that there exists a "mismatch"—an asymmetry—between one's conviction... ...the gap between believing one knows and the reality of knowing far less—a clear deficit in self-awareness—is often linked to the cognitive profile of a "specialist": someone who knows "a great deal (or more than just a little)" about a specific subject, as opposed to knowing "a little bit about everything." This is a more nuanced way to categorize such individuals than simply dismissing them as "stupid"—though they may well be—as this stupidity does not manifest uniformly; it possesses layers and subtleties...
If a specialist tends to have a more limited grasp of the world at large...
...could this be why they are more prone to ideological fanaticism and a preference for collectivist social systems?
Those who gravitate toward dogmatic systems of thought often reveal a deeper intellectual dependency—or perhaps an underlying insecurity regarding their own intelligence, specifically their capacity for rational thought—which drives this attachment to dogmatism. It may not be merely a matter of insecurity, but rather a subconscious perception of incapacity...It has served, in particular, to reinforce our instincts while leading us to believe that we are less dependent upon—and less influenced by—them than we truly are. This constitutes a form of abstract sophistication that yields highly dissonant results, as evidenced by the many wars ignited by and among human beings—conflicts in which genuine dialogue, and the capacity for reflection previously mentioned, have been cast aside.
Precisely because, cognitively, one functions like "a cell" within a social organism, any attempt to understand the world beyond one's own *milieu* reveals a provincialism no different from that of any other ordinary human being (who is typically more conservative)—even while masquerading as a "pseudo-cosmopolitan." Consequently, such an individual becomes dependently attached to ideological systems of beliefs, ideas, and thoughts.
Here lies another distinction between (genuine) philosophy and science, and between the true intellectual and the pseudo-intellectual.
Science seeks to suppress subjective experience in favor of greater objectivity, whereas philosophy strives to establish a constant dialogue between subjectivity and objectivity. Science depersonalizes even that which is most intimate to us, while philosophy personalizes even that which seems—or truly is—most distant.
A true intellectual or philosopher dedicates themselves to building bridges of dialogue between the subjective and the objective—a process also essential to the construction of moral principles.
A pseudo-intellectual, by contrast, leans too heavily into either objectivity or subjectivity—most commonly the latter—revealing a deficiency in a function that is vital to authentic philosophical *praxis*. It is precisely this incapacity that fosters irrational beliefs—beliefs which, worse still, are channeled toward demographic niches prone to incorporating them into their own ideological systems or worldviews.
"Neurodivergent" Left versus "Normal" Right
"Neurodivergent" is a euphemism for "insane" or "deviant"—terms once used to describe what was long considered an illness, a deviation, or a disorder (and, in many cases, has always been exactly that). The "Left" has embraced everything that deviates from what is deemed "normal"—that is, from what aligns with a more natural order—as a core cause, particularly within the realms of culture and identity politics. Yet, at its essence, this stems from a sense of inadequacy that has been present since the Left’s inception as an ideology and political force: the perspective of the weaker, the powerless, or the less dominant. As I have mentioned in other texts or reflections, if "nature" has favored "evil"—defined according to a human moralistic perspective—then the traditional right has represented this age-old power dynamic, while the left has served as a rallying point for the discontented. Furthermore, the "right" has not only embodied a more "natural" and potent form of oppression, but also the "good" that power brings—in this context, the advantage of being more closely aligned with "nature" (natural selection, adaptation, etc.), which includes intelligence itself. Consequently, if one sets aside the pervasive indoctrination that portrays everything associated with the right as inherently stupid or evil, it becomes clear that the right possesses both a positive and a negative legacy—one that manifests across all practical aspects of human life. Only now, in this era of decadence and degeneration, has much of what was always—and rightly—considered "wrong" come to be regarded as "right." One need only look at a "modern" building—ugly and simplistic—and compare it with the fantastic details of a church to see a pattern that extends into many other areas of life. This leads to one sensible conclusion: in many significant respects, human society—especially in the West—has declined dramatically. A second, related conclusion follows: we are either approaching or have already passed a point of equilibrium, entering a new "dark age." Yet, unlike the old order—which was more aligned with nature—this new era is defined by opposing forces that are seizing power and imposing themselves.
These deviations from what is logical or "in accordance with nature" manifest across various human dimensions—neurological, mental, cognitive, behavioral, and cultural. Few of those who deviate possess the capacity for rational self-reflection—or "free will"—sufficient to transcend their own instincts. This is what distinguishes them from the "normal" majority. Essentially, there is a tendency to invert basic logic, manifesting as a form of primary, subjective self-projection. For instance, a woman with hypersexual inclinations might seek to "naturalize" her behavior—even attempting to justify it scientifically—rather than acknowledging that she is experiencing a behavioral imbalance (regardless of whether or not this acknowledgment would actually change her actions).
To reiterate a point I have made in previous writings—some dating back quite a while—human beings, on average, tend to be more driven by instinct than they would like to admit, or than they believe themselves to be. Language, in particular, has served to reinforce these instincts, while simultaneously fostering the illusion that we are less dependent upon—and less influenced by—them than we truly are. It is a kind of abstract sophistication, yet one that carries real-world consequences. ...more dissonant—as exemplified by the many wars that have been ignited by and among human beings, in which genuine dialogue—rooted in the aforementioned capacity for reflection—has been disregarded...
Therefore, such a deviation—whether psychological or organic—inherently points toward an increased risk of distorted perception.Certain cognitive traits—such as a more limited profile regarding learning potential and comprehension—along with other mental characteristics, which do not necessarily represent deviations or an imbalance in functioning, can collectively destine an individual toward this type of impairment: a form of pseudo-intellectualism.
