On a question, multiple perspectives, and rationality

 Is Kim Jong Un right about anything?

This question might seem absurd, especially to large swaths of the political-ideological spectrum; given that he is a bloodthirsty and cruel dictator, one would expect him to be—conclusively—completely misguided regarding his beliefs, values, and life path. A rational analysis* of his moral standing inevitably leans toward a harsh judgment based on his conduct throughout his life. Yet, even if it isn't necessarily relevant to know *what* he is right about—whether in moral or factual terms—it is relevant to know that he *is* right about at least *something*. Because every human being is, even the cruelest or most insane among us. Even someone delirious in the street, in the grip of uncontrolled psychosis, or someone with a macabre track record of millions of indirect deaths—as is often the case with a cruel dictator. It remains rational to understand that even a truly ruthless individual, like the one in the example, will be right about something. It is possible to hold a definitive perspective on a specific individual, group, or ideology while simultaneously embracing other perspectives—such as the universal human insight that any member of our species who is even minimally cognitively functional, no matter how evil or insane, is still right about something. Or even the effort to examine in detail exactly what those correct points might be.

And this applies to groups or ideologies as well...

This is the difference between constantly seeking a definitive, binary perspective and seeking to broaden the range of perspectives on everything—without that addition nullifying or diminishing the importance of those views that are most relevant or significant to our judgment.

In short: even if Kim Jong Un might be right about something, he remains a villain with a great deal of blood on his hands. Or consider this: even if North Korea's dominant ideology is unequivocally despicable, there may still be—or indeed are—sensible aspects to it; for instance, the emphasis on the collective over the individual—the opposite of what currently prevails in the Western world... Yet, even in this regard, it is fair to note that this is positive only in a primary sense, since the collectivism typical of a totalitarian society like that one entails the individual's total submission to the collective... Thus, even a specific aspect or angle regarding a given ideology, society, or individual can harbor greater complexity or qualitative variation.

* Morality, viewed through a more objective lens, can be defined as everything categorized as "right," "negotiable," or "wrong"—primarily based on the needs of the specific individual or group. From a more universal perspective, however, it can be defined as whatever is essential or inevitable for an individual or group to practice in order to ensure their own survival. This definition excludes cases of organic or mental dysfunction where this logical rule is consistently violated—such as in antisocial personality disorder, where right and wrong are determined not by reasoned judgment but by its absence, leading to extreme or gratuitous cruelty driven by a sadistic desire to act in such a manner...

A highly relevant example with immense influence on the modern world is Nazism—and the typically extremist, binary criticism leveled against it and the various topics associated with it...

Is it always wrong? Everything it stood for, or everything it preached?

Loving one's own race or ethnicity—something it advocated—is not wrong. Emphasizing "good morals"—especially those that are objectively sound, such as a stable family structure—is not entirely wrong either. Even regarding certain beliefs of a more political and contextual nature—such as hatred toward the Jewish people—the error lay far more in overgeneralization than in being completely wrong (as the vast majority of "anti-Nazis" claim), as if centuries of persecution against this group lacked any logical basis rooted in their actions—particularly those of their political-economic "elites." And this need not lead to an extremist or binary conclusion—such as "if the Nazis weren't entirely wrong about the Jews, then they were entirely right"...

The multiple-perspective method—characteristic of a more rational approach—is essentially about learning to detect and understand nuances; this is precisely what is most lacking when, in a debate, X claims that XX is (completely) right and Y claims that it is (completely) wrong... It becomes yet another futile discussion that leads nowhere—or, if it does lead somewhere, it is to a place of ignorance and distortion rather than enlightenment.

We do not have to hate an entire people, but neither..we ought to worship it uncritically, especially if there is no reason to do so.

We do not have to hate our own race or ethnicity, nor hate other races or ethnicities. But neither do we have to embrace positive or negative extremes regarding our own or those of others.

If I choose X, it does not mean I must totally exclude Y.

It is possible to conclude that Kim Jong Un or Adolf Hitler are right about something—as every human being is—without that implying we worship them, even though we ought to detest them. And the same can be said of any ideology...

For what affects us most negatively, even today, is precisely these binary extremes masquerading as "normalcies," ​​taking turns in power and vying for territory, rather than being identified for what they are: indisputable manifestations of applied irrationality...

Sobre uma pergunta, múltiplas perspectivas e racionalidade

 Kim Jong Un está certo sobre alguma coisa?? 

Essa pergunta pode parecer absurda especialmente para largas instâncias do espectro político-ideológico, porque se tratando de um ditador sanguinário e cruel, é de se esperar que, conclusivamente, ele seja um sujeito completamente equivocado quanto às suas crenças ou valores e trajetória de vida. Sua balança moral se, por uma análise mais racional*, pende inexoravelmente para um julgamento duro, de acordo com a sua conduta durante o seu ciclo de existência. No entanto, mesmo que não seja necessariamente relevante saber no que ele está certo, se em termos morais ou factuais, é relevante saber que ele está, em relação a, pelo menos, alguma coisa. Porque qualquer ser humano está, mesmo o mais cruel ou insano de nós. Mesmo alguém que está delirando no meio da rua entregue a uma psicose fora de controle, ou que acumula um currículo macabro de milhões de mortes indiretas, tal como costuma acontecer com um ditador cruel. Ainda assim, é racional entender que, mesmo um sujeito muito impiedoso, como o do exemplo, vai estar certo sobre alguma coisa, por ser possível ter uma perspectiva conclusiva sobre determinado sujeito, grupo ou ideologia, mas, ao mesmo tempo, conseguir abarcar outras perspectivas, como aquela em que, se conclui, com base em uma universalidade humana: de que todo sujeito de nossa espécie que é minimamente funcional em termos cognitivos, independente do quão mau ou insano possa ser, ainda está certo sobre alguma coisa. Ou mesmo de se buscar esmiuçar em detalhes quais seriam os pontos não-equivocados. 

E isso também inclui grupos ou ideologias...

Essa é a diferença entre sempre se buscar por uma perspectiva conclusiva e binária e de buscar ampliar o rol de perspectivas sobre tudo, sem que essa adição anule ou reduza a importância das mais hierarquicamente importantes ou relevantes para o nosso discernimento. 

De: se Kim Jong Un pode estar certo sobre algo, ele continua sendo um facínora com muito sangue nas mãos.

Ou de também: se a ideologia dominante da Coreia do Norte é conclusivamente desprezível, ainda podem existir, ou existem aspectos sensatos, por exemplo, a ênfase na coletividade sobre o individualismo, o oposto do que acontece, atualmente, no mundo ocidental... 

Mesmo nesse aspecto, é factual ponderar que é apenas primariamente positivo, já que o coletivismo típico de uma sociedade totalitária, como essa, significa a total submissão do indivíduo ao coletivo... Portanto, mesmo um aspecto ou ângulo específico sobre certa ideologia, sociedade ou indivíduo, pode conter mais complexidade ou variação de qualidade.

* A moralidade, a partir de um conceito mais objetivo, pode ser determinada como tudo o que é definido como "certo", "negociável" e "errado", primeiramente de acordo com as necessidades de cada indivíduo ou grupo. Então, a partir de um conceito mais universal, pode ser definida como tudo o que é imprescindivelmente necessário ou inevitável de ser praticado por um indivíduo ou grupo visando sua própria sobrevivência, o que exclui disfunções orgânicas ou mentais da mente humana em que essa regra lógica é constantemente quebrada, tal como no caso de um transtorno de personalidade antissocial, em que o certo e o errado não são determinados pela ponderação, mas pela falta da mesma, do agir de maneira extrema ou cruel sem necessidade, além do desejo sádico de agir assim...

Um exemplo muito relevante que tem uma influência extrema no mundo atual: o nazismo e a crítica tipicamente extremista e binária que se faz sobre ele e sobre outros tópicos aos quais se relaciona variavelmente...

Está sempre errado?? Tudo o que defende ou tudo o que pregou?? 

Amar a própria raça ou etnia, um exemplo do que pregou, não está errado. Enfatizar os "bons costumes", especialmente os mais objetivamente certos, como uma constituição familiar estável, não está de todo errado. Mesmo quanto a certas crenças de caráter mais político e contextual, por exemplo, o ódio ao povo judeu, errou muito mais em seu excesso de generalização do que, como afirmam a grande maioria dos "anti nazistas", de estar completamente errado, como se séculos de perseguição a esse povo não tivessem qualquer respaldo lógico com base em suas atitudes, especialmente de suas "elites" político-econômicas. E sem que isso tenha que resultar ou retornar a uma conclusão extremista ou binária de: "se os nazistas não estavam totalmente errados sobre os judeus, então, estavam totalmente certos"... 

O método das múltiplas perspectivas, característico de uma abordagem mais racional, é basicamente o de aprender a detectar e compreender nuances, justamente o que mais falta quando, em um debate, X afirma que XX está (totalmente) certo e Y afirma que está (totalmente) errado... É mais uma discussão inútil que não chega a lugar nenhum ou se chega é a um lugar de ignorância e distorção do que de esclarecimento. 

Não temos que odiar um povo inteiro, mas também não devemos adorá-lo de maneira acrítica, principalmente se não há razão para fazê-lo. 

Não temos que odiar nossa raça ou etnia ou odiar outras raças ou etnias. Mas também não temos que abraçar extremismos positivos ou negativos sobre as nossas ou as dos outros.  

Se eu escolho X, não significa que tenha que excluir totalmente Y. 

É possível concluir que Kim Jong Un ou Adolf Hitler estão certos sobre alguma coisa, como todo ser humano está, e sem que isso signifique adorá-los, e mesmo se devemos detestá-los. E o mesmo pode ser dito sobre qualquer ideologia...

Pois o que mais nos afeta negativamente, até hoje em dia, é justamente esses extremismos binários se passando como "normalidades", se revezando no poder e disputando territórios, ao invés de serem identificados pelo que são: como manifestações indiscutíveis de irracionalidades aplicadas...

On Self-Awareness and Rationality

A crucial aspect of rational intelligence—one that is rarely discussed—is self-awareness. It is through self-awareness that we can analyze and evaluate our own thoughts and actions.

Scientifically speaking, this is known as metacognition.

It is not merely "thinking about thinking," because thought generally leads to behavior—whether directly, when thought and action align, or indirectly, when an underlying logic (such as contradiction or hypocrisy) persists despite an apparent inconsistency.

Self-awareness allows us to judge ourselves—our thoughts and our deeds. Consequently, we can review our conduct and decide whether or not to maintain it.

And what a difference that makes...

I have known people who appear—or appeared—to possess only the most rudimentary level of self-awareness. I say "have known" because some of them met tragic ends precisely because they were never truly capable of self-criticism—the kind that is effective, precise, measured, and constant.

Essentially, a person with underdeveloped self-awareness is far more likely to think and act based on emotional impulse. This leads them to commit errors, lapses, and frequent missteps that can come at a high cost later on. They are also far more prone to extreme stubbornness—and I do not use that term lightly.

They are the type who almost never truly examines themselves, and when they do attempt it, the process lacks depth or precision. They blindly forge paths that often bring more harm than good, persisting in their errors—frequently without even clearly distinguishing between what they are doing "right" and what they are doing "wrong." If psychiatry were a little less limited than it currently is, perhaps it would be possible to diagnose this specific type of irrationality disorder. 

Among disorders of irrationality, this one relates primarily to instrumental—or behavioral—rationality, while its connection to epistemic—or cognitive—rationality is secondary. Fundamentally, our political-ideological beliefs or our levels of specific and general knowledge are not critical factors for this type of disorder; I believe it is possible to have limited knowledge of the world one inhabits yet still detect errors in one’s own conduct and revise one’s actions or decisions. I also believe there is often a coherence gap between thought and action—a disconnect that can lead brilliant thinkers to act wrongly, while causing mediocre thinkers to make sensible life decisions.

I consider myself an example of this: for quite a few years, I pursued a misguided path based on decisions rooted in personal thoughts or beliefs. When I finally realized how wrong I had been, I managed to return to a healthier path—even as I simultaneously developed my epistemic rationality. Today, I view myself as a "patient" in remission—much like a recovering addict, though my "addiction" was not to narcotics. Instead, it involved unresolved internal issues that I dealt with by validating them—much like justifying a psychopathological condition (such as anxiety) or even adopting an identity around it, rather than simply treating it...

Sobre autoconsciência e racionalidade

 Um aspecto muito importante, e que parece ser pouco comentado sobre a inteligência racional, é a autoconsciência. É por ela que podemos analisar e avaliar nossos próprios pensamentos e nossas próprias ações.

Cientificamente falando, chamam-na de metacognição.

Não é apenas o pensar sobre o pensar, porque o pensamento geralmente leva ao comportamento, mesmo se de maneira direta, quando pensamento e ação estão coerentes, ou de maneira indireta, quando, apesar de haver uma inconsistência, ainda existe uma lógica subjacente (de contradição ou hipocrisia).

É pela autoconsciência que podemos julgar a nós mesmos: do que pensamos e fazemos. E, com isso, rever condutas, se para mantê-las ou não. 

E como isso faz uma diferença…

Eu conheço e conheci pessoas que parecem/pareciam não ter uma autoconsciência mais desenvolvida do que em seus níveis mais básicos. Digo, conheci, porque algumas delas encontraram um fim trágico justamente porque nunca foram realmente capazes de autocrítica: eficaz, precisa, ponderada e constante.

Basicamente, uma pessoa que parece provida de uma autoconsciência subdesenvolvida está muito mais propensa a pensar e a agir na base do impulso emocional e isso levá-la a cometer erros, deslizes, desvios frequentes … que podem custar caro mais tarde. Estão muito mais propensas a serem extremamente teimosas, sem medo de exagero descritivo aqui…

O tipo que quase nunca realmente se examina, e quando tenta fazê-lo, não o faz de maneira profunda e/ou precisa; que, cegamente, constrói trajetórias que, muitas vezes, lhes traz mais prejuízos que benefícios, porque insiste em seus erros, se frequentemente nem sabe como distinguir com clareza o que está fazendo “certo’ ou “errado’. Pois se a psiquiatria fosse um pouco menos limitada do que é, talvez, fosse possível estabelecer um diagnóstico para esse tipo de transtorno de irracionalidade.

Dos transtornos de irracionalidade, esse se relaciona primeiramente com a racionalidade instrumental, ou de comportamento, sendo sua relação com a racionalidade epistêmica, ou de pensamento, mais secundária. A priori, para esse tipo de transtorno, nossas crenças político-ideológicas e/ou nossos níveis de conhecimentos específicos e gerais não são absolutamente importantes, porque ainda acredito que seja possível conhecer menos o mundo em que se vive, mas conseguir detectar em si mesmo, erros de conduta, e rever ações ou decisões. Ainda acredito que exista uma barreira de coerência frequente entre o que se pensa e como se age, que pode levar bons pensadores a agirem errado e pensadores medíocres a tomarem decisões sensatas em suas vidas.

Eu mesmo me considero um exemplo que, por uns bons anos, me embrenhei em uma rota equivocada a partir de decisões que foram tomadas com base em pensamentos ou crenças de âmbito pessoal, e que quando, finalmente, vi o quão errado estava, consegui, mesmo se, paralelamente, também tenha desenvolvido minha racionalidade epistêmica, retornar a um caminho mais saudável. Hoje, me considero um “paciente” em remissão, como um ex-viciado, ainda que o meu vício não tenha sido algum tipo de entorpecente, se eram questões até então não-resolvidas dentro de minha mente e que, exatamente por isso, lidava com elas ratificando-as, o mesmo que justificar um quadro psicopatológico, como a ansiedade, por exemplo, inclusive de adotar uma identidade relacionada, ao invés de simplesmente tratá-la…

On my feelings regarding a certain country

 I hate K-pop and South Korea with a passion… I’ve tried watching South Korean movies and didn’t like them. I tried watching clips from one of the many South Korean series out there and didn’t like them. As for the pop music, I only ever enjoyed one song from about ten or fifteen years ago—and even then, it was a very lukewarm "like," the sort of: "it’s not crap; it’s listenable, even danceable, kinda cute," and nothing more… it was the choreography in the music video that caught my eye, and that’s it… I don’t like the sound of the South Korean language. I don’t like how they write and present stories (many are identical to the mindless American comedies typical of the 90s). And I don’t like the country: it’s a total sham. A country that’s a champion of plastic surgery, with sky-high rates of bullying, suicide, and depression—it’s not a country; it’s a sickness.

An EXTREMELY materialistic, class-obsessed, and competitive culture—I mean, a senseless competition for status… everything I despise most in this world…

Dos meus sentimentos em relação a um certo país

 Eu odeio K-pop e Coreia do Sul com uma paixão… Já tentei ver filme sul coreano e não gostei. Tentei ver trechos de uma das muitas séries sul coreanas disponíveis por aí e não gostei. Já as músicas pop, apenas curti uma música de uns dez ou quinze anos atrás, e mesmo assim, é um “gostei” muito vago, do tipo: “não é uma merda, é ouvível e até dançável, bunitinho” e nada mais… me chamou mais a atenção a coreografia do clipe da música, e só… não gosto do som da língua sul coreana. Não gosto de como eles escrevem e apresentam histórias (muitas são idênticas ao besteirol americano típico dos anos 90). E não gosto do país: um grande engodo. Um país campeão em cirurgias plásticas, com índices altíssimos de bullying, suicídio e depressão, não é um país, é uma doença. 

Uma cultura EXTREMAMENTE materialista, classista e competitiva, digo, uma competição por status sem sentido.. tudo o que eu mais desprezo nesse mundo…

Examining the dogma of racial equality in Brazil through data

What if the socioeconomic disparities between racial groups in Brazil are not merely or exclusively a matter of unequal opportunities, social exclusion, or "historical legacies"????

(And this is far from being the case only in Brazil...)

https://www.portaliede.com.br/estudo-do-iede-mostra-diferenca-de-desempenho-entre-alunos-brancos-e-pretos/

This is an interesting study showing that, across the entire country, racial disparities in academic performance remain consistent: as a group, self-identified white students achieved more satisfactory results¹ than self-identified Black students (a category that includes *pardos*—mixed-race individuals—in line with the "woke" trend adopted by many traditional Brazilian institutions: embracing bourgeois-leftist ideas, such as arbitrarily eliminating the *pardo*/mixed-race category and subsuming it into the Black racial category, perhaps to stoke antagonism toward self-identified whites)... It is also noteworthy that, despite extensive data and certain details² that merely replicate findings from studies in other countries³, the researchers' conclusion was strictly subservient to the totalitarian political correctness prevalent in higher education...

It is worth noting that these results confirm what has been consistently found in many previous studies. Therefore, this is not an isolated finding; rather, it aligns perfectly with the body of data and evidence accumulated on the subject—evidence robust enough to support a verdict that is, at the very least, partially conclusive. 

The data reveal not only a significant advantage held by one group over the other but also that, when social class is introduced as an additional comparative factor, this advantage becomes even more pronounced. They show that, starting from the same socioeconomic level, the higher-performing ("white") group maintains its lead over the other ("black") group; furthermore, individuals from the first group at a lower socioeconomic level perform similarly to those from the second group at a higher level. This finding contradicts one of the key tenets of "social theories" championed by academics ideologically aligned with the Left—namely, that social status has a direct, long-term impact on the prevalence of behaviors labeled "dysfunctional" or "deficient," such as poor academic performance. After all, if this factor were the sole or primary driver, "black" students from a higher social class should, on average, demonstrate academic performance equal to or better than that of "white" students at the same social level. Yet, the data show something else: "black" students in favorable socioeconomic circumstances perform—on average, or as a group—similarly to "white" students in less favorable socioeconomic circumstances...

So, what is the most realistic (objective and impartial) conclusion we can reach? 

...that the egalitarian leftist thesis—which attributes these differences exclusively to social, historical, or cultural factors while consistently denying biological or intrinsic ones—is fundamentally flawed... That perhaps the cause is not merely "structural racism," "oppression," or the "legacy of slavery," but rather that certain groups, on average, possess greater cognitive capabilities than others—regardless of whether ''one group' has a history of oppressing the other, and even if this unequal power dynamic actually reflects those very differences (much as humans judge other species based on their own superior intelligence). Furthermore, acknowledging this reality as it stands is neither immoral nor "racist," provided that scientific truth—empirical, impartial, and objective—takes precedence over moral postulates. Indeed, a system of morality can only be correctly constructed when based on evidence and facts; truth is the only possible way to systematize the practice of justice. For if we persist in believing that the only way to combat racial and social inequalities is through "historical reparations" and wealth redistribution—attributing the issues to abstractions—it is highly likely that, in the medium to long term, such measures will fail to definitively solve the problem of inequality and might even exacerbate it. After all, welfare-style measures for the poor typically overlook the fact that poverty is not merely a structural issue but also a cognitive and psychological one—and thus largely intractable through superficial interventions, such as providing perfect schooling conditions to students from lower socioeconomic strata, if their—on average—inferior performance is not solely or primarily due to their socioeconomic conditions or environments (especially given that there are students at the same social level who demonstrate excellent academic performance, not to mention the minority of "Black" students and/or those of......from the "lower class" who demonstrate performance levels satisfactorily similar to their "white" and/or "upper-class" peers...

# There are exceptions to this rule where a scientific truth does not always have to override a moral postulate. For instance, consider a hypothetical empirical finding that the majority of prisoners who commit heinous crimes possess excellent potential for rehabilitation... Even if science were to prove this, the morally just course of action is for them to remain imprisoned for many years, or even to face the harshest penalty of all: the death penalty.

- Take the example here, if it were discovered that a primary cause of racial disparities in socioeconomic indicators lies in psycho-cognitive differences between ethnic groups, using this as a justification to halt social measures aimed at combating extreme inequality would be problematic. This is especially true if the goal is not merely to promote meritocratic measures—rewarding the most capable—but also to avoid punishing those less capable in specific technical areas; if, in both cases, these differences do not simply reflect a matter of choice, then the punishment is literally unjust—much like curtailing women's physical freedom simply because they are, on average, physically weaker than men...

Beyond the moral factor involved—which need not rely on a religion appealing to metaphysical forces or an ideology that distorts "hard" facts to peddle "white lies"—it is perfectly possible, through wisdom or philosophy in its purest sense, to advocate for combating extreme inequalities based on the following arguments: the essentially fictitious nature of (financial) mathematics; and the essentially equal nature of all forms of life, highlighting first and foremost the essential equality of human life; ...and the essentially parasitic nature of an economic system in which one class exploits others for its own benefit—constituting a social system that is clearly contrary to meritocracy—it is only fair that those who keep society functioning at its very foundation also be granted sufficient rights and earnings to live with dignity, enjoying easy access to both material and non-material amenities...

* Whether it is truly a problem that group X shows average performance levels distinct from group Y, or if what matters most is whether these differences are causing serious social issues—such as racial disparities in the propensity for irrationally antisocial behavior...

Some details not shown in the primary study referenced here, nor in the secondary study used for corroboration (which demonstrates that these findings tend to be replicated in other countries using large, representative samples):

- If the "Black" category created by the IBGE—which lumps together those who self-identify as Black and those who self-identify as *pardo* (mixed-race/brown)—were broken down and the two groups reclassified into their own distinct categories, it is highly probable that the disparities in academic performance would be even greater. This is suggested by studies in other countries (such as the US and Europe) showing significant gaps between racial groups defined by less subjective criteria—like ancestry and phenotype—rather than mere self-identification. Furthermore, based on comparative results observed elsewhere (for instance, the performance gap between "Hispanics"—a predominantly mixed-race group—and "African Americans" in the US), it is likely that the *pardo* group would achieve better results than the Black group; - If the definition of "whiteness" in Brazil were not limited merely to self-identification, it is highly likely that Brazilians who are white by phenotype—and even by a predominance of European (or Caucasian) ancestry—would show an even better average academic performance than those classified solely by self-identification...

- If the categories of "East Asians," Jews, and people of Lebanese descent were used for comparison, it is highly likely that they would demonstrate superior performance compared to self-identified "whites" and the politically manipulated category of "Blacks"...

Therefore, the egalitarian—and pseudoscientific—belief that social and historical differences are always the primary cause of disparities between individuals and human groups, when accepted as scientific fact, can lead a city, state, or nation to adopt policies based on this misconception. This can trigger a chain of problematic consequences—as has indeed occurred, for instance, when a country decides to open its borders to mass immigration while disregarding the fact that human groups tend to exhibit cognitive and psychological differences that cannot be resolved through superficial measures, and that, in the medium to long term, this influx of "new residents" may exacerbate social problems, such as rising violence, cultural conflicts, and an exponential decline in average technical skill levels...of their ethnically "diverse" or altered populations... Beyond failing to eliminate poverty or extreme inequalities in the immigrants' countries of origin, it also complicates the host countries' capacity to absorb these migratory flows and affects their own social stability...

In Brazil's case, the adoption of education-focused measures—based on the belief that "education" works true miracles on the intelligence of individuals and groups, such as the idea that intelligence can be boosted simply through so-called "quality education"—ignores the fact that we possess intrinsic mental characteristics (such as cognitive abilities and personality traits) that are not merely reflections of the environments or circumstances in which we live and interact. Consequently, rather than accepting the reality of the Brazilian people's true cognitive potential (on average), measures that disregard this fact fail to solve the academic deficit—and may even exacerbate it. Realistically speaking, the only way to begin resolving this problem in the medium to long term involves not only fostering a culture that values ​​knowledge acquisition and high-level artistic achievement—something we currently lack—but also establishing mechanisms that are (and I apologize to those who might be easily upset by this) tacitly eugenic in nature: specifically, incentivizing high fertility among the "most intelligent" while disincentivizing it among the "least intelligent." As I have proposed elsewhere, this would entail offering advantages to those encouraged to have more children (though not an excessive number) and to those encouraged to have fewer (one or two). Other necessary measures include detoxifying the population from "anti-racist" or anti-white brainwashing by teaching people—especially those of European descent—that taking pride in one's own ethnicity is neither a crime nor a sin (provided this does not lead to generalized, unjust hatred toward other ethnicities). This approach would also serve to preserve the racial and existential integrity of the country's "most intelligent" groups, in addition to... encourage the "most intelligent" individuals from the "least intelligent" groups to marry one another and have more offspring. And frankly, I do not view any of this as an affront to true human rights... {I have also proposed elsewhere that, regarding the real risk of extinction for European ethnic groups, those who wish to preserve their physical and behavioral phenotypes should take the lead in this goal—defending the right to freedom of association—without needing to infringe upon the basic rights of those who lack this motivation}...

Demonstrating that racial or ethnic groups exhibit biological differences in behavior and intelligence does not mean that "true" racism must be normalized. Accepting a "harder" or "harsher" truth—one often obscured by hegemonic ideological conditioning—does not imply that one should act cruelly as a result. Clarifying a fact generally means expanding knowledge and awareness, not the opposite. Just as we can accept the reality of human races or ethnicities and their differences—recognizing that they are not merely reflections of culture or environment—we can also grasp a range of other truths that make this reality less "harsh." For instance, we can consider the complex nature of human intelligence, understanding that an individual who is "less intelligent" in certain areas may still be intelligent in others, or that being "less intelligent" in one regard does not mean they lack intelligence altogether. In our daily lives, we can see that human intelligence is not limited to writing "correctly" or solving math problems, even though these skills are very important... Accepting this fact does not mean we must generalize about groups, especially since these differences are primarily statistical. It does not mean these gaps cannot be narrowed, or that groups scoring lower on intelligence metrics cannot improve their performance over time. However, such genuine improvement will not come about simply by putting more books into schools in underprivileged areas...

Accepting that our mental traits are not entirely shaped by the environment—nor completely malleable through targeted stimuli—need not lead to a fatalistic determinism, where we believe we are doomed never to change or improve anything about ourselves. ...ourselves—not merely in terms of limitations, but also potential. Yet, this potential is shaped by our limitations—a fact that is not necessarily negative, given that it is better to know who we are and the extent of our reach than to deceive ourselves with illusions. This truth—regarding the primarily hereditary and intrinsic nature of our mental traits—could also prompt the school system, for instance, to rethink punishments for poor performance, without this implying a systematic disregard for academic achievement and......and to the social behavior of the student body. If science—in its actual practice and when contextualized regarding behavior and intelligence—inexorably leans toward the reality of biology’s predominance over these factors, then a teaching method truly based on empirical evidence must accept this. This need not diminish the teacher's importance, even though a shift in role is inevitable: moving from "builder" of others' intellects to instructor...

¹ ...figures show that across all Brazilian states—regardless of the subject assessed (Portuguese Language or Mathematics) or the grade level (5th or 9th grade of elementary/middle school)—there is a significant disparity in the percentage of white versus Black students achieving adequate learning levels.

In the 5th grade, regarding Portuguese Language, 65.1% of white students demonstrate adequate learning, whereas the figure for Black students is 40.3%. The states showing the widest gaps between the two groups are Amazonas, Rio Grande do Norte, Roraima, and Amapá. In Amazonas, even by the 5th grade, white students outperform Black students by nearly 100% (50.8% with adequate learning versus 25.5%).

In Mathematics, student performance is generally lower, yet the racial disparity persists: 55.8% of white students achieve adequate learning in the subject, compared to 31.2% of Black students. In Mathematics, in addition to Amazonas and Rio Grande do Norte, highly significant disparities appear in Rio Grande do Sul, Mato Grosso, Santa Catarina, and Paraíba. In these states, the gap between white and Black students exceeds 70%.

In the 9th grade, regarding Portuguese Language, white students outperform Black students by 68.2% (46% with adequate learning versus 27.4%). In Mathematics, the greatest disparity is observed at this stage: 25.8% of white students demonstrate adequate learning compared to 11.9% of Black students—a difference reaching 116.4%.

² In both years assessed and across both subjects, significant differences exist even when students belong to the same socioeconomic group: for instance, in Mathematics, among students of high socioeconomic status, 34.4% of white students demonstrate adequate learning, compared to 17.3% of Black students (a difference of 98.8%). Among those of low socioeconomic status, the figures are 15.8% versus 8% (a difference of 98%). ³ https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/prc/our-research/prc-research-brief-series/education-work-and-institutions/continuing-racial-disparities-in-academic-achievement.html

Translated

"Using data on children living with women included in the *National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979*, the authors present results regarding the math and reading performance of children aged 5–6, 9–10, and 13–14 over a 20-year period (1986–2005). The children were divided into six groups: Black, Hispanic, and White children from families with income at or below 100% of the federal poverty threshold (poor students), and Black, Hispanic, and White children from families with income above the poverty line (non-poor students).

Key Findings

Non-poor White children consistently outperformed non-poor Black and Hispanic students—from early childhood through high school, in both reading and math—between 1986 and 2005.

The academic performance gap between non-poor White students and non-poor Black students widened.

In contrast, the academic performance gap between non-poor White students and non-poor Hispanic students narrowed.

Furthermore, non-poor Black students performed worse than poor White students at almost all time points analyzed.

Similarly, poor White children consistently outperformed their poor Black and Hispanic peers—from early childhood through high school, in reading and math—over the 20-year period.

The performance gap between poor White students and their poor Black peers widened over time and appears to increase after early childhood.

The performance gap between poor White students and their peers" ...among poor Hispanics also persisted over time and increased among children of middle-school age (upper elementary/junior high years).

Poverty has a more detrimental effect on the academic performance of non-white children compared to their white peers.

Given that even white students from poor families outperform their poor Black and Hispanic peers, these findings suggest that the higher income—on average—of non-poor white families compared to non-poor Black and Hispanic families does not fully explain the racial/ethnic disparities in academic performance.