No cerne de todas as questões sociais, culturais, políticas, raciais.../At the heart of all social, cultural, political, racial issues...

 No cerne de todas as questões sociais, culturais, políticas, raciais...

ELES existem...

São eles que, disfarçados de direita, esquerda, extrema, moderada ou centro... De iluminados, obscuros, negros, brancos... Racistas, antirracistas, progressistas, conservadores... Muçulmanos, indianos, americanos... capitalistas, comunistas... Terroristas, pacifistas... São eles que, com os seus sorrisos falsos e suas atuações dignas de peças de teatro, jogam uns contra os outros, enquanto manipulam seus fantoches com dinheiro, poder, chantagem, corrupção... Que usam, mesmo muitos dos mais nobres como meios para os mesmos fins: "vingança", domínio absoluto... Os meios?? Confusão, destruição... E são muitos que os consideram os mais inteligentes de todos... Mas destruir civilizações é inteligente?? Se vingar de inocentes?? Genocídio ao invés de armistício?? Mentiras ao invés de verdades?? Isso é filosofia, sabedoria?? 

Uma tribo de supostos ESCOLHIDOS. Por Deus?? Por eles mesmos?? 

Mas que dedo mais podre. 

Quando é que irá finalmente evoluir, humanidade?? 

At the heart of all social, cultural, political, racial issues...

THEY exist...

They are the ones who, disguised as right, left, extreme, moderate or center... As enlightened, obscure, black, white... Racists, anti-racists, progressives, conservatives... Muslims, Indians, Americans... capitalists, communists... Terrorists, pacifists... They are the ones who, with their false smiles and their performances worthy of plays, play one against the other, while manipulating their puppets with money, power, blackmail, corruption... Who use even many of the noblest as means to the same ends: "revenge", absolute domination... The means?? Confusion, destruction... And there are many who consider them the most intelligent of all... But is destroying civilizations intelligent?? Taking revenge on innocents?? Genocide instead of armistice?? Lies instead of truths?? Is this philosophy, wisdom??

A tribe of supposed CHOSEN ONES. For God's sake?? For themselves??

What a rotten finger.

When will humanity finally evolve??

Antirracismo ou carência??

Uma reclamação que parece ser frequente entre autodeclarados "antirracistas" é a de falta de diversidade racial, não importa onde, mesmo se for em um filme sobre a Europa medieval. Pois, recentemente, eu vi uma publicação no X de um "antirracista" reclamando sobre a falta de "não-brancos" em uma reunião de pessoas e seus cachorros em um shopping. Sim, parece que querem enfiar diversidade até mesmo nos eventos mais aleatórios. Também já vi uma outra publicação que problematizava pessoas brancas que só tinham amigos brancos. Será que isso virou racismo?? Será que todo branco agora vai ter que estabelecer para si uma quota de amigos não-brancos para não "parecer racista"?? Como que essa reclamação ajudaria a causa antirracista?? Ou teria o efeito oposto, de deslegitimação?? Para mim, essa reclamação me remeteu a um quadro de humor do Comédia MTV, lá do início dos anos 2010, em que a humorista Tatá Werneck interpreta uma garotinha que ganha uma boneca que fala e que, ao longo do tempo, vai se revelando uma versão feminina do Chuck, uma boneca viva, porém assustadoramente carente, que sempre pergunta à sua dona se ela a ama, se nunca irá abandoná-la... Esses "antirracistas" parecem com essa boneca, se estão sempre pedindo que pessoas de outras raças e etnias, principalmente as brancas, os amem apenas por serem negros ou "não brancos", demandando carinho demais e sem perceber que também precisam merecê-lo, e, sinceramente, o grupo racial preferido e também o ideológico desses "antirracistas" não parecem ser esforçar muito para merecer respeito e simpatia compulsórios dos outros...

Sobre detecção de padrões e racionalidade /On pattern detection and rationality

 A racionalidade se principia basicamente pela detecção contextualizada de padrões. Então, se temos aquele famoso teste de inteligência, das matrizes, em que se busca encontrar padrões em uma sequência numérica, a racionalidade consiste primariamente na contextualização desta capacidade tão básica para nós. De "encontre o número subsequente de (0,2,6,14, ?)" para "encontre padrões correlativos ou causais de comportamentos entre grupos humanos", por exemplo...

Rationality basically begins with the contextualized detection of patterns. So, if we have that famous intelligence test, the matrices, in which we seek to find patterns in a numerical sequence, rationality consists primarily in the contextualization of this ability that is so basic to us. From "find the subsequent number of (0,2,6,14, ?)" to "find correlative or causal patterns of behavior among human groups", for example...

In some very relevant aspects, the right has been a great burden on Brazil's shoulders...

 There are many examples. Such as the fact that the government funds the military, that is, it spends an excessive amount in this sector, mainly in the sense of giving them perks of public money, while it is always cutting spending in much more important areas, such as education, security and health, even more so in a Brazilian context in which these expenses make no logical sense.

Its defense of the continued tax exemption of churches is also despicable, many of which function more as houses of overcharging with other people's tithes than as temples of connection with the "divine"...

Em alguns aspectos muito relevantes, a direita tem sido um grande peso nas costas do Brasil...

 Não são poucos os exemplos. Tal como o fato de que o governo banca militares, isto é, gasta uma soma excessiva nesse setor, principalmente no sentido de dar regalias ao mesmo com dinheiro público, enquanto está sempre cortando gastos em áreas muito mais importantes, como a educação, a segurança e a saúde, ainda mais em um contexto brasileiro em que esses gastos não fazem qualquer sentido lógico.

Também é desprezível a sua defesa pela continuidade da isenção de impostos de igrejas, muitas que funcionam mais como casas de superfaturamento com o dízimo alheio do que como templos de conexão com o "divino"...

Two more examples of how the bourgeois-identitarian "left" always manages to be wrong, in one way or another...

 1. A heinous crime is committed by a group of men against a young woman: rape followed by murder and concealment of a corpse, out of pure sadism or futile motivation.

Common sense: the punishment should be proportional to the gravity of the crime. Therefore, a case like this should be punished, at the very least, with life imprisonment, without any right to a reduction in the sentence, and, at most, with the death penalty, if available under current legislation. It is also worth noting that, in the case of life imprisonment, the prisoner should not be entitled to any type of privilege. Justice exists primarily to punish, even more so in serious cases.

Bourgeois-identitarian "left": justice does not exist only to punish, but especially to reeducate those who commit crimes. They also have rights. For example, their sentence can be reduced if they behave well in prison and they cannot suffer mistreatment or any punishment analogous to torture. They have the right to good food while in prison, even if they are the perpetrator of a heinous crime. The death penalty is a legal abomination that should never be included in a humanist penal code...

2. The cause of the crime

Common sense: psychopathy or serious character deviation of those involved in the crime, even if there are also specific factors that contribute to understanding the situation. However, a predisposition to antisocial behavior can be considered the most important factor, as it is foundational, if human beings do not behave in the same way in similar contexts or situations or if these differences are not solely attributable to environmental conditions.

Moral judgment based on common sense: no human being, who does not deserve for strong reasons a proportional retaliation or reaction, should be the victim of gratuitous violence.

Bourgeois-identitarian "left": the cause of crime is "feminicide", homicide motivated by irrational hatred of women or misogyny.

Moral judgment based on bourgeois-identitarian narratives: no woman should suffer any type of violence...

Mais dois exemplos de como a "esquerda" identitário-burguesa consegue estar sempre errada, de uma maneira ou de outra...

 1. Um crime hediondo é cometido por um grupo de homens contra uma jovem: estupro seguido de homicídio e ocultação de cadáver, por sadismo puro ou motivação fútil. 

Bom senso: a punição deve ser proporcional à gravidade do crime. Portanto, um caso como esse deve pegar, no mínimo, prisão perpétua, sem qualquer direito à redução de pena e, no máximo, pena de morte, se disponível na legislação corrente. Também vale ressaltar que, em caso de prisão perpétua, o preso não deve ter direito a nenhum tipo de regalia. A justiça existe principalmente para punir, ainda mais em casos graves.

"Esquerda" identitário-burguesa: a justiça não existe apenas para punir, mas especialmente para reeducar aquele que comete crime. Ele também tem direitos. Por exemplo, sua pena pode ser reduzida se apresentar bom comportamento na prisão e não pode sofrer maus-tratos ou qualquer punição análoga à tortura. Tem direito a ter uma boa alimentação enquanto estiver preso, mesmo se for autor de crime hediondo. A pena de morte é uma abominação jurídica que jamais deve ser inserida em um código penal humanista...

2. A causa do crime 

Bom senso: psicopatia ou desvio grave de caráter dos envolvidos no crime, mesmo que também existam fatores específicos que contribuam para compreender a situação. No entanto, uma predisposição para o comportamento anti social pode ser considerada o fator mais importante, por ser fundacional, se os seres humanos não se comportam igualmente em contextos ou situações similares ou se essas diferenças não são unicamente atribuíveis às condições do meio.

Julgamento moral baseado no bom senso: nenhum ser humano, que não mereça por razões fortes uma represália ou reação proporcional, deveria ser vítima de violência gratuita. 

"Esquerda" identitário-burguesa: a causa do crime é o "feminicídio", homicídio motivado por ódio irracional por mulheres ou misoginia. 

Julgamento moral baseado em narrativas identitário-burguesas: nenhuma mulher deveria sofrer qualquer tipo de violência...

Sabedorias anti-capitalistas/Anti-capitalist wisdom

 Será que é sempre preciso dizer para muita gente que a vida não se resume a dinheiro, trabalho... E que se está resumida, não é por alguma força da natureza?!?

O animalismo é a característica mais primária do capitalismo, de mentalidade de cadeia alimentar, por desprezar a perspectiva existencialista, de igualdade em essência e finitude de todo ser, que apenas o ser humano pode entender, um dos marcos que o distingue das outras espécies. Pois é por essa alienação que o capitalismo previne muitos de entender e aceitar que o mundo é muito maior que as ficções que criamos para organizar o "nosso'... 

Não existem bilionários tal como existem pássaros. Enquanto as sociedades humanas continuarem se firmando em castelos de cartas, continuarão existindo como ambientes que oprimem e exploram, ao invés de se constituírem como oásis que nos protegem contra a imensidão que existe lá fora

O "liberal" da economia, quando é o mais interessado, não gosta do estado porque quer liberdade para explorar seus empregados sem qualquer intermediação ou mesmo barreira... Quer que a (sua) mão invisível tenha poder total... Capisce??

"O empresário merece enriquecer mais que os outros"

Então, o resto não merece enriquecer também?? Ou muito menos que eles??

"Porque ele sacrifica seu patrimônio para isso"

Todo ganancioso é ousado. 

Tratar a economia como uma disciplina auto suficiente, que não precisa de interdisciplinaridade, não é diferente do que fazer o mesmo com a sociologia e desprezar o papel da biologia no comportamento humano. E ao fazê-lo, se pode desprezar qualquer implicação negativa quanto ao bem estar social, tratando como um mal necessário, da exploração econômica às desigualdades extremas 

Não é apenas sobre economia. Na verdade, é sobre tudo e mais um pouco: solidariedade, empatia, lógica básica, existencialismo, enfim, filosofia, que a maioria dos liberais da economia não quer colocar em discussão...

Eu sei que o sistema capitalista induz, por suas próprias estruturas, à exploração compulsória de uma classe sobre a outra. Mas ao invés de, ao menos, admitir essa situação, a maioria do empresariado defende o sistema que também o explora 

É comum que um empresário se queixe dos altos salários da "elite" do funcionalismo público. Mas não critica pela injustiça dos altos salários em si, mas pensando que seus impostos também são para pagá-los. Como sempre, uma questão pessoal e não uma questão coletiva 

O eufemismo é a alma da propaganda capitalista. Precisa distorcer o sentido das palavras, se não revela o que realmente é ou resulta 

Made in Brazil 

Não há classe mais sem vergonha do que o empresariado brasileiro, salvando honrosas exceções. Especialmente os mais abonados, continuam a tratar o seu próprio país como plataforma de exportação dos seus produtos, como colônia de exploração. Um exemplo notável da perversidade empresarial brasileira é a contradição do Brasil ser o maior produtor de café do mundo, mas exportar o melhor de sua produção e deixar o resto para o povo, sem deixar de falar que também o vende para nós a um preço abusivo

Boa parte das reivindicações trabalhistas se resume à luta do trabalhador comum para conseguir os mesmos privilégios sociais que o seu patrão, de ter a mesma vida que ele tem 

Is it always necessary to tell many people that life is not just about money, work... And if it is, it is not due to some force of nature?!?

Animalism is the most basic characteristic of capitalism, of a food chain mentality, for disregarding the existentialist perspective, of equality in essence and finitude of all beings, which only human beings can understand, one of the marks that distinguishes them from other species. Because of this alienation, capitalism prevents many from understanding and accepting that the world is much bigger than the fictions we create to organize "ours"...

There are no billionaires just as there are birds. As long as human societies continue to build themselves into houses of cards, they will continue to exist as environments that oppress and exploit, instead of being oases that protect us from the immensity that exists out there.

The "liberal" of the economy, when he is the most interested, does not like the state because he wants the freedom to exploit his employees without any intermediation or even barrier... He wants his invisible hand to have total power... Capisce??

"The businessman deserves to get richer than the others"

So, don't the rest deserve to get rich too?? Or much less than them??

"Because he sacrifices his assets for this"

Every greedy person is bold.

Treating economics as a self-sufficient discipline, which does not need interdisciplinarity, is no different from that we should do the same with sociology and disregard the role of biology in human behavior. And by doing so, we can disregard any negative implications regarding social well-being, treating everything from economic exploitation to extreme inequalities as a necessary evil.

It is not just about economics. In fact, it is about everything and more: solidarity, empathy, basic logic, existentialism, in short, philosophy, which most economic liberals do not want to discuss...

I know that the capitalist system induces, by its very structures, the compulsory exploitation of one class over another. But instead of at least admitting this situation, most businesspeople defend the system that also exploits them.

It is common for a businessperson to complain about the high salaries of the "elite" of public servants. But they do not criticize the injustice of the high salaries themselves, but rather thinking that their taxes are also to pay for them. As always, a personal issue and not a collective issue.

Euphemism is the soul of capitalist propaganda. You need to distort the meaning of words, if you don't reveal what it really is or results in

Made in Brazil

There is no class more shameless than the Brazilian business community, with a few honorable exceptions. Especially the wealthiest, continue to treat their own country as a platform for exporting their products, as a colony of exploitation. A notable example of Brazilian business perversity is the contradiction of Brazil being the largest coffee producer in the world, but exporting the best of its production and leaving the rest for the people, without forgetting to mention that it also sells it to us at an abusive price

A large part of the labor demands come down to the struggle of the common worker to obtain the same social privileges as his boss, to have the same life as him

Como que racionalidade e moralidade se relacionam??/How are rationality and morality related?

 Uma pessoa muito racional apresenta um ímpeto e também uma capacidade, ambos plenamente desenvolvidos, de sempre buscar por evidências antes, mas também durante e depois de julgar qualquer tópico que se torne de seu interesse (inclusive julgando a si mesma quanto à sua capacidade de analisar e julgar específico a cada tópico). Em outras palavras, por ser mais sensata e ponderada, tende a pensar e agir de maneira mais justa, se a justiça, em sua prática mais ideal, e não apenas como sinônimo estrutural de poder aplicado, se norteia pela busca imparcial por evidências ou fatos. Pois a partir do que foi comentado acima, parece que se torna evidente que, maior a capacidade racional de uma pessoa, maior a sua capacidade de discernir o que é fato e o que é boato, verdadeiro ou falso, e isso obviamente também se aplica ao campo da moralidade, do que é considerado certo, negociável e errado. Portanto, a racionalidade mostra-se fundamental para a prática da justiça, porém frequentemente negligenciada, desde os processos de julgamento por acusação de crime prescrito no código penal até na elaboração e aplicação de políticas públicas.

A highly rational person has a drive and a capacity, both fully developed, to always seek evidence before, but also during and after judging any topic that becomes of interest to him (including judging himself regarding his ability to analyze and judge specific to each topic). In other words, because he is more sensible and thoughtful, he tends to think and act more fairly, if justice, in its most ideal practice, and not just as a structural synonym for applied power, is guided by the impartial search for evidence or facts. From what was commented above, it seems clear that the greater a person's rational capacity, the greater her ability to discern what is fact and what is rumor, true or false, and this obviously also applies to the field of morality, of what is considered right, negotiable and wrong. Therefore, rationality is fundamental to the practice of justice, but is often neglected, from trial processes for accusations of crimes prescribed in the penal code to the development and implementation of public policies.

Sobre a diferença entre o nacionalismo performático (à direita) e o concreto (à esquerda) no Brasil/On the difference between performative (right) and concrete (left) nationalism in Brazil

 Nacionalismo performático é uma forma superficial de demonstração de sentimento nacionalista, de amor à pátria, que se centraliza em relação a símbolos abstratos, como a bandeira, mas não em um sentido mais literal e concreto, em que se busca, de fato, pelo desenvolvimento ou melhoria e também pela defesa do próprio país. No Brasil, é a direita que o expressa por suas crenças e políticas públicas, desde uma valorização acentuada de artistas internacionais sobre os nacionais, até à sua sanha de sempre querer "privatizar" e/ou "vender" empresas brasileiras para estrangeiros. Por isso, sua fama de ser "entreguista". Então, também existe o nacionalismo concreto, que contrasta em relação ao performático justamente por enfatizar ações mais literais de defesa pelos "interesses nacionais" ao invés de se enfatizar em símbolos abstratos com o intuito potencialmente intencional de apenas fingir um sentimento patriótico, enquanto age de maneira frequentemente oposta. Pois no Brasil é a esquerda que, por suas crenças e políticas, expressa um nacionalismo mais concreto, a priori, independente do quão eficientes e/ou embasadas estão, desde o incentivo à cultura nacional até às suas ideias de protecionismo econômico. Outros exemplos de contraste entre o nacionalismo performático e o concreto no Brasil: o interesse da esquerda em combater a pobreza e as desigualdades sociais, enquanto a direita tende a priorizar o lucro da "elite" econômica; a defesa da esquerda pelo desenvolvimento da agricultura familiar, principal responsável pelo abastecimento interno de alimentos, e da direita pelo agronegócio, em que parte significativa de sua produção vai para o exterior. 

Mas vale lembrar que a dinâmica brasileira, em que é a esquerda e não a direita que expressa um nacionalismo mais concreto, não é um padrão universal e nem sempre demarcado ou nítido, se performatismo e concretismo patrióticos podem se manifestar simultaneamente de maneira bem distribuída ao longo do espectro político-ideológico, o exemplo do nacionalismo irlandês, historicamente de esquerda, que também pode ser considerado "entreguista" por ter sido associado a agendas "globalistas", como o "multiculturalismo", de perda gradual da identidade e da soberania nacional a partir de políticas imigracionistas. 

Performative nationalism is a superficial form of demonstrating nationalist sentiment, of love for one's country, which focuses on abstract symbols, such as the flag, but not in a more literal and concrete sense, in which one actually seeks development or improvement, and also the defense of one's own country. In Brazil, it is the right that expresses it through its beliefs and public policies, from a strong appreciation of international artists over national ones, to its constant desire to "privatize" and/or "sell" Brazilian companies to foreigners. Hence its reputation for being a "sellout". Then, there is also concrete nationalism, which contrasts with performative nationalism precisely because it emphasizes more literal actions of defense of "national interests" instead of emphasizing abstract symbols with the potentially intention of merely feigning a patriotic feeling, while often acting in the opposite way. In Brazil, it is the left that, through its beliefs and policies, expresses a more concrete nationalism, a priori, regardless of how efficient and/or well-founded they are, from the promotion of national culture to its ideas of economic protectionism. Other examples of the contrast between performative and concrete nationalism in Brazil: the left's interest in combating poverty and social inequalities, while the right tends to prioritize the profit of the economic "elite"; the left's defense of the development of family farming, which is mainly responsible for the domestic food supply, and the right's defense of agribusiness, where a significant part of its production goes abroad. 

But it is worth remembering that the Brazilian dynamic, in which it is the left and not the right that expresses a more concrete nationalism, is not a universal pattern and is not always demarcated or clear, if patriotic performatism and concretism can manifest themselves simultaneously in a well-distributed manner along the political-ideological spectrum, the example of Irish nationalism, historically left-wing, which can also be considered "sellout" because it has been associated with "globalist" agendas, such as "multiculturalism", of gradual loss of national identity and sovereignty based on immigration policies.

O Brasil é muito ruim com duas evidências: café e viagens, e uma causa/Brazil is very bad with two evidences: coffee and travel, and one cause

O que adianta ser o maior produtor de café do mundo, se o melhor da produção vai para os mercados estrangeiros e os restos ficam com a própria população?? 

E esse escândalo normalizado não se limita ao café...

E o que adianta ser um dos maiores países do mundo em extensão territorial se é caro viajar dentro do próprio país até entre duas cidades próximas?? 

Mas o que essas duas situações têm em comum?? 

Um mesmo agente causador: empresários brasileiros e suas tendências para uma ganância sem qualquer limite de vergonha...

What's the point of being the world's largest coffee producer if the best of the production goes to foreign markets and the rest goes to the population itself??

And this normalized scandal is not limited to coffee...

And what's the point of being one of the largest countries in the world in terms of territorial extension if it's expensive to travel within the country even between two nearby cities??

But what do these two situations have in common??

The same causative agent: Brazilian businessmen and their tendencies towards shameless greed...

Sobre a problemática da narrativa do "feminicídio" /On the problem of the "feminicide" narrative

 O mesmo do feminismo moderno 

São todas as mulheres santas, sem defeitos?? 

Não.

Mesmo que exista uma desproporção masculina na prática de crimes, isso não significa que a proporção de mulheres de má índole nesse mundo seja minúscula. Infelizmente não é. Talvez seja menor que a de homens, especialmente em termos de comportamento violento. Mas existem maneiras não-diretamente violentas e mal intencionadas de agir, tal como de uma mulher acusar um homem por um crime que não cometeu e ser beneficiada pela narrativa atual em que sua palavra tem sido alçada à condição de pré evidência de culpa ou crime. 

São todos os homens culpados até que se prove o contrário?? 

Evidentemente que não e isso deveria ser muito óbvio para quem se julga apto a lutar pela justiça... Além do benefício da dúvida, é sempre necessário buscar por evidências conclusivas para se chegar a um veredito e o que muitas feministas e apoiadores delas querem é que essa abordagem racional seja substituída pela confiança cega na palavra de uma mulher, claramente injusto, deixando implícito que se pensa que toda mulher está certa até que se prove o contrário. 

Todo ato de violência praticado contra uma mulher é sempre injustificável??

Não. Justamente pela lógica muito básica anteriormente comentada, se existem mulheres que não tem boa índole ou agem de maneira leviana e mal intencionada em relação a outras mulheres e também com homens, é claro que existe a probabilidade de que suas ações resultem em reações violentas justificáveis. 

Todo homicídio praticado contra uma mulher por um homem é feminicídio??

Não. Um homem matar uma mulher apenas por ser mulher é bem possível que exista. Mas, em contextos de conflitos conjugais, outros fatores tendem a ser mais relevantes, tal como o sentimento de posse do homem em relação à mulher e iminente perda, em caso de fim de relacionamento. 

O que pode ser considerado uma constante relativa em casos de homens que matam mulheres é o impulso praticamente instintivo de homens tóxicos de as agredirem sabendo que tendem a ser mais frágeis fisicamente. Nesse caso, a covardia de ferir alguém mais fraco também deve ser levada em conta. 

Nenhuma mulher é capaz de agredir física e/ou verbalmente um homem??

Não. Casos de mulheres que se aproveitam de homens e se tornam abusivas também existem e não duvido se não forem estatisticamente insignificantes. 

E nada disso dito acima visa justificar a violência ou agressão injustificável. O que visa mesmo é fazê-lo sem "discriminação positiva", em que o contexto é tão ou mais importante que os elementos envolvidos e suas identidades. Eis aí o maior problema da política identitária "de esquerda" em relação à prática mais ideal ou genuína da justiça, de colocar identidades acima da própria identificação de injustiça e usando-as como o critério mais importante de julgamento. 

The same as modern feminism

Are all women saints, without defects??

No.

Even if there is a male disproportion in the practice of crimes, this does not mean that the proportion of women with bad intentions in this world is tiny. Unfortunately, it is not. Perhaps it is smaller than that of men, especially in terms of violent behavior. But there are non-directly violent and malicious ways of acting, such as a woman accusing a man of a crime he did not commit and benefiting from the current narrative in which her word has been elevated to the status of pre-evidence of guilt or crime.

Are all men guilty until proven innocent??

Obviously not, and this should be very obvious to anyone who considers themselves capable of fighting for justice... In addition to the benefit of the doubt, it is always necessary to seek conclusive evidence to reach a verdict, and what many feminists and their supporters want is for this rational approach to be replaced by blind trust in a woman's word, which is clearly unfair, implying that every woman is right until proven otherwise.

Is every act of violence committed against a woman always unjustifiable?

No. Precisely by the very basic logic previously discussed, if there are women who do not have good character or act frivolously and with bad intentions towards other women and also towards men, it is clear that there is a probability that their actions will result in justifiable violent reactions.

Is every homicide committed against a woman by a man a femicide?

No. A man killing a woman just because she is a woman is quite possible. However, in contexts of marital conflicts, other factors tend to be more relevant, such as the man's feeling of possession of the woman and imminent loss in the event of the end of the relationship.

What can be considered a relative constant in cases of men who kill women is the practically instinctive impulse of toxic men to attack them, knowing that they tend to be physically weaker. In this case, the cowardice of hurting someone weaker must also be taken into account.

Is no woman capable of physically and/or verbally attacking a man?

No. Cases of women who take advantage of men and become abusive also exist and I have no doubt that they are not statistically insignificant.

And none of the above is intended to justify violence or unjustifiable aggression. What it really aims to do is to do so without "positive discrimination", in which the context is as important or more important than the elements involved and their identities. Therein lies the biggest problem with "left-wing" identity politics in relation to the most ideal or genuine practice of justice, of placing identities above the very identification of injustice and using them as the most important criterion for judgment.

Sobre evolução cognitiva, espécie humana e ateísmo/On cognitive evolution, the human species and atheism

 Se considerarmos como marcos evolutivos as diferenças entre as espécies, quanto à capacidade de compreensão da realidade, diga-se quanto ao que é mais essencial à inteligência, a percepção, então, a percepção humana, que consegue ir muito além de uma perspectiva primária de adaptação e sobrevivência, por exemplo, prestando atenção ou tendo curiosidade sobre tópicos, a priori, não-essenciais, tal como as estrelas no céu, pode ser considerada um grande marco na escala evolutiva da cognição, e isso é particularmente verdadeiro para certas perspectivas, como a realidade da finitude, sobre "tudo" que existe, incluindo a vida, se se trata de perceber algo que parece impossível de ser notado e, especialmente, compreendido por outras espécies e que também apresenta uma importância suprema, justamente nesse sentido, de compreensão de mundo, da própria existência... 

Consequentemente, o ateísmo pode ser considerado uma expressão particular desta evolução cognitiva, de expansão do escopo perceptivo para muito além de uma perspectiva imediata ou limitada à adaptação e sobrevivência. Até porque, se, de acordo com o que tenho pensado e escrito sobre esse tópico, parece que existe uma relação intrínseca entre as crenças humanas que se baseiam em pensamento mágico, principalmente a crença religiosa, e o modus operandi de percepção de todas as outras espécies não-humanas, que eu denominei de autocentrismo, se se consiste em um nível muito básico de percepção de mundo, em que o ser vivo o percebe de maneira muito centrada em si mesmo, em suas próprias impressões (instintivas, emotivas...), ou de maneira definitivamente menos objetiva ou "impessoal". 

No entanto, essa superioridade cognitivo-evolutiva seria apenas específica ao ateísmo em si e não necessariamente a todos os ateus, se existem muitos que apresentam outros tipos, mais discretos ou não, de crenças baseadas em pensamento mágico. Pois essa superioridade é mais provável de ser plenamente verdadeira, pelo menos com base nessa linha de pensamento que tracei, para os ateus mais racionais e que também são os seres humanos mais racionais, por serem os mais realistas, que conseguem construir sistemas de crenças predominantemente baseados em evidências (fatos ou verdades objetivas) e ponderação analítica. Seria tal como comparar a evolução gradual de uma capacidade ao longo de uma linha evolutiva, desde se movimentar até a andar ereto ou voar, por exemplo. Então, teríamos, desde as formas de vida mais primitivas, dotadas de um nível muito primário de alcance perceptivo, até nós (e especialmente os mais racionais ou realistas), que podemos pensar e aprender sobre fatos ou verdades que estão muito além das nossas perspectivas mais primárias e imediatas de sobrevivência e adaptação, incluindo os mais derradeiros, como a igualdade da vida por sua essência e finitude. 

If we consider as evolutionary milestones the differences between species, in terms of the capacity to understand reality, that is, in terms of what is most essential to intelligence, perception, then human perception, which can go far beyond a primary perspective of adaptation and survival, for example, paying attention or being curious about topics that are, a priori, non-essential, such as the stars in the sky, can be considered a major milestone in the evolutionary scale of cognition, and this is particularly true for certain perspectives, such as the reality of finitude, about "everything" that exists, including life, if it is a matter of perceiving something that seems impossible to be noticed and, especially, understood by other species and that also presents a supreme importance, precisely in this sense, of understanding the world, of existence itself...

Consequently, atheism can be considered a particular expression of this cognitive evolution, of expanding the perceptive scope far beyond an immediate or limited perspective of adaptation and survival. Even because, according to what I have thought and written about this topic, it seems that there is an intrinsic relationship between human beliefs that are based on magical thinking, especially religious belief, and the modus operandi of perception of all other non-human species, which I have called self-centrism, if it consists of a very basic level of perception of the world, in which the living being perceives it in a very self-centered way, in its own impressions (instinctive, emotional...), or in a definitely less objective or "impersonal" way.

However, this cognitive-evolutionary superiority would only be specific to atheism itself and not necessarily to all atheists, if there are many who present other types, more discreet or not, of beliefs based on magical thinking. For this superiority is more likely to be fully true, at least based on this line of thought that I have outlined, for the most rational atheists, who are also the most rational human beings, because they are the most realistic, who can build belief systems predominantly based on evidence (facts or objective truths) and analytical consideration. It would be like comparing the gradual evolution of a capacity along an evolutionary line, from moving to walking upright or flying, for example. Then, we would have, from the most primitive life forms, endowed with a very primary level of perceptive range, to us (and especially the most rational or realistic ones), who can think and learn about facts or truths that are far beyond our most primary and immediate perspectives of survival and adaptation, including the most ultimate ones, such as the equality of life by its essence and finitude.

"Trump é ruim, mas Kamala é boa" (um teste específico de inteligência emocional/ingenuidade) /"Trump is bad, but Kamala is good" (a specific test of emotional intelligence/naivety)

 Que Donald Trump está longe de ser o melhor ser humano do mundo, isso é muito óbvio. Agora, que Kamala Harris também não se qualifica nessa categoria e, nesse sentido, se equipara a Trump, pode não tão ser evidente assim. De qualquer maneira, é perfeitamente possível compilar evidências de que essa mulher também não tem caráter (desprezando que, na atual conjuntura política dos EUA e do mundo ocidental, Trump acabaria caindo em uma posição política ou elegível de "menos pior" se comparado a ela), de que ela, tal como é típico de sua trupe ideológica, se passa de boa samaritana, defensora dos pobres e oprimidos, mas, na verdade, é uma hipócrita profissional, carreirista política dedicada (do tipo que já está há muitos anos mamando nas tetas do governo/estado americano), além de também não apresentar intelecto suficiente para administrar uma cidade, estado ou nação, se defende muitas políticas públicas claramente problemáticas que não se baseiam em evidências, fatos ou razão, que não resolvem, mas causam novos problemas, que são injustas... 

Portanto, é possível por esses dois analisar o nível de inteligência emocional e que também pode ser um teste específico de capacidade racional, de julgamento, em que julgar o caráter (personalidade, histórico, intencionalidade...) de Trump, um homem de negócios tipicamente ganancioso e egoísta, parece mais fácil do que fazê-lo com Kamala. Mas conseguir perceber o que está além das aparências é um teste mais robusto de inteligência, não apenas de inteligência emocional, e nesse teste, quem julga Kamala como muito melhor que Trump, ou até como uma pessoa conclusivamente de boa índole, está demonstrando ter um alto nível de ingenuidade, que talvez possa indicar um cenário pessoal mais generalizado, em que as aparências tendem a enganar mais frequentemente. É a diferença de apenas constatar o que se vê, com a necessidade de ter um maior esmero e ver, não o que se vê de primário ("eu sou a favor da solidariedade com imigrantes e refugiados"), mas no que não se revela em um primeiro olhar (fez sua carreira política com base no vitimismo identitário eleitoreiro do "vote em mim, porque sou uma mulher de cor" e as políticas que defende, mesmo se primariamente bem intencionadas, são radicais, extremistas ou imprudentes, como a de imigração em massa / são negacionistas quanto às evidências históricas e atuais do quão problemático pode ser o multiculturalismo; se baseiam em falácias morais e/ou chantagens emocionais, e por isso, causam transtornos ou problemas, especialmente para as classes menos abonadas. Então, é fácil ser a favor delas quando se vive longe dos problemas importados, quando se vive no privilégio, como essa Kamala, diga-se, sempre viveu). 

Como conclusão, se você só consegue detectar mal caráter quando está explícito, é provável que tenha uma inteligência emocional no nível de uma criança, subdesenvolvido ou precário, específico às capacidades de detecção de engano ou mentira e de julgamento de intenção ou índole...

Pois é a partir desse teste que também se percebe o quão entrelaçadas ambas a inteligência emocional e a racionalidade costumam estar.

 

That Donald Trump is far from being the best human being in the world is quite obvious. Now, that Kamala Harris also does not qualify in this category and, in this sense, is on par with Trump, may not be so obvious. In any case, it is perfectly possible to compile evidence that this woman also has no character (ignoring that, in the current political situation in the US and the Western world, Trump would end up falling into a political or elective position of "least worst" compared to her), that she, as is typical of her ideological troupe, pretends to be a good Samaritan, a defender of the poor and oppressed, but, in reality, is a professional hypocrite, a dedicated political careerist (the kind that has been sucking on the teat of the American government/state for many years), in addition to not having enough intellect to run a city, state or nation, and defending many clearly problematic public policies that are not based on evidence, facts or reason, that do not solve, but create new problems, that are unfair...

Therefore, it is possible for these two to analyze the level of emotional intelligence, which can also be a specific test of rational capacity, of judgment, in which to judge the character (personality, history, intentionality...) of Trump, a typically greedy businessman, seems easier than doing so with Kamala. But being able to see beyond appearances is a more robust test of intelligence, not just emotional intelligence, and on this test, anyone who judges Kamala as much better than Trump, or even as a conclusively good-natured person, is demonstrating a high level of naivety, which may indicate a more generalized personal scenario in which appearances tend to be more often deceiving. It's the difference between simply noting what you see, and the need to be more careful and see not what you see at first glance ("I'm in favor of solidarity with immigrants and refugees"), but what is not revealed at first glance (she built her political career based on the electoral identity victimhood of "vote for me because I'm a woman of color" and the policies she defends, even if primarily well-intentioned, are radical, extremist or reckless, such as mass immigration; they deny historical and current evidence of how problematic multiculturalism can be; they are based on moral fallacies and/or emotional blackmail, and therefore cause problems or disruptions, especially for the less well-off classes. So, it's easy to be in favor of them when you live far from imported problems, when you live in privilege, as Kamala, let's say, has always lived). In conclusion, if you can only detect bad character when it is explicit, it is likely that you have emotional intelligence at the level of a child, underdeveloped or precarious, specific to the abilities to detect deception or lies and to judge intention or nature...

Because it is from this test that we also realize how intertwined both emotional intelligence and rationality tend to be.

Uma maneira possivelmente efetiva de combate à bagunça em sala de aula/A potentially effective way to combat classroom chaos

 De dar peso extra à nota de conceito ou comportamento, em que ao invés de valer alguns poucos pontos por bimestre, como de costume, valer o dobro ou o triplo e ser tão decisivo quanto a nota de avaliação de desempenho intelectual...

Giving extra weight to the grade for good behavior, so that instead of being worth a few points per semester, as usual, it is worth double or triple and is as decisive as the grade for evaluating intellectual performance..

A irracionalidade crônica é um tipo de deficiência ou "retardo" mental.../Chronic irrationality is a type of mental deficiency or "retardation"...

 ... variável e ou teoricamente reversível 

E que, diga-se, manifesta-se muito comumente na única espécie que poderia apresentá-la, a única que também pode ser racional. 

Pois se uma pessoa tipicamente deficiente apresenta uma série de incapacidades mentais, elemento determinante para o conceito de deficiência intelectual, o mesmo pode ser aplicado à irracionalidade, com a diferença de que a mesma se expressa em relação às faculdades superiores da mente humana, especialmente o pensamento abstrato, o controle emocional e a consequente capacidade de discernimento factual (do subjetivo ou pessoal/ que se desdobra para o discernimento moral), enquanto a típica deficiência intelectual se expressa pelo comprometimento de faculdades mentais inferiores, no sentido de básicas, como a comunicação, a locomoção e a capacidade de raciocínio simples. 

... variable and/or theoretically reversible

And which, it must be said, manifests itself very commonly in the only species that could present it, the only one that can also be rational.

For if a typically disabled person presents a series of mental incapacities, a determining element for the concept of intellectual disability, the same can be applied to irrationality, with the difference that it is expressed in relation to the superior faculties of the human mind, especially abstract thought, emotional control and the consequent capacity for factual discernment (of the subjective or personal/which unfolds into moral discernment), while the typical intellectual disability is expressed by the impairment of inferior mental faculties, in the sense of basic ones, such as communication, locomotion and the capacity for simple reasoning.

O pseudo intelectualismo consegue ser pior que o anti intelectualismo/Pseudo-intellectualism can be worse than anti-intellectualism

 Porque o anti intelectualismo, apesar de se decretar como a única ou principal fonte de sabedoria, pelo menos, não se infiltra em espaços de produção de conhecimentos ou das ciências, isto é, não usurpa seus espaços de atuação e os usa para se passar por eles. É só ver a religião que, hoje em dia, raramente se atreve a se passar como ciência até por razões lógicas, por se tratar de uma negação pura da razão, da crença pela fé e não pela evidência, e o completo oposto das pseudociências, em especial as "do bem", ideologicamente enviesadas à esquerda, que estão ocupando amplos espaços nas áreas que deveriam ser de atuação exclusiva da ciência e da filosofia aplicada e usando desse poder para distorcê-las aos seus gostos intelectualmente equivocados ou projetos totalitários (e equivocados) de poder. 

Because anti-intellectualism, despite declaring itself the sole or main source of wisdom, at least does not infiltrate spaces of knowledge production or science, that is, it does not usurp their spaces of action and use them to pass itself off as them. Just look at religion, which nowadays rarely dares to pass itself off as science, even for logical reasons, because it is a pure denial of reason, of belief by faith and not by evidence, and the complete opposite of pseudosciences, especially the "good" ones, ideologically biased to the left, which are occupying large spaces in areas that should be the exclusive domain of science and applied philosophy and using this power to distort them to their intellectually dishonest tastes or totalitarian (and mistaken) projects of power.

Speculation about the geographic, ethnic/racial, sexual distribution... of the human types defined by the author of "The Fundamental Laws of Human Stupidity"

 Carlo Cipolla, an Italian economist who wrote this book and who I have already commented on and criticized in some of my texts. In this text, I will speculate on how these types or phenotypes/archetypes are distributed...

First, let's look at them:

The intelligent: whose actions benefit themselves and others

The bandit: whose actions benefit themselves at the expense of others

The naive: whose actions benefit others at their expense

And the stupid: whose actions harm themselves and others

I have already written a text criticizing these laws and what he wrote about them. For example, I criticized the restricted definition of the stupid type, as if the naive and the bandit could not also be considered as categories of stupid. Although I consider my criticism valid, it is not important to emphasize this point here, since it will be based on the definitions proposed by Cipolla that I will work on my speculation about their distribution among human groups.

Cipolla also wrote about what happens (obviously) in a society when there is a growing predominance of stupid people, in his fifth fundamental law of human stupidity. I include a relevant excerpt from this text to illustrate his specific thoughts on this topic, below:

Fifth law

5. The stupid person is the most dangerous person there is.

''And its corollary:

A stupid person is more dangerous than a criminal.

We can't do anything about the stupid. The difference between societies that collapse under the weight of their stupid citizens and those that transcend them is the composition of the non-stupid. Those that progress despite their stupid people have a high proportion of people acting intelligently, those who offset the losses of the stupid by bringing gains to themselves and their fellow men.

Declining societies have the same percentage of stupid people as intelligent ones. But they also have high percentages of defenseless people and, Cipolla writes, “an alarming proliferation of bandits with connotations of stupidity.”

“This change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the [stupid] fraction and makes decline a certainty,” Cipolla concludes. “And the country goes to hell.”

(I also criticized what he pointed out in this excerpt, in this text: “Critically analyzing the 5 laws of human stupidity”).

Speculative proposal on the distribution of types or categories of people defined by Carlos Cipolla

Intelligent, naive, criminal/bandit and stupid

* These types seem to be summarized definitions of compositions of personality traits and intelligence in which one of the characteristics tends to stand out more, for example, naivety.

* Between the intelligent and the stupid, the naive and the criminal/bandit can also be considered mixed types that combine traits of these phenotypes that would be more regular, precisely the first ones mentioned.

In ascending order, from the most common types to the most unusual, based on the current context, the year 2024, and considering the individual and social perspectives.

It is worth mentioning that I will not take any further risks, speculating percentages of how these types would be distributed and that therefore, even the least common type for a given population, according to my speculation, is not explicitly stated to be much less common than the others. 

By geographic distribution:

Americas:

North America

USA: naive, intelligent/criminal/stupid

Canada: naive, intelligent, stupid/criminal

Mexico and Central America: naive/criminal/stupid, intelligent

Brazil and South America (excluding Argentina and Uruguay): naive/criminal/stupid, intelligent

Argentina and Uruguay: naive, criminal/stupid/intelligent

Haiti(?): criminal/stupid, naive, intelligent

Comment: a constant in many countries is the possible predominance of the "naive" type, whose actions benefit others at their expense, mainly due to the social context, since there is no country that is not socially structured in a way that produces a hierarchical pyramid of parasitism of the upper classes, at the top, in relation to the other classes, differing only in the how unequally and explicitly this parasitism is expressed, less significant, but existing, in first world "social democracies", such as the Scandinavian countries, and more significant in underdeveloped countries.

In the case of the Americas, I perceive a great difference in this distribution of human types proposed by Cipolla, in which the only two first world American countries, and which are not Caribbean tax havens, Canada and the USA, would present a less problematic distribution, even with differences between them: the first more similar to a European country, and the USA in a more singular distributive situation, due to its own internal and idiosyncratic diversity, resulting from its superlative dimensions of territory and demographics, as well as its unparallel history. My speculation also highlights something that, for many, especially Latin Americans, is considered an inconvenient truth, that it is their/our own people who, on average, contribute to keeping their/our countries in a state of underdevelopment, not only the historical guilt of the European colonizer or their political and economic "elites", if these also tend to express a lack of common character in the populations of these countries, of being representative of them. Hence the greater proportion of the "bandit"/criminal type.

I highlighted Haiti, because it is the poorest country in the Americas: half of the island of Hispaniola, marked by a history of civil wars, bloody dictatorships and predominant poverty. For a country as chaotic and precarious as this one, is it by chance the product only of its troubled history or also of its own population? (Except for its "intelligent" fraction, which definitely does not seem to consist of a majority). Furthermore, its status as a social and political pariah state, which has been going on for many decades, may also be contributing to empowering the most selfish types of its population, very abundant in its spaces of power and typical of dictatorships or authoritarian states. In any case, it is also possible to speculate whether this type is more common in this country than in others (something more intrinsic) and whether this factor would be an important part of explaining its very problematic situation. 

Europe:

Eastern Europe: naive, criminal, intelligent, stupid

(Countries like Slovenia and Estonia would do better, at least according to their socioeconomic indicators)

Western Europe: naive, intelligent/criminal, stupid

Northern Europe (Scandinavia): naive, intelligent, stupid/criminal

Southern Europe: naive/criminal, intelligent, stupid

Comment: Stereotypes being confirmed??

Are Southern and Eastern Europeans, on average, more corruptible and, therefore, with more criminals, proportionally?

Are Northern Europeans, on average, more naive?

Perhaps reflecting the distributions of personality types themselves, in which introverts would be more common among the naive and intelligent types (more common in the north of the old continent), and extroverts among the bandit and stupid types (more common in southern Europe).

However, introverted types also seem to be more common in Eastern Europe. For a possible difference in relation to Northern Europe, which would also explain its cultural and political differences, would be the variation in personality traits, for example: melancholic types, more naive, more common in Scandinavia and choleric, more likely to be bandit, more common in Eastern Europe (based on the personality typology of the four temperaments, which I have already suggested ratifying as valid, excluding only the hypothesis related to health that was also developed in classical Greece and from which the four temperaments derive); beyond historical-contextual differences, although ethnic differences* between Nordic//Germanic and Slavic peoples seem to be deeper than exclusive results of their respective histories.

* Correlatives with variations in mental traits, personality (intensity, types) and intelligence (levels, types...)

It is even interesting to think about how these proposed types can be more comprehensive as definitions of intelligence than other ways of approaching and comparing it, such as through IQ testing, if it is not expressed only through typically considered cognitive abilities, of a technical nature, such as linguistic and mathematical abilities, but also through creativity, rationality and emotional intelligence, that is, of a contextual nature, manifesting itself in all contexts, in which the participation and influence of personality traits, considered "non-cognitive", is as important as the "cognitive" ones.

It would also be important to think about how intrinsic these types are: to what extent are they reactive reflections of the environments in which we live, of more specific contexts, and to what extent do they reflect ourselves, or our deepest dispositions...

If, for example, individual X is more naive for structural reasons or also genetic/biological/hereditary??

I would bet that it is a combination of these influences and more, in which intrinsic factors, of the individual himself, would be more influential or determining, although extrinsic factors, of the environment, also have an influential role, but more in the sense of contributing to channeling pre-existing tendencies and never of forging them without a previous context of predisposition, so that, if someone is more naive, it is not exclusively because of his environment, but also because he already has this tendency or predisposition and that it was exacerbated by his interactions in the environments in which he finds himself. Therefore, this thought suggests a constant crossing or intersection between the individual and contextual perspectives, once again, the example of the possible predominance of naive people in most countries, not only due to intrinsic disposition, but also as a reflection of how societies are organized (in a variably parasitic way that involuntarily places the majority of the population in the position of deceived or exploited subordinates).

Africa:

North Africa: bandit/naive, stupid, intelligent

Sub-Saharan Africa: bandit, stupid/naive, intelligent

Comment: forgive me all those good Samaritans who only cultivate sweet thoughts about our species, especially about certain groups that have a history and a present of poverty and civilizational backwardness (although there is a certain relativity in determining what is civilizational progress or backwardness, which can easily be problematized, such as highlighting the typically parasitic character of complex societies, excessively verticalized, in social terms). I know that this is not the habit of "left-wing" moral puritanism, but we must prioritize the facts so that we can seek truly effective approaches to combat the social, economic and/or moral problems of our species, and this will not be done by embracing beautiful but fallacious narratives... Because if it is a social environment of wars, violence and poverty that incites our most selfish side, it is still unlikely that we will all react in the same way if or when subjected to similar circumstances. The evidence corroborates my statement... It may also be, and it is very likely that it is, that a very problematic social environment primarily reflects the actions of the populations themselves, such as pointing fingers at the people who live in a neighborhood for the dirtiness of their streets rather than looking for other culprits. So, the social problems of countries that were once colonies of European metropolises, especially African and Latin American countries, are not the exclusive result of European colonialism, but mainly of their own actions, of their "elites" and of their own populations, of course, not of all, but of a potentially non-negligible part, unfortunately. An example of this is urban crime in cities like Lagos, in Nigeria, and São Paulo, here, in Brazil; in general, in the endemic lack of solidarity and respect among the inhabitants of many underdeveloped countries, even more so than in the "developed" ones, which contributes to complicating their socioeconomic situations. Always emphasizing, once again, that this is not the entire population, whether in Africa, Nigeria or São Paulo, but that it is also not a tiny minority, and even in certain cases one might think that it is a majority. And even if it is a situation that is impossible to correct or improve, but not in the politically correct, simple and cute way that many believe.

Consequently, if there is no generalization (absolute association) of causality between racial or ethnic group and behavior, then there is no genuine or objectively determined "racism" in these statements.

In the case of Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, it is even possible to think of a less harsh explanation, still inevitably non-victimizing. That the human populations that live in this part of the African continent would be, for the most part, descendants of hunter/gatherers (and not of farmers or peasants), which would explain the cultural and cognitive mismatch between their average capacities for administration and social organization and the level of civilization that the colonizers imposed and left, after they passed their colonies back into the hands of their original "owners". In this sense, it can even be said that this perceived inability to manage complex societies by the majority of these populations is perfectly understandable, more understandable than in relation to populations that have evolved historically, for centuries, in civilized environments, and also do not present true civilizational excellence, which are far from it, which includes even many so-called first world countries (whether as a result of a gradual or punctual loss of this capacity, or even a chronic inability to develop it). Another relevant point that should always be emphasized is that, in addition to the proportion of these types, the way in which they are distributed hierarchically can also contribute to developing or delaying societies, such as, for example, in the case of countries in which their political and economic "elites" are definitely not composed of a large majority of intelligent individuals, but rather of criminals, even if their populations have many intelligent individuals, that is, if they are being underutilized. So, it is not enough to just know whether there are more of this or that type, but whether the worst type has predominated in spaces of power, as has been the case in practically all human societies and especially in the most chaotic ones, such as those in Africa.

Asia:

Northeast Asia: naive, intelligent/criminal, stupid (excluding China: criminal/intelligent/naive, stupid).

Southeast Asia: naive/criminal, intelligent/stupid

Indian Subcontinent: naive, stupid/criminal, intelligent

Middle East: criminal/naive, stupid, intelligent

Comment: also based on what I have noticed, types that contribute more negatively than positively, socially, seem to predominate in the less developed Asian regions, and, of course, also maintaining the high prevalence of naive people, based on the logic commented above, especially from a social context, of structural dominance of parasitism of the upper classes (especially of certain sectors) over the lower ones, in which a majority submits to the economic exploitation of a minority, literally working to enrich it, instead of there being a more egalitarian distribution of the wealth produced.

My observations:

Japan would stand out more positively in the entire Asian continent, more similar to the developed countries of the West;

China and the rest of East Asia would present a pattern more similar to the Asian continent;

Again, the underdevelopment of most Asian regions (but not only Asia) does not reflect only their historical-social context, but also the psychological and cognitive composition of the human types in their populations, such as those proposed by Carlo Cipolla, from the top to the base of their hierarchies. In fact, this composition of human types would be a more causal factor at the level of social and economic development, while the historical and social situation would be more of a dynamic reflection of this factor over time.

Social class

Rich: criminal, intelligent/naive, stupid

Middle class: naive/intelligent, criminal, stupid

Poor: criminal/naive, stupid, intelligent (?)

Comment: without wanting to "pull the wool over my eyes" for the social class in which I, theoretically and vaguely, fit, but it seems that, based on the possible perception that those in the middle class tend to have a relatively more balanced temperament, less greedy or impulsive, and also an average level of intelligence sufficient to be able to work in professions that pay reasonable salaries, that is, that they tend to express less extreme mental characteristics and that would end up reflecting in their positions in the social hierarchy, the same can be said about the other classes, however, with different tendencies: the "rich" being more prone to greed and, therefore, unscrupulous, in fact, their material wealth as a result of this, and as for the "poor", a greater disposition for impulsive behaviors and that are both respectively related to tendencies towards high and low cognitive abilities, explaining, in large part, but not all, their social situations (poverty is also a historical and arbitrary imposition of the "elites").

Religiosity

Atheist: naive, intelligent/stupid, criminal

Religious: naive, intelligent/criminal/stupid

Comment: based on what I have noticed about self-declared atheists, and disregarding those individuals who declare to have some religious belief, but it seems to be more a matter of pragmatics and/or social conformity than of a genuine disposition, this distribution of human types proposed by Cipolla for this group seems reasonable to me, with more naive and intelligent people and fewer criminals, but with a not so modest proportion of stupid people, especially due to the correlation with ideological fanaticism. In the case of self-declared religious people, it seems to me that this distribution is more balanced, especially because it is a much larger population than that of atheists, logically deducing that it contains more diversity of types. But also due to the psychological and cognitive nature of atheists, especially, a more homogeneous group, culturally, ideologically and intellectually. In any case, perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare them with religious fundamentalists. Because, for this group, I bet on a great parity between the naive, criminal and stupid types, which would not change much in relation to religious people, in general.

It is worth noting that this definition of intelligence by Cipolla seems to focus more on individual actions than on the quality of the intentions that lead to these actions and that is why I included the social context, since there is no way to separate them completely, especially based on this concept that was worked on by him.

Race:

Whites: naive/intelligent, bandit/stupid

Orientals: naive/intelligent/bandit, stupid

Jews (ethnicity): bandit/intelligent, naive, stupid

Blacks of African origin: bandit, stupid, naive/intelligent

Comment: possibly the most controversial comparison of all, but a necessary one, and one that has already been made above, indirectly, by nationalities. But since I do not submit to ideological filters to signal "canine loyalty" to biased narratives and discourses,including thinking that the only way to, in fact, understand a situation and seek the most effective means to begin to solve it, even more so when dealing with a situation that can be considered problematic, then, there is no way I can abstain from this battlefront against totalitarianisms, especially the "good" ones, based on emotional blackmail and/or moral fallacies and that have ulterior, third, or fourth intentions... Because here, once again, I only apply this typology to what can be perceived in the reality of human populations, categorized by racial or ethnic criteria, in which white Caucasians, especially those of European origin, and Northeast Asians, present the most favorable distributions or proportions of Cipolla's human types, with more intelligent and less stupid people, although they also present not at all modest proportions of naive people, who tend to be predominant, and of criminals, who tend to predominate at the top of their social hierarchies. What happens or has happened, until now, in this last century, especially, is a greater activity of the intelligent types that are already more abundant in these populations, compared to others. However, this relatively favorable pendulum has been regressing, particularly in Western societies, with the ideological or cultural hegemony of "wokeism", a kind of "virus" whose infection destroys the immune system of the affected society, destroying its most important bases ("social harmony", ethno-cultural cohesion...) that keep it functioning at a high level.

Sex

Men: bandit/intelligent, naive/stupid

Women: naive, intelligent/stupid, bandit

Comment: this distribution of Cipolla's human types, also according to my observations, would be more favorable to men intellectually, but not emotionally and morally. Because it is that situation that has been perceived, of there being more men among geniuses, but also among criminals, and the opposite pattern for women, of presenting less extreme statistical tendencies.

Sexual orientation

Heterosexuals: naive/bandit/intelligent, stupid

LGBTs: naive, stupid/intelligent/criminal

Comment: heterosexuals represent the human average, as they are the majority. Therefore, with a possible tendency for greater parity between naive, criminals and intelligent, although this does not mean that the proportion of chronically or predominantly stupid human beings is small. LGBTs, on the other hand, would present a greater incidence of stupid types in relation to heterosexuals.

Politicians: criminal, stupid, intelligent/naive

Artists (the group, in general): naive, stupid/intelligent, criminal

Businesspeople: criminal, intelligent/stupid, naive

Comment: three examples of professional classes and their stereotypes, if these types of Cipolla are applied, will be reiterated: both the political and merchant classes, with an abundance of criminals or chronically selfish people, while the artistic class would have a prevalence of naive types. Also note that the profile of artists would be opposite to that of businessmen.

Leftists (followers, not their political "elites" and which also applies to those below): naive/stupid/intelligent, criminal

Rightists: naive/criminal/intelligent/stupid

Comment: "conservative" rightists and "progressive" leftists, despite presenting some average differences in beliefs and behaviors, would be relatively similar in this distribution of types, with a predominance of naive people and a more equal distribution of types. They would differ in the proportion of criminals (greater among those on the right) and stupid people (greater among those on the left). And always emphasizing that the type considered less common is not necessarily insignificant in statistical terms, as it also depends on the representation of the other types in the same group or population.

Scientists: smart/criminal, naive, stupid

-- Academics: naive, smart/stupid/criminal

Teachers: naive, smart/stupid, criminal

Activists: naive/stupid, smart, criminal

4 or 3 intellectual classes and ½, the most intelligent of which would logically be that of genuine scientists, which is why I separated them from academics, a category that is vaguer in terms of the definition of science in the sense of a profession.

Teachers would be in a more intermediate position in this ranking, while activists would occupy the lowest position. It is also notable the increase in frequency of the stupid type concomitant with the decrease of the bandit type, from the highest level to the lowest, a possibly high incidence of bandits among scientists and of stupid people among academics (the vast majority of times represented by university professors and undergraduates), which seems illogical in theory, but not in reality, especially if we base ourselves on the weak criteria that have been used in the evaluation and selection processes of both groups, for example, that there is a tacit disregard for the assessment of capacity or qualitative proficiency for scientific work, essentially including adherence to and respect for the most basic principles of science, such as intellectual honesty and impartiality.