Hyperfocus is a characteristic more common in some conditions, such as autism and ADHD. Individuals with hyperfocus exhibit a strong and sustained interest in certain topics, often focusing on these interests for several hours a day or for an indefinite period of time. Hyperfocus can be even more profound if it manifests itself over a long period of time. Hyperfocus can also manifest as the cognitive and/or psychological structure of ideological fanaticism, usually when the obsessive focus turns to political or ideological issues. But not only because it focuses on these issues, because the most important element in determining ideological fanaticism is the existence of a firm inflexibility about one's own beliefs that transcends common sense. That is, the level of conviction is so high that it prevents the affected individual from constantly self-criticizing them, including their self-criticism, such as how fact-based, evidence-based, or analytically balanced they are.
Minha lista de blogs
sábado, 30 de agosto de 2025
A principal diferença entre hiperfoco e fanatismo ideológico
O hiperfoco é uma característica que é mais comum em algumas condições, como o autismo e o TDAH. Indivíduos com hiperfoco apresentam um interesse forte e constante sobre determinados tópicos, podendo ficar várias horas por dia concentrados nesses interesses ou por um tempo indeterminado, em que o hiperfoco pode ser ainda mais profundo ao se manifestar durante um longo período da vida. Pois o hiperfoco também pode se manifestar como a estrutura cognitiva e/ou psicológica de um fanatismo ideológico, geralmente quando o foco obsessivo se volta para temas políticos ou ideológicos. Mas não apenas por se direcionar para esses temas, porque o elemento mais importante para determinar o fanatismo ideológico é a existência de uma inflexibilidade convicta sobre as próprias crenças que perpassa o bom senso, isto é, em que o nível de convicção é tão alto que impede o indivíduo afetado de fazer uma autocrítica constante sobre elas e que também é sobre si mesmo, por exemplo, sobre o quão baseadas em fatos, evidências ou ponderação analítica elas estão.
The difference between dogma and factual and/or rational assertion
It's not just or intrinsically a difference in flexibility of thought, but in how factual that thought is, because there are, of course, conclusive statements that express a fact or an objective truth. This is one way I've found to differentiate dogma from a conclusive statement that expresses a fact or an objective truth, since it doesn't seem sufficient to me to define dogma as synonymous with inflexibility, but rather to use a statement that is also fallacious or untrue, so as to highlight the irrational nature of insisting on what is not true—that is, of, in certain cases, being inflexible, even if there is nothing primarily wrong, in an intellectual sense, in making conclusive statements that express facts. Secondarily, in these cases, only the moral or ethical question can be raised.
A diferença entre dogma e afirmação factual e/ou racional
Não é apenas ou intrinsecamente a diferença de flexibilidade de pensamento, mas do quão factual é esse pensamento, porque existem, evidentemente, afirmações conclusivas que expressam um fato ou uma verdade objetiva. Essa é uma maneira que encontrei de diferenciar dogma de uma afirmação conclusiva que expressa um fato ou uma verdade objetiva, já que não me parece suficiente determinar dogma como sinônimo de inflexibilidade, mas a partir de uma afirmação que também seja falaciosa ou inverídica, até para que seja ressaltado o caráter irracional do ato de teimar sobre o que não é verdadeiro, isto é, de, em certos casos, mostrar-se inflexível, se não há nada de primariamente errado, em um sentido intelectual, fazer afirmações conclusivas que expressam fatos. Secundariamente, nesses casos, apenas a questão moral ou ética que pode ser levantada.
What also leads people to believe in the pseudoscience of the blank slate?
Especially those with high cognitive abilities, beyond the very irrationality* of presenting this belief?
What I've mentioned before in other texts: a self-projection or extrapolation of one's own personal situation, situational context, onto others' perspectives*, but also of more intrinsic aspects, such as cognitive abilities, as if what "works" or "worked" for them were also perfectly teachable to others, or at least to the majority. Basically, a confusion of personal perspective with universal perspective, in which a more innate ability to grasp information, rules, and/or techniques, coupled with a deficiency in self-knowledge, related to a deficiency in rational thought, leads some or many people, especially those with this high-capacity profile, to believe that what happens to them can also happen to others, that everything is simply a matter of will, effort, or persistence, and of "education"...
* Which is also a structural aspect of irrationality.
Another factor that often generates this confusion is belonging to a higher social class, as it can give the false impression that the personal challenges, especially financial ones, of individuals belonging to lower social classes can be as easily manageable as those belonging to higher classes, that everything depends on the individual's will or ability, completely disregarding unfavorable contexts. Ultimately, reinforcing and replicating the fallacious narrative of economic neoliberalism, which asserts individual responsibility as the only relevant factor in an individual's situation, delegating to the social context, little or no importance.
O que também leva as pessoas a acreditarem na pseudociência da tábula rasa??
Especialmente aquelas com altas capacidades cognitivas, além da própria irracionalidade* de apresentarem essa crença??
O que já falei antes em outros textos: uma autoprojeção ou extrapolação da própria situação pessoal, de contexto situacional, sobre perspectivas alheias*, mas também de aspectos mais intrínsecos, como as capacidades cognitivas, como se, o que ''funciona'' ou ''funcionou'' para elas, também fosse perfeitamente ensinável para os outros, ou pelo menos para uma maioria. Basicamente uma confusão de perspectiva pessoal com perspectiva universal, em que uma facilidade mais inata para apreender informações, regras e/ou técnicas, mais uma deficiência em autoconhecimento, relacionada com uma deficiência de pensamento racional, leva algumas ou muitas pessoas, especialmente aquelas com esse perfil de altas capacidades, a acreditarem que, o que acontece com elas, também pode acontecer com os outros, que tudo é apenas uma questão de vontade, esforço ou persistência, e de "educação"...
* O que não deixa de ser um aspecto estrutural da irracionalidade
Outro fator que costuma gerar essa confusão é o de pertencer a uma classe social mais alta, já que pode passar uma falsa impressão de que os desafios pessoais, especialmente os de natureza financeira, dos indivíduos que pertencem às classes sociais mais baixas, podem ser tão facilmente manejáveis quanto dos que pertencem às classes mais altas, que tudo depende da vontade ou capacidade do indivíduo, desprezando completamente contextos desfavoráveis, enfim, reforçando e replicando a narrativa falaciosa do neoliberalismo econômico, de afirmação de responsabilidade individual como único fator relevante para a situação de um indivíduo, delegando ao contexto social, pouca ou nenhuma importância.
segunda-feira, 25 de agosto de 2025
A hypothesis based on the correlations found between month or season of birth and psychological tendencies
There are some interesting studies that have found positive, though relatively modest, correlations between the month or season of birth and certain psychological tendencies: those born in the winter, especially late winter and early spring, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, are at greater risk of developing mental disorders, especially schizophrenia. The most common explanation is that pregnant women who conceive during this period are more exposed to viral infections, and that, if infected, their children could experience long-term effects later in life, including mental disorders. Another possible factor is that cold weather induces a vitamin D deficiency, which could complicate the normal development of pregnancies. A correlation between prematurity (or low birth weight) and schizophrenia (and psychopathology in general) has also been noted. Perhaps normal brain development that is abruptly interrupted by external factors could also be a long-term trigger for the expression of a mental disorder. Or it may be that genetic, and therefore hereditary, factors explain a good portion of psychiatric disorders. First, a couple whose two partners have the same disorder are at greater risk of passing it on to their natural descendants than a couple with only one carrier, and especially if there is no explicit sign of mental disorder between a pair of humans biologically capable of procreating or who have already done so. It is precisely this last possibility that seems most likely to me, perhaps because it is the least extraordinary. First, because assortative relationships, in which there is a mutual and active interest in mating based on the perception of phenotypic similarities—usually a combination of biotype, personality, and social circumstances—increase the likelihood that individuals of opposite sexes with the same health risks, including psychiatric ones, will enter into a relationship that will result in natural offspring. Second, the proposed mechanism to explain the correlation between being born in winter (cold, in the Northern Hemisphere) and developing certain mental disorders requires empirical proof, and to my knowledge, I don't know if it exists in humans. Third, most individuals born in winter do not become schizophrenic, although it would be interesting to see if a higher proportion of individuals born in this period (especially in temperate climates) develop other psychiatric disorders, or at least a greater expression of associated personality and cognitive traits. Fourth, human individuals with different personality profiles (which are predominantly stable patterns of behavior) tend to exhibit different habits, likely also in mating. Even more directly related to this correlation between month or season of birth and psychological tendencies, one of the behavioral or personality differences that may explain it is climate preference. Those who prefer cold weather (or who don't exhibit this type of preference) feel more motivated during this time of year, even to have sex/procreate (or who don't exhibit any differences in motivation throughout the year), while the opposite pattern occurs for those who prefer warm weather. For example, more emotionally unstable individuals tend to feel more "depressed" or less motivated in cold weather, especially in environments with harsh winters, including for sexual intercourse. The opposite pattern occurs during the warmer months. And since human pregnancy lasts, on average, nine months, a pregnancy that began in summer or spring will complete its cycle in fall or winter. So perhaps the most important element in this situation is the influence of personality type, which expresses various biological aspects: hormonal, mental, genetic... and not necessarily the influence of the environment acting directly on the human organism, even if it influences it indirectly, through behavior.
Okay, but then how can we explain this pattern in tropical and equatorial climates, if these climates are characterized by less significant temperature variations?
Even if there is less temperature variation in these regions, the underlying factor is the same: there are differences in mental traits among human beings that result in differences in habits. In addition, these mental traits are not just abstractions, as they also express more organic and variably hereditary aspects of the body. So, even if this pattern isn't confirmed in all regions, its possible absence of correlative universality does not invalidate its evidence of specific correlation. But perhaps this correlation is nothing more than "genetic confounding," in which a correlation that suggests environmental causality for a given behavioral tendency actually has as its underlying, primary, and most influential factors: biological characteristics, such as personality traits, which are also transmitted from parents to children. And, before concluding this text, I wonder if the risk of premature birth (or even miscarriage) could also be an intrinsic and variably heritable predisposition, not just a completely random incident—that is, one that doesn't present the same probability of occurring in any pregnant woman. I know there are studies showing differences in this risk between ethnic or racial groups (during a quick search on this topic, I found studies showing that, in fact, there is indirect evidence of a genetic influence on this risk)...
Sources:
Season of birth in schizophrenia: a maternal-fetal chronobiological hypothesis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21382670/;
https://www.uol.com.br/vivabem/noticias/redacao/2017/10/06/maioria-dos-casos-de-esquizofrenia-e-genetico.htm
Heritability of Schizophrenia and Schizophrenia Spectrum Based on the Nationwide Danish Twin Register
https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(17)31905-4/abstract;
Family history is a predictor of current preterm birth
https://www.ajogmfm.org/article/S2589-9333(20)30270-6/pdf;
The Role of Genetics in Preterm Birth
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43032-023-01287-9;
Levels of the stress hormone cortisol are higher in women who give birth in the autumn and winter than those who give birth in the spring or summer, finds a new study by researchers at Cardiff University.
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1547555-new-research-could-explain-why-babies-born-during-winter-are-at-higher-risk-of-developing-mental-health-disorders
Uma hipótese a partir das correlações encontradas entre mês ou estação de nascimento e tendências psicológicas
terça-feira, 19 de agosto de 2025
My hypothesis to explain why today's adults look much younger than adults from decades ago
Especially the "millennial" generation
Too many chronologically "youngest"??
The perception that today's adults, especially those between 30 and 50, look much younger than their parents and grandparents did at the same age has become quite popular. But if this isn't just an exaggerated impression, then what could be causing this change?
The "media" loves to list changes in habits or culture as the main causes. For example, the way we dress, eat, and other health-related habits would largely explain why today's adults look much younger than adults from 3 or 4 decades ago... Even if these factors have some influence, these differences begin with the very facial structure of today's adults compared to those of the past. An explanation limited to cultural generational differences may not be sufficient, as it could also be a biological phenomenon.
But what would that be?
I bet it's related to the demographic transition and also to cultural habits, but with intergenerational biological effects. I'll explain...
Over the last four or five decades, in many Western countries and some in the East, people have started having fewer children. So, firstly, there has been a reduction in the size of new generations. Secondly, which I consider the most important in my hypothesis, is that, in addition to having fewer children, people also started having them later, starting in their 30s. This is related to the increased mutational load in the human body, as we accumulate more mutations throughout our lives, that is, we age... And since older parents are more mutant, they would be more likely to experience a relative decline in the quality of their reproductive material, sperm, and eggs, resulting in more mutant children (??). But that's not the point, because it may be that youngest children tend to be more neotenic, retaining more childhood traits, both in terms of appearance and behavior. So, with people having fewer children and later, phenotypically "youngest" children, or children born to older parents, would have become more common demographically, including biological characteristics that are perhaps more common in this group. Which, on the one hand, could be a good thing: appearing younger than one's age, but on the other, it could be associated with certain behaviors considered common in new generations, especially adults aged 30 to 50, or "millennials," and not widely appreciated: such as "laziness," individualism, and a more deeply rooted attachment to childhood... a result of their (our?) own "underdeveloped" biologies?? As if we were human "tadpoles" that never quite reach "normal" or "complete" development??
It may also be related to an increase in disorders and diseases due to the increased accumulation of mutations over recent generations. This would explain why there have been more cases of young adults becoming ill and even dying (?).
In any case, unhealthy and assiduously practiced habits, such as smoking and drinking from an early age, having a poor diet, or constant exposure to the sun without any protection, may also have contributed to the premature aging (?) of young adults in previous generations, and new generations have only partially or predominantly reduced the practice of these habits...
Finally, in addition to the factors mentioned, as well as the one I considered the most important for my hypothesis, others could also be considered, such as the prevalence of assortative relationships, in which people are freer today to choose their mates according to their tastes. This, in turn, may have contributed to greater selective pressure for neotenic traits, perhaps associated with more robust sexual selection. (Not just a matter of appearing younger, but also of presenting a more "aesthetically pleasing" appearance.) If, in the past, arranged relationships were much more common and may have contributed to a greater randomness of biological makeup...
But is this supposed or possible phenomenon will it continue to manifest itself in younger generations?
Perhaps not so much, if according to my hypothesis, this tendency to appear younger among "millennials", besides being the effect of a period or demographic transition in which there was an abundance (more in the sense of relative proportion than absolute increase) of "chronologically youngest" children, is also a specific period in the dynamics of intergenerational mutation accumulation, in which the new generations, children of "millennials" and "zoomers" (Generation Z: born between 1994 and 2005ish), would be inheriting/an even greater mutational load, if they are already children of a majority who were born to older parents. So, this possible factor may be contributing to undoing this "spell" of "extended youth" (by appearance) among the youngest, although those who look younger for their age will continue to be relatively more common than in relation to generations much older than them.
Minha hipótese para explicar por que os adultos de hoje parecem muito mais jovens que os adultos de décadas atrás
Especialmente a geração "millenial"
sábado, 16 de agosto de 2025
On Autobiographical Memory, Semantic Memory, and "Free Will"
Sobre a memória autobiográfica, memória semântica e o "livre arbítrio"
Eu tenho chegado a uma conclusão em relação à minha memória autobiográfica e que, talvez, possa ser extrapolada em um sentido geral, de que eu tenho pouco ou nenhum controle sobre o que a minha mente tem guardado como lembrança, se eu percebo um padrão mais aleatório e/ou variavelmente relacionado com os meus gostos e desejos. Por exemplo, sobre o meu desejo de guardar determinados momentos vividos, que também acredito que seja um desejo comum. E a frustração, igualmente comum, de perceber que, na realidade, nossas mentes não nos consultam para saber o que gostaríamos que se mantivesse como lembrança. Também preciso salientar que nunca me esforcei para tentar direcionar minha mente para guardar o que gostaria e apagar ou não priorizar o que não queria que se mantivesse como lembrança. No entanto, talvez, o possível fato, sentido de maneira visceral, de sequer haver uma mínima possibilidade de estabelecer esse controle, pode ter contribuído para nunca tentar esse tipo de exercício mental, por ser mais uma extrapolação teórica do que verdadeira. Mas o que parece ser mais como uma extrapolação, no mínimo, parcialmente verdadeira, é a de que esse nível de passividade que apresentamos quanto à nossa memória autobiográfica também possa ser considerado como factível quanto à nossa memória semântica. Eu disse parcialmente, porque, a priori, parece que apresentamos uma maior capacidade de controle, e não apenas de armazenamento de informação, isto é, de conseguirmos direcionar nossas capacidades cognitivas com base no que memorizamos como técnicas ou aprendizados. Parece... Ou, pode ser que essa percepção seja mais uma impressão subjetiva, um "wishful thinking" ou pensamento positivo, do que um fato verdadeiro. Pode ser que apenas seguimos tendências pré-determinadas e que, para muitos de nós, acontece de maneira completamente inconsciente, tomadas como se fossem decisões legítimas e não apenas uma extrema conformidade à própria natureza. Mesmo em relação ao que parecem ser detalhes específicos aparentemente relacionados mais às nossas personalidades do que às nossas capacidades cognitivas, por exemplo, o meu interesse em ciências humanas e, especialmente, em geografia, que comecei a apresentar desde a segunda infância, e que também se desenvolveu ou se confirmou como uma vocação verdadeira, que não seria apenas um interesse que apareceu de maneira aleatória no início da minha vida, mas um reflexo de aspectos mais intrínsecos do meu perfil psico-cognitivo: morfologia constitutiva do meu cérebro e padrões hormonais, por exemplo. Em outras palavras, estou querendo dizer que, ninguém se torna interessado em determinados tópicos sem que existam fatores subjacentes, mais intrínsecos de sua própria biologia, e isso pode significar que também não temos pleno controle sobre a direção que tomam as nossas inteligências, por uma via mais direta, pela memória semântica. Eu vejo em mim, ao mesmo tempo, essa impressão ilusória de autocontrole cognitivo e de percepção de ausência de escolha, se realmente não decidi de maneira consciente ou voluntária gostar de geografia e não gostar de matemática, pois para que fosse apenas uma questão de escolha, teoricamente, ao ser exposto a esses conhecimentos, eu deveria ter apresentado níveis similares de aprendizado nos dois e, então, decidido por um deles. Mesmo assim, ainda não significa que, nesse cenário, existiria uma real possibilidade de escolha, até porque essa atração que apresentamos pelos nossos interesses intelectuais ou de outra natureza, novamente, nunca aparecem "do nada", mas com base em nossas próprias características cognitivas, psicológicas, hormonais... Um outro exemplo pessoal: se eu, desde o início da minha vida adulta, passei a gostar de psicologia e de filosofia (essa de maneira mais autoral), isso também se deve às minhas próprias características, tal como um perfil cognitivo mais inclinado para as capacidades linguísticas e uma autoconsciência mais aflorada que induz a uma alta frequência de pensamentos reflexivos, até mesmo aspectos não muito lisonjeiros, tal como uma maior tendência narcisista. Pois eu observo que, não existiu nenhum antecedente do meio em que vivia, quando era criança, que tivesse me induzido a gostar de geografia e não gostar de matemática. E mesmo nos casos em que existe ou existiu, um fator externo ao indivíduo não tem o poder de mudá-lo profundamente sem que exista uma base anterior dele mesmo ou de sua biologia que possa tornar essa mudança possível. Nesses casos, portanto, seria mais uma coincidência ou mesmo um fator que apenas reforçou ou serviu de estímulo influente para a emergência de um potencial preexistente, voltando à minha defesa pelo determinismo biológico, em que nenhum padrão ou mudança de comportamento, ou de desenvolvimento, que apresentamos, acontece sem existir uma predisposição ou base anterior. Pode soar redundante e decepcionante, mas é isso o que tenho percebido sobre esse tópico, primariamente por mim mesmo.
quinta-feira, 14 de agosto de 2025
One of my biggest disappointments: "highly intelligent" people
They promise a lot and deliver little... Especially in emotional and rational terms.
My personal experience and my general impression of these people, who are recognized as highly intelligent by conventional criteria, have not been good. Because I've expected them to be more rational or sensible, creative, and emotionally intelligent. In short, according to the very concept of human intelligence, present in any dictionary. However, at least in my experience and also based on my observations of typically "high IQ" groups, what I've noticed is the opposite of what is expected of those who are socially considered the "most intelligent." If, instead of sensibility, I've perceived in them a strong attraction or vulnerability to ideological indoctrination, and this usually means an excessive attachment to irrational beliefs; Instead of creativity, I've noticed in them a tendency toward cognitive rigidity, as they seem more tacitly intolerant or incapable of dealing with dissenting opinions. Perhaps they lack a fully developed capacity for self-criticism, which isn't limited to a less than objective and impartial self-reflection and which, in turn, results in a constant appeal to rationalizing thoughts and actions, including their own mistakes. And, finally, a sense of a tendency toward coldness or emotional imbalance among them, that is, a limited capacity to understand personal or emotional contexts, of others and of themselves, which makes their social relationships more difficult. Ultimately, I've noticed in them (qualitative) variations of the same phenomenon: stupidity, which, in theory, one wouldn't expect to see more frequently in the group considered the "most intelligent." Scientists/academics, journalists, teachers, high-level artists...
Uma das minhas maiores decepções: pessoas "mais inteligentes"
Prometem muito e entregam pouco ... Especialmente em termos emocionais e racionais
sexta-feira, 8 de agosto de 2025
The "right's" contempt for the carnage against the Palestinian people is its most predictable pattern
Not that there is always a right side of history, preferably the left, as many so-called progressives seem to think. Far from it. But it's also a fact that having the "rotten finger" to choose the "wrong side" has been a very common habit of the right. And if there is a ''right side," it always faces where the facts point. For example, the systematic slaughter perpetrated against the Palestinian people by the state of Israel, in which a large part of the Western "right" has been co-opted to support its executioners (not to mention a large part of the Establishment). But not only co-opted, because people who identify as conservatives actually tend to support groups they consider stronger rather than siding with weaker groups in a context of conflict. And it doesn't matter if they are "Aryan" Nazis or "untermenschen" Jews, as long as they are identified as "powerful" and ideologically aligned, and this trend is very likely to continue.
O desprezo da "direita" pela carnificina contra o povo palestino é o seu padrão mais previsível
Não que exista um lado sempre certo da história, de preferência à esquerda, como parecem pensar muitos dos ditos progressistas. Muito longe disso. Mas também é fato que, ter o "dedo podre" para escolher o "lado errado', tem sido um hábito muito recorrente da direita. E se existe um "lado" certo, ele está sempre virado para onde apontam os fatos. Por exemplo, a carnificina sistemática que tem sido praticada contra o povo palestino pelo estado de Israel, em que boa parte da "direita" ocidental foi cooptada para apoiar seus carrascos (sem falar de boa parte do Establishment). Mas não apenas cooptada, porque pessoas que se identificam como conservadoras realmente tendem a apoiar grupos que consideram mais fortes ao invés de se colocarem ao lado dos grupos mais fracos dentro de um contexto de conflitos. E não importa se são nazistas "arianos" ou judeus "untermenschen", contanto que sejam identificados como "poderosos" e ideologicamente alinhados, e essa tendência é muito provável que se confirmará.
If I were a Brazilian public school teacher, I'd be feeling a particular rage toward the "left" lately...
Because of "modern" pedagogy, compulsory "inclusion," and now, in 2025, with yet another "Greek gift," with the introduction of full-time classes in the country's public schools...
Because "modern" pedagogy has practically stripped teachers of any true authority over their students, and compulsory "inclusion" is forcing them to deal with students who require more specialized attention*, increasing their burden of responsibilities and daily challenges in their workplace, with the full-time model, they will have to spend more time in the school precisely to manage these and other problems that occur within a classroom, such as overcrowding...
* This after the so-called "well-intentioned" began attacking the very existence of "special schools", crucial in serving students with the most severe disabilities.
So, no matter how much higher the government might raise teachers' salaries in Brazil, with all these problems to manage, which are mainly the result of the "good intentions" of the "left" over the space of two to three decades, only a fanatical and/or ill-informed teacher would continue uncritically supporting so-called progressive ideas, beliefs, and/or parties, if it is precisely these who have most complicated their professional lives in a practical sense... But, apparently, these teachers "still" represent a likely majority... If they will continue to blame only the "right" for their ordeal...
And no, I'm not in favor of returning corporal punishment to students as a standard method of dealing with "misbehavior," as was the case in the past, or of there being no inclusion whatsoever for students with disabilities or special needs in "regular" schools. But, as always, I want there to be a minimum of balance in the decisions tied to public policies, made by those who hold that power. But that seems like a lot to ask.
Se eu fosse um professor brasileiro de colégio, estaria sentindo uma raiva especial pela "esquerda", ultimamente...
Por causa da pedagogia "moderna", da "inclusão" compulsória e, agora, nesse ano de 2025, com mais um "presente de grego", com a introdução do tempo integral das aulas nas escolas públicas do país...
If the "left" is truly pro-collective...
...then why does it encourage so much identity-based sectarianism?
It's common to think, even among those who oppose the beliefs and policies of the "left," that they are pro-collective, even to the point of condemning them, in the sense that they favor the individual always submitting to the will of a majority*, a dystopian scenario of democracy that I have called democracism. But not even that, since, at least in countries that once declared themselves socialist and the remaining ones, not even this simplistic and problematic logic of democracism has been instituted, if these countries have functioned politically as one-party dictatorships, in which the ruling party itself determines their course, without true popular participation.
* A moment of selective amnesia for the "right," if that is precisely what it has also done throughout its long history of cultural and political hegemony.
But the question in the title of this text calls into question the validity of this thought or statement, since, if they were truly in favor of the "collective," aka the people, and their multiple intersectional identities, they should not promote certain groups over others, as they have done. Being "in favor of the collective" conditions "all" identity groups as favored, especially, and rationally, those that are vaguely categorized, without direct moral implications, for example: men, white, tall, heterosexual...
So, again, the "left" cannot be considered "in favor of the collective" because they promote very unequal treatment among human groups, in which some groups are treated as inferior (usually, broadly defined as oppressors) to those treated as superior (oppressed), even more so when they seize power, in this case, specifically the radical "left," and gain complete control over a society. China, North Korea, Cuba, and the former socialist countries behind the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe are notorious and constant examples that the "left," in practice, has been as much or even more of an executioner of the people as the "right." Even if it has contributed to social improvements, it has often been accompanied by tacitly oppressive policies against groups it condemns as "enemies of the state's interests," whether in a scenario of absolute control or relatively predominant control (as has happened in Western countries currently, in the 2020s, where the identitarian "left" has become dominant in several key sectors, such as culture and education, but also, albeit not absolutely, in government).
But "being pro-collective" also implies being pro-individual.
The dichotomous idea that positioning oneself as pro-collective implies sacrificing the individual seems to me potentially problematic, since a collective is always composed of individuals, its raw material, and therefore, its most visceral expression. "Being in favor of the collective," then, should also mean "being in favor of individual rights." The only relevant point of disagreement would be precisely when a dichotomy is imposed: whether the collective is used against the individual, or the opposite, when it is the individual who, under a herd effect, can sacrifice the collective, as has actually happened in "modern" societies. Furthermore, the final conclusion is that being in favor of the collective does not automatically imply being in favor of collectivism, if it is also possible to think along the lines I proposed in this text, in which being in favor of collective well-being inevitably implies the well-being of the individuals that make up the collective, but without one canceling out the other—that is, the paradigm of reconciling their interests, strictly in the sense of "harmonizing."
Se a "esquerda" é realmente a favor do "coletivo"...
... então, por que incentiva tanto o sectarismo identitário??
Um truque comum entre indivíduos "de alto QI"/A common trick among "high IQ" individuals
Talvez o truque mais comum, é o de racionalizarem suas deficiências (comprovadas ou comprováveis) em outras facetas da inteligência humana, além das capacidades técnicas em que tendem a ser excelentes, nomeadamente de inteligência emocional e de racionalidade. Em outras palavras, de racionalizarem suas crenças irracionais e/ou julgamentos insensatos com explicações inteligentes, pelo uso de suas altas capacidades cognitivas quantitativas, especialmente as linguísticas, mas que os mantêm à margem de um desenvolvimento mais robusto de suas capacidades racionais e emocionais, ou capacidades qualitativas... Paradoxalmente falando, é o mesmo que usarem as capacidades cognitivas em que são mais inteligentes, mas contra outras capacidades, para continuarem menos inteligentes do que poderiam ser, inclusive em um sentido mais objetivo e decisivo de inteligência, que é a própria razão... Claro que tendem a fazer isso sem ter o pleno entendimento do que estão fazendo, de que estão se prejudicando intelectualmente, talvez um custo-benefício que, para eles, valha a pena, se costuma estar associado com a adaptação social especialmente em contextos humanos tipicamente dominados pela irracionalidade.
Perhaps the most common trick is to rationalize their deficiencies (proven or provable) in other facets of human intelligence, beyond the technical capabilities in which they tend to excel, namely emotional intelligence and rationality. In other words, rationalizing their irrational beliefs and/or senseless judgments with intelligent explanations, using their high quantitative cognitive capacities, especially linguistic ones, but which keep them on the margins of a more robust development of their rational and emotional capacities, or qualitative capacities... Paradoxically speaking, it's the same as using the cognitive capacities in which they are most intelligent, but against other capacities, to remain less intelligent than they could be, including in a more objective and decisive sense of intelligence, which is reason itself... Of course, they tend to do this without fully understanding what they are doing, that they are harming themselves intellectually, perhaps a cost-benefit that, for them, is worth it, if it is usually associated with social adaptation, especially in human contexts typically dominated by irrationality.
Two more (possibly repeated) thoughts about intelligence
Two more (possibly repeated) thoughts about intelligence
Learning difficulty or disability?
The first expression, learning DIFFICULTY, is the one most commonly used, especially in the contexts of education and psychology. However, as I've mentioned before, perhaps it would be better if this expression were limited to personal contexts in which a true learning potential is perceived, which has been hampered by factors external to the individual. Therefore, the learning DISABILITY/LIMITATION could be generalized to other contexts. If, in fact, a persistent inability is very likely a permanent phenotype and not just a condition that can be completely reversed or resolved. And to accept it as it is, without this unrealistic belief that we have indefinite potential, especially in intellectual terms, so popular in "postmodern" times...
What is the most primary cause of a deficiency in rational (objective and impartial) thought?
While personality plays an important role in this context, it may also be that the cognitive aspect influences more primarily, because it is or appears to be more structural than the psychological aspect, and that this influence is therefore reflected in behavior. For example, difficulties with cognitive flexibility and autonomous reasoning, especially in the sense of "the ability to perceive true or feasible patterns," may be causal and antecedent factors that direct individuals, who present them, toward ideological fanaticism (or religious fundamentalism), which, in turn, expresses itself precisely as an inflexibility of thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. But it's not just a question of inflexibility, it's also a question of extreme subjectivity, which perhaps best defines both fanaticism and irrationality: a chronic inability to think objectively and impartially, or less personally, in which this adulteration of perception occurs, a kind of intoxication with one's own references supported by a preferred and restricted set of dogmatic beliefs that are predominantly unrealistic or distorted.
Again, the paradox of impartiality
However, it may also be that high rational capacity itself is simply another type of subjectivity, characteristically less extreme, that cannot be universally developed or achieved, as I have concluded. Returning to an older thought of mine on the same topic, in which I argue that rationality also has a bias, but a bias toward the anti-bias...
Mais dois pensamentos (possivelmente repetidos) sobre inteligência
Dificuldade ou deficiência de aprendizagem??