What is expected of a person considered "more intelligent"?
That they know how to write "correctly," perform complex mathematical calculations, compare spatial dimensions and geometric shapes, and identify patterns in specific numerical sequences; that they learn more quickly and deeply about any topic that interests them; that they grasp facts and distinguish them from falsehoods; that they maintain a high density of thought without frequently contradicting themselves; that they demonstrate an ability to connect disparate ideas; that they know how to think both abstractly and concretely—or practically—and derive the best judgment from their analyses and evaluations, including in an adaptive sense... That is everything expected of such a person.
But what if this expectation is based on a mythology surrounding human intelligence and how it manifests in the most intelligent individuals?
That seems to be precisely the case, for the primary and genuine impression one gets is that there is a multiplicity of "being intelligent"...
A very popular, specific, and simplistic myth about "the most intelligent person" is that they must be "intelligent" in everything—or in as many areas as possible. And when this expectation is shattered (as it always is), any slip-up on their part—that is, by those identified as "most intelligent" based on criteria that are often superficial—is explained away by that very intelligence. For instance, if they hold certain political-ideological beliefs lacking philosophical or scientific backing, it is attributed to their thinking being too abstract, or to their being too idealistic, or to their intelligence allowing them to use superior intellectual faculties to convincingly rationalize their beliefs—or even to their simply acting shrewdly... Yet, in reality, someone who adopts foolish beliefs demonstrates a tendency toward foolishness themselves; being an excessively abstract thinker often implies a lack of practicality; being highly idealistic may mean harboring unrealistic expectations about the world; rationalizing one's beliefs—especially erroneous ones—instead of rethinking them suggests overconfidence; and frequently acting with shrewdness may indicate more serious character flaws...
The fact is, there are many ways to be "intelligent," and given the logic of human cognitive complexity and the anecdotally observed diversity of how intelligence manifests across individuals and groups, it is highly unlikely that there is only one type of "most intelligent" person. Whether it is a matter of standing out through greater creativity, shrewdness, superior thinking, or the ability to absorb vast amounts of information and knowledge—or a combination of these traits in varying profiles—or perhaps the development of a specific talent: it could be a sport or even an activity related to one's social environment; it could even be about being a great lover or an excellent cook... Just as there are multiple human ways of being stupid, idiotic, or inept—mirroring the opposite diversity...
What has also solidified as a disconcerting fact is that those who excel academically have a high risk of failing to develop into rationally intelligent thinkers over the course of their lives. This is corroborated by a body of studies showing a positive correlation between high IQ scores—especially in the verbal domain—and a political and ideological identification with the Left¹. After all, adhering predominantly or significantly to so-called progressive beliefs, ideas, and thoughts is not merely a matter of "choosing a side." It is not just another ideological package, of which there are so many. If these particular beliefs, ideas, and thoughts consist largely of various forms of delusion—factual distortions; logical and moral fallacies; arguments based on emotional blackmail; moral double standards or extreme selectivity regarding outrage and empathy; the falsification of evidence; intellectual pretentiousness... In short, it acts as a powerful "rational intelligence test" that can reveal just how far one has strayed from reason; how fallacious, contradictory, inconsistent, and subjectively biased one is... And it is not only the Left that presents senseless ideas or thoughts—far from it. However, the Left displays a consistency and systematic depth of rational deficiency comparable to religious fundamentalism, manifesting precisely as a form of "secular fundamentalism" with the same extreme level of dogmatism and epistemic subjectivism found in its older, traditional counterpart... Yet, religious fundamentalism is negatively correlated with high IQ², which makes perfect sense...
¹ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615000136https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39130356/
https://www.uni-saarland.de/en/news/gifted-men-exhibit-lower-levels-of-conservatism-compared-to-their-average-intelligence-counterparts-45508.html
² https://revistaplaneta.com.br/ateus-sao-mais-inteligentes-que-religiosos-entenda-o-que-diz-novo-estudo
But it is not just a matter of being more irrational; it is about what that actually implies. After all, one of the most important functions of intelligence is the ability to have at least a minimal understanding of the world one lives in, and that requires realism. So, even though it matters to be "good" at math, writing, and visual-spatial tasks—or to possess specific talents—when it comes to the most important thing of all (the basic ability to understand the world one inhabits), it seems common for some, or even many, of the most talented or intelligent individuals to be exceptionally poor at it. That constitutes a major paradox!
But hold on—there might be a logical explanation, or several...
Based on the hypotheses I’ve developed to explain this, here are a few:
1. Verbal IQ explaining a significant part of the paradox
Recently, I asked ChatGPT to estimate my verbal intelligence (IQ) based on my texts and poetry. It arrived at an estimate of 120–130, noting that it couldn't assign a higher score because I don't typically use difficult or rare words in my writing. This is quite revealing, as it shows that much of what is considered "verbal-linguistic intelligence" from a psychometric perspective is essentially just the size and level of "sophistication" of one's vocabulary.
But what does that have to do with being—or becoming—more realistic and, consequently, wiser about the world?
The answer is, first and foremost, "nothing." If this type of knowledge is more aesthetic than directly functional in nature... then, while standardizing language is important to prevent it from splintering into a multitude of ways of speaking and writing, that does not change the fact that it remains a kind of "aesthetic of convention"—something arbitrarily deemed "right" or "wrong" by a specific group at a specific time and place. This may explain the positive correlation between secular fundamentalism—well represented by leftist beliefs—and high verbal IQ, if a significant portion of what is deemed "linguistic intelligence" in psychometric assessments is merely the ability to master the standard form of a language, and nothing more. Regarding the most important functions of language—effective communication and factual comprehension—there is no truly standardized assessment based on real-world contexts and accuracy; yet, judging by how many self-described progressives think and behave, they do not appear to exhibit an equally positive correlation regarding these functions or facets—in fact, the opposite may well be the case.
It is also worth noting the aesthetic-linguistic appeal of leftist narratives—specifically, the tendency to over-empower the word itself. Words are elevated beyond their proper role—serving merely as symbols for the elements or phenomena they represent—to being treated as equal to, or even more important than, the reality they symbolize. A prime example is the entire argumentative framework adopted by the radical trans movement to deconstruct long-accepted and firmly established biological concepts regarding sexuality.
2. IQ itself as an invalid measure of rational capacity
While most highly rational individuals tend to score high on IQ tests (or at least on specific subtests), "having" a high IQ does not necessarily cause high rational capacity. This is evidenced by the disproportionate number of individuals who score high on these tests yet display poor judgment or a lack of realism—as seen, for instance, in the positive correlation between high IQ and left-wing political-ideological affiliation. And one need not limit oneself to that, given the clearly positive correlation between high IQ and economic liberalism³—an ideology advocating for a minimal state and/or market dominance over society, which proved highly dysfunctional when fully adopted (notably in the US during the 1920s), contributing to the 1929 crash: the worst economic crisis in the history of capitalism.
³ https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/01/intelligence_ma_1.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289618300552
A high IQ does not guarantee creative genius, nor high rational or emotional capacity⁴. Even if it correlates with these traits⁴, correlation is not causation—a maxim that holds particularly true here, given that IQ itself is the result of a test (an effect) rather than a cause.
What drives high creative achievement—even though it is linked to cognitive potential, which is relatively well-measured by traditional intelligence tests—is the very existence of a disposition of this nature, which..is not the same as stating that they are exactly the same thing. And there is already a growing body of evidence from related fields positively corroborating the confirmation of a distinct neurological and cognitive nature inherent to creativity⁵...
⁴ https://www.psymeetsocial.com/blog/artigos/caracteristicas-de-pessoas-criativas
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=126458
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289624000898
(This article shows a significant correlation between IQ and a so-called "rationality test," which is actually just another cognitive test analyzing "logical thinking" based on questions about hypothetical scenarios removed from real-world contexts—a point I critique further down in this text).
⁵ https://theconversation.com/new-study-reveals-why-some-people-are-more-creative-than-others-90065
The same can be said of rationality: it constitutes its own domain rather than being merely or exclusively a discrete offshoot of a broader construct like intelligence. Regarding both capacities, the majority of those who score highly on intelligence tests—including school and academic grades—do not go on to become geniuses or particularly rational individuals. This is generally not due to a lack of opportunities, life paths leading to other interests, or other reasons that might explain this asymmetry without challenging the unitary myth of intelligence or talent; rather, it is simply due to a normal or low expression of these traits. When these traits do manifest more prominently, they tend to do so in an intense, obsessive, and practically uncontrollable manner, driven by powerful intrinsic motivation...
3. Giftedness, talent, and genius are not rationality.
They could be, if the myth of human intelligence mentioned at the very beginning were true. In reality, however, our intelligence is not merely complex in itself—offering a wide range of potentialities—but also tends to be distributed differently among us, including its highest expressions. While it is easy to grasp that a musically gifted person is not necessarily academically intelligent, the same applies to rational capacity. Yet, it seems harder to apply this logic to the intellectually gifted; it stands to reason that someone with high potential for absorbing knowledge and information should also excel at evaluating what they absorb—demonstrating equal excellence in reasoning or discernment.
However, a high IQ is not synonymous with intellectual and moral infallibility.
Most individuals traditionally considered gifted can be just as flawed as any other group of people. They are not superhuman simply because they possess greater capacity or potential; after all, human intelligence is not limited to memorizing information or absorbing knowledge, but also involves evaluating what is being memorized or absorbed—as well as one's own thoughts and actions. That is why metacognition, self-awareness, self-knowledge, and qualities such as intellectual honesty and humility are fundamental to the development of rational intelligence. Indeed, many individuals gifted with high "quantitative" cognitive abilities do not display the same high level of ability in more qualitative facets—such as rationality itself. It seems counterintuitive, but it merely shows that human populations have not evolved without diversifying into groups that are more cognitively specialized...
4. Rationality is somewhat detached from the historical and cultural dynamics of human cognitive evolution.
Most human beings are not evolutionarily inclined to prioritize the pursuit of objective, impartial truth in their lives; instead, they focus on what they determine to be "their truths"—usually reflections of themselves and their intrinsic traits, shaped by interaction with their environment (which, in turn, generates their lived experiences and memories). They are also certainly more inclined to adapt to their social environment, which often makes the systematic expression of rationality the less obvious choice. This is also because they adapt to the situation or the moment without keeping an ideal state in mind; essentially, they accept their current reality as *the* reality, even if the environment is precarious in terms of both its epistemic and instrumental structures. In other words, typical adaptation is often precarious, lacking a foundation of constant rational analysis regarding what is perceived and what is done. Very few humans seem to actually think (frequently) before living, surviving, and adapting. For many, "thinking" amounts to "rationalizing" actions already taken—thinking after the acts, primarily to justify them. And even among those who do engage in such thought, many may still succumb to the pressures of immediate urgency and the immediate space falling somewhere between the ideal and the precarious—yet efficient (in the short term)—is achieved...
This impulse to take one's own self-projection—of beliefs, expectations, and values, as well as personality/temperament, intelligence, or other exhibited traits—as a faithful reflection of reality is certainly not limited to human beings; it constitutes a universal *modus operandi* for all forms of life. This projection of one's own subjectivity is far more ancient, profound, and—consequently—powerful than rationality, which represents an opposing tendency. Yet, even high rational capacity itself may be merely another form of subjective projection, paradoxically manifesting as an "anti-bias bias." Regardless of whether rationality is simply another type of subjective self-projection (albeit an inherently paradoxical one) or an evolution beyond it, the prevalence of subjectivism among humans extends to the "most intelligent" members of our species. Indeed, this tendency often manifests even more intensely in such individuals precisely because their superior quantitative cognitive abilities lead many of them to be overconfident in their beliefs and their own moral and intellectual discernment—that is, their rationality. In other words, it is intelligence acting against itself, or the intellectual qualities of these individuals working in a contradictory manner: as they reinforce themselves, they widen the gap regarding their own qualitative deficiencies—including that very capacity for rationality. In short, a cognitive exceptionality other than high rational capacity itself can amplify the potential for irrationality—a scenario highly likely to occur when a deficiency in that rational capacity is perceived.
Regarding social adaptation, even the "most intelligent" individuals—unless they become fanatical believers in the moral codes or prevailing common sense of their era and social circles—tend to feel immense pressure to conform. This conformity may manifest as silent submission or explicit endorsement, often rooted in pragmatic cynicism. Furthermore, because they are the most active participants in centers of power—such as media, government, and education—these institutions become natural magnets for them, forming a significant portion of their "elites." Adapting to a social environment is, in itself, an unequivocal sign of intelligence. Yet, in human contexts, this often entails believing in and endorsing a predominance of lies and half-truths—the very antithesis of rational principle.
"Being epistemically irrational as a primary adaptive strategy"
Historically, opposing tyrannical governments or social systems—an idealistic yet rational course of action—has proven more dangerous than submitting to them through overt conformity.
High rational capacity—however virtuous and valuable it may be, especially in theory—is a phenotypic anomaly of human intelligence. Its expression, as demonstrated, comes with no significant guarantee of personal benefit; indeed, it tends to expose those who develop it to greater risk when facing political groups vying for power or those already achieving a significant level of hegemony...
The only scenario within a social environment where high rational capacity can serve a truly beneficial and adaptive purpose is if the individual remains silent most of the time regarding their superior understanding or knowledge of the world—insights that face serious constraints regarding open sharing—while merely mimicking socially acceptable thoughts and behaviors to convince others they are just like them. Yet, it seems far more common for the highly rational or sensible person to find themselves unable to hold back once they perceive the deeply problematic nature of the society they inhabit. This is likely due to their ability to predict future outcomes based on current events, as well as a strong drive to view their world and its timescales beyond the short-term and subjective bias—often prioritizing the long-term and the objective... After all, maintaining such a convincing facade—as in the proposed "ideal" scenario—requires emotional detachment from facts and other people, and learning to act with cold cynicism... This is an arduous task—perhaps impossible—for most who reach the highest levels of good sense, given that such rationality is often intimately linked to the capacity for empathy and compassion—a kind of heightened sensitivity to both truth and falsehood, akin to a developed sense... And this imperative urge to perceive truths—whether subjective or objective—applies just as much to the irrational and the "normal" as it does to the highly rational: the very personality traits and of qualitative cognition (or that which, in constant interaction with quantitative traits, gives rise to the latter), manifesting as a type of orientation (very similar to "sexual orientation") rather than a choice free from conditioning—which is what many believe constitutes the mythical "free will"... The difference lies in the degree of subjective bias involved in determining what is considered truth or falsehood, or—as mentioned above—in the "type of dominant bias": that of reason, or a typical or common one?
That is why there appears to be a constant conflict between rationality and social adaptation—that is, between an emerging, more evolved (yet essentially simple) type of intelligence that is uniquely human, and a much more ancient type; And, in evolutionary terms, one might even speculate whether high rational capacity has been selected against precisely because those who express it tend to be the ones who rebel against tyrannical governments or predominantly irrational ideological systems—and are the first to be identified and eliminated from the social sphere. Thus, with each human generation, the most rational individuals—on average or disproportionately—end up on the margins of society, less likely to follow a standard life cycle (including reproduction with like-minded peers). Consequently, there is no continuous, cumulative reinforcement of their psycho-cognitive phenotype—given the reality of how complex intrinsic traits are inherited through recombination—which contributes to keeping them a minority.
When viewed from multiple perspectives (a key method of rationality itself), being more rational—even if it means being more realistic and thus better understanding the world one inhabits—often amounts to acting imprudently in the context of everyday social adaptation. It means placing oneself at a dangerous remove from the most advantageous position for fitting into one’s environment; precisely because a rational person—skilled at identifying and solving problems—tends to point out issues rather than adopting a stance of complicity, convenience, or indifference. After all, throughout our history, the "imprudent" individual has often been the truly sensible one within most human social environments.
Even among the "most intelligent"—based on traditional psychometric and academic assessments—it appears that the majority who conform to the prevailing moral and structural order do not do so merely out of cunning, but also for personal reasons beyond their full control; a fact that, in any case, reflects a deficit in rationality.
Many individuals with high IQs are individualistic.
They act out of self-interest, caring little whether their actions or the causes they champion might harm the society they live in over the long term. The positive correlation between high IQ and leftism—which advocates for a kind of complex individualism (identity pluralism in personal behavior, with exceptions, yet collectivist in thought)—as well as with economic liberalism, may share a common thread: the tendency of the "most intelligent" to be individualistic. While a rational person tends to reach sensible conclusions where their own interests are not always prioritized—seeking a balance between submitting to the collective and overemphasizing the self—it seems common among the "most intelligent" (by psychometric and academic standards) to prioritize themselves without restraint. Furthermore, this individualistic selfishness, which corrupts moral and intellectual judgment, tends to be rooted in a simplistic, short-term perspective. That is why many of these individuals—even the "most intelligent" ones—end up harming themselves in the medium and long term; they see and prioritize only their immediate interests rather than broadening their worldview beyond their own navels. It also seems common for these selfish "highly intelligent" individuals to mask their individualism with seemingly altruistic political measures or arguments that sound intelligent. Ultimately, there appears to be a strong tendency: the greater the cognitive potential, the greater the potential for self-rationalization—justifying one's own beliefs and behaviors regardless of whether they are actually sensible or rational.
Rationality—and specifically high rational capacity—could be seen, in essence, as a simplified evolution of intelligence, whereas other cognitive capacities represent more marginal manifestations.
In other words, high capacity is an optimized version of perceptual and adaptive ability; however, because the human world has been dominated by the irrationality of tyrannical governments, it proves less functional in practice...
Another explanation is that, despite being essentially simplified (perhaps the most appropriate path given the excessive complexity of human intelligence itself), high rational capacity express a transcendent evolution of the perception typically contextualized by—or specialized for—the adaptive environment (a perception universally determined since the earliest stirrings of terrestrial life). The individual possessing this trait exhibits a more robust development of one of our species' most unique cognitive exceptionalities: the capacity to transcend—albeit not entirely—one's own subjectivity, thereby sustaining interest in aspects of reality that are primarily unrelated to our immediate survival and adaptation needs. Yet, as our species has continuously evolved closer to the typical mode of adaptation... While the majority remains in a state of existential and perceptual provincialism—regardless of cognitive potential—a minority has attained broader levels of perceptual capacity and understanding of the world, without succumbing to the distractions, traps, or temptations inherent in the very complexity of our intelligence. I have previously coined terms to describe these differences in state or level—specifically, levels of consciousness: *realism* (or the animal level), *surrealism* (or the typical/ideological human level), and *hyperrealism* (or the exceptional/philosophical human level).
5. Rationality is not the same as erudition.
Realism does not require a vast accumulation of knowledge; rather, it entails grounding oneself in what matters most, aiming for a more accurate understanding of the world without necessarily requiring depth or exhaustive detail. One need not know a great deal to have a solid grasp of unfolding events—influences, structures, methods, and so on. It is not necessary to amass a wealth of information on Brazilian or American geopolitics to form impartial, objective assessments of them (for instance).
Rationality is less about accumulating information and more about the ability to "separate the good beans from the bad" (with beans representing pieces of information in this analogy). And this does not necessarily require high ability—at least not the kind traditionally recognized—which may explain its modest correlation with high IQ (not to be confused with scores on logical reasoning tests, which are not the same as rationality). In fact, it takes far more ingenuity to perform the mental gymnastics needed to rationalize one's own beliefs—especially the most misguided ones—than to act like the poor boy pointing out the naked king in the famous children's tale "The Emperor's New Clothes"... One does not need a PhD to know that human races exist, that people exhibit differences in behavior and intelligence, and that men and women are biological realities rather than merely or primarily cultural constructs... Obviously, moving beyond merely identifying these as facts to actually explaining them requires the development of reasoning. Even so, it is not such an arduous task that it demands deep specialization. For rationality is more—or primarily—about recognizing facts, and doing so consistently, than it is about delving deeply into that recognition.
In fact, based on the basic principle that quality beats quantity, amassing too much information can actually clutter one's thinking. Moreover, when it comes to rationality, the quality of the information matters more than the sheer volume of memorized data.
It is also interesting to consider that someone who ventures into highly complex knowledge might be at greater risk of losing sight of the most basic knowledge—the kind that most influences our lives and is essential to rational realism. A potentially plausible explanation is that a rational person acts like a generalist or holistic thinker, specializing in this fundamental knowledge—which is the most constant and influential in our lives, and thus most relevant to a realistic or accurate understanding of the world—whereas a scientific genius is someone who delves deeply into specific fields of human knowledge. In certain comparative contexts, rationality stands as the opposite of creativity—and, by extension, of genius—even though its highest expression constitutes an intellectual rarity in its own right. If the creative genius is about "seeing beyond," the rational mind is about "seeing only what is right there."
Or, as I have previously noted—particularly regarding philosophy and the most authentic philosopher—rational intelligence, being centered on judgment, might be described as a "specialization of generalization," given that we pass judgment on everything we do, from thought to action...
The rational individual simply points to a fact without denying it based on feelings or personal convictions—or at least learns to avoid such denial as much as possible. In cognitive terms, rationality is merely the expansion of our objective perception beyond the sensory realm and into the abstract world: statistics, generalizations, comparisons, and so forth...
Rationality appears to be more psychologically demanding......more often driven by the temptation to distort the perception of reality to soothe one's own feelings than by cognitive factors—since direct factual perception, especially of obvious facts, tends to be far simpler than the construction of the complex lies surrounding them.
6. Rationality is human intelligence in real-time, operating at its peak or in its entirety, whereas traditional methods assess parts of a whole without regard for context.
I love using the driving test—which anyone seeking a license must take—as a comparison for cognitive tests and real-world, everyday demonstrations of intelligence. It serves as an excellent illustration: a test remains just a test, whereas the most decisive way to verify capability, risk, or any other variable is through the actual experience of performing the task itself.
Consequently, there is often a disparity among those who score highly on cognitive tests and other comparative assessments of intelligence; their performance on these tests does not always align with the ongoing demonstration of their intelligence—specifically, how they think and behave throughout their lives. This is precisely because a test differs from a real-world scenario; assessing isolated capabilities out of context is not the same as evaluating how those capabilities manifest in reality, through continuous interaction and within actual situations. The explanation for this potential paradox is the same one that helps us understand why excellent drivers—who pass their driving tests with flying colors—can turn into reckless, dangerous drivers on the streets and roads of everyday life. Yet, excessive self-confidence is not merely a problematic personality trait; human intelligence does not operate in a vacuum—indeed, personality itself is an integral part of it. The issue lies in defining intelligence solely as technical capability—a view that seems common among many specialists studying these topics.
One of the most relevant tests for demonstrating how disconnected IQ tests can be from rational intelligence in real-world practice is the task of detecting logical patterns in numerical sequences or geometric shapes. While these tests may successfully measure such a capacity within the testing environment, the results do not seem to translate effectively to the experience of actual reality. Just as a brilliant chess strategist is not necessarily a great military or political strategist, an isolated or specific ability does not automatically replicate in a real-world scenario that demands the simultaneous engagement of multiple capabilities. Real life involves more than just moving pieces on a board; it requires navigating a series of situations within a constantly shifting context—dealing with social pressure, making cost-benefit decisions, maintaining emotional control... Returning to pattern-detection tests: if they were contextualized in the real world, the focus would not be merely—or even primarily—on spotting patterns in specific number sequences or shapes. Instead, it would be about constructing and establishing maps of reality where each piece represents a relevant fact, and each fact holds a hierarchical position within those maps. This requires access to a range of cognitive and non-cognitive resources: self-awareness to gauge one’s own competence in addressing a given topic; emotional self-control to keep the impulse to impose personal beliefs and expectations in check; the ability to reason without resorting to logical fallacies... Yet, the simple ability to distinguish fact from falsehood would suffice—were it not for the ethical or moral dimension of not only recognizing the truth but also defending it. It is precisely here that, for many of these so-called "most intelligent" individuals—regardless of the specific causal factors involved—personal commitment to reason is viewed not only as entirely optional but often as more detrimental than beneficial.
Conclusion
This text compiles my previous shorter writings and thoughts regarding the greatest paradox surrounding IQ and its correlations: the observation—in the real world—of only a moderate relationship between high scores on cognitive tests and high rational capacity, whereas one would logically expect a significant link. I believe all the hypotheses presented are relevant to explaining this paradox, each offering a complementary perspective or analytical angle. They demonstrate that IQ tests—and similar assessments, such as school exams—measure certain aspects of human intelligence but do not directly or precisely measure other crucial aspects, such as rationality; this alone helps explain why the two do not correlate more strongly. Anecdotally, there appears to be a disproportionate number of "high-IQ" individuals who..exhibit deficiencies in rational capacity. This is especially true if the most accurate way to analyze such capacity is through the quality of an individual belief system—constructed and expressed over a lifetime—rather than through the tests that have been devised, which rely on questions regarding logical reasoning based on hypothetical scenarios or situations isolated from real-world contexts; that is, if rational capacity can only be assessed through the exercise of intelligence within genuine life experiences.
Recognizing this contradiction is, in my view, crucial when discussing human intelligence; a truly objective understanding allows us to replace—with corresponding factual information—powerful myths about intelligence that have been passed down for generations, and to rethink much of what has been imposed as social or political policy based on those myths. Furthermore, understanding human rationality itself inevitably contributes to our comprehension of lived reality and to how we might improve what is arguably the most important function of intelligence.
