The major problem with "verbal intelligence" (or how we have defined it)

 The more verbally—or "linguistically"—intelligent a human individual is, the more politically engaged they tend to be; this also means they are more inclined to embrace political fanaticism, especially of the so-called "left-wing" variety. Yet, language is our only means of organizing our thoughts and understanding the world in which we exist. It is a contradiction that those who have mastered language—at least in its aesthetic dimensions—should be the very ones most vulnerable to the madness of equating subjective feelings and impressions with (or even elevating them above) facts and reasoned deliberation. This may stem from a failure to recognize these feelings and impressions for what they truly are, or from mistaking them for absolute truths. Furthermore, when pressed, many such individuals will admit that it all comes down to themselves—to their own vanities and personal interests—rather than to what ought to be the focus: not merely how they feel (which has its own inherent value), but how they perceive and evaluate the world objectively and impartially. Given that there is a clear link to greater political engagement—and that human society is, in fact, organized through politics—it is entirely illogical that someone who has mastered language (at least in terms of speech and writing) should exhibit such a high risk of a fundamental deficit in rational capacity. My explanation for this apparent paradox is that human language is not limited to its aesthetic aspects; it also encompasses more directly functional dimensions—namely, communication and comprehension. It is here that "true" linguistic intelligence—its very essence—is expressed, rather than merely through the mastery of a formal standard, which is often determined arbitrarily based on social or pragmatic considerations. This suggests that writing "beautifully" does not necessarily equate to "thinking beautifully"—at least not in the sense of "thinking correctly," which implies alignment with facts and reason.

The major issue with the concept of "verbal intelligence" is that it has been poorly or insufficiently defined. This has steered us away from a legitimate theoretical and practical understanding of the term, leading instead to a distorted view of how it manifests and what it ought to signify in the real world. It is not just about the technical command of formal language in speech or writing; it is, first and foremost, about effective communication and factual comprehension—its most vital functions. Consequently, we place excessive importance on the least significant aspect of language—its aesthetics—while treating its most crucial function—the capacity to use language to understand the world we inhabit—as secondary. If this misconception were to be resolved, we could reorient our understanding and perception of this form of intelligence, finally linking it to rationality. After all, language is the most essential tool we have developed—and the one most necessary—for comprehending the world. While the aesthetic dimension certainly holds value, it should never take precedence over an expanded capacity for perception—a capacity that fundamentally precedes the ability to adapt, which is the most essential hallmark of any form of intelligence.

We must move beyond the tendency to associate specific traits—such as "blue hair" or "left-wing" political leanings—with a particular type of intelligence. Instead, we should strive for greater precision, ensuring that our associations reflect reality more accurately. ...placing greater importance on those who master language rather than those who allow themselves to be mastered by it—given that a recurring trait among many of these ostensibly "politically engaged" and "linguistically intelligent" individuals is precisely what I call "semanticalism": the tendency to regard the word as more significant than the element or phenomenon it symbolizes...

Regarding certain correlations: mental disorder, cognitive style, political-ideological affiliation, and others

 Are individuals diagnosed as pathological liars disproportionately more likely to identify with the political-ideological Left?

Pathological lying—also known as mythomania—is a serious mental disorder characterized by an uncontrollable urge to lie; it often entails long-term negative personal consequences, particularly in social interactions.

Evidence for the condition has moved beyond mere psychiatric symptom description; neurological correlates¹ (indicate a chemical imbalance in the brain—specifically a significant asymmetry in the density of white matter relative to gray matter -white matter connects the brain's various regions-. This imbalance would explain both the group's facility for fabricating stories and their progressive difficulty in distinguishing fact from fiction). and with potential psychometric evidence (studies¹ have found a correlation between a cognitive profile marked by a verbal IQ higher than performance IQ and pathological lying—which, in turn, would explain the group's "strength" in creating or elaborating narratives, that is, their excessively promiscuous relationship with language).

However, there is a major problem—one I am not sure others besides myself have noticed: the high degree of political subjectivity involved in determining what counts as a lie that can be psychiatrized or diagnosed as a symptom of a mental disorder. For while lies of a more personal nature are the ones most frequently cited as evidence—particularly for diagnosing pathological lying—those that tend to be more peripheral to the individual's identity (political, social, cultural) do not fall into this category. And that is where, in my opinion, a major problem lies; because this way of defining truth and falsehood through a psychiatric lens limits the capacity of psychiatry itself (and science in general) to identify other individuals exhibiting similar or identical disorders. After all, when we lie (or believe lies), we do not do so solely regarding personal facts, but also regarding matters to which we are attached—matters viewed as variably "secondary" depending on their proximity to our core identities. For instance, a "cisgender" person might adopt the trans-activist falsehood that "gender identification transcends biological sexual determination"—essentially the idea that a woman can be a man if she identifies as such, and vice versa. Similarly, a person who identifies as "trans" generally adopts this falsehood as a personal fact; the difference is that for them, it manifests as a personal reality, whereas for the "cisgender" person, it tends to appear as a secondary or "impersonal" fact—one that might even be adopted not as a true belief but as a "white lie" for the sake of "empathetic support" or even "political" reasons. Yet, this does not redeem the stance—especially from a rational perspective—if a fact continues to be denied in favor of a lie. It is also interesting to note how volatile this political imposition of "truth" can be; not long ago, the falsehoods of trans activism were not vying for hegemony against objective truths—quite the opposite, in fact, as they were viewed precisely as manifestations of mental insanity...

However, this tendency among many individuals who identify with the political-ideological Left to embrace falsehoods is not limited to the example of radical trans activism; they generally prefer believing what appeals to them emotionally over prioritizing facts above their subjective personal impressions. They employ numerous logical and moral fallacies, as well as factual distortions, to defend their viewpoints. This makes it seem almost inevitable that one might perceive a positive correlation between pathological lying and a left-wing political-ideological affiliation. Not that pathological liars cannot be found among those who identify with the Right—I do believe there is significant variation and disparity across the political spectrum. Yet, the phenomenon appears more significant—or statistically centered—within the Left itself, bordering on a foundational relationship. After all, even conservative religious fundamentalists do not deny certain extremely basic facts (often the most influential and important ones) in the way leftists do—even if the two groups might be considered comparable in their adherence to forms of ideological fundamentalism (a comparison that could arguably be applied to fanaticism regarding any other ideology).

Psychometric evidence of a positive correlation 

Aside from the evidence itself contained in the various lies and half-truths

that predominate in leftist belief systems, there is also potential psychometric evidence of a positive correlation with pathological lying. As noted earlier, individuals with this disorder appear more prone to a cognitive profile marked by an asymmetry between verbal-linguistic intelligence and general intelligence—at least according to IQ tests. Specifically, they tend to show a higher verbal IQ than performance or general IQ—precisely the cognitive profile that appears common or disproportionately present among self-identified leftists, according to various studies finding a positive correlation between verbal IQ and left-wing political-ideological affiliation². It is also interesting to note the aesthetic-linguistic appeal of progressive narratives: an excessively sophisticated and even poetic use of language—investing words with an importance beyond what they ideally ought to carry (a phenomenon I have termed "semanticalism"). This may partly explain why some—or many—of the most "linguistically intelligent" individuals tend to identify politically with the Left...

Humanities professors, journalists, and artists—all professions with a strong ideological leaning toward the Left, and which are also more prone to exhibiting this verbal tilt...

ANOTHER group, and a stereotype "more recently" condemned by the media and other "traditional institutions" of the Western world...

What other group has been stereotyped—and for a much longer time in the past—as being "gifted in the art of lying"?? 

Yes, it is the Jews who have been persecuted for centuries—and, if those who feel strongly about this topic will forgive me, no persecution so historically extensive and constant occurs without some minimally logical reason. This holds true regardless of how unjust it may be to persecute an entire people without acknowledging exceptions or, at the very least, specifying the subgroups most closely linked to accusations—or even evidence—of criminal activity; it is akin to persecuting any Sicilian because of the Italian Mafia, which shares the same ethnic origin...

And—setting aside problematic, sweeping generalizations—the same potential indicators (drawn from everyday observations and psychometric data) suggesting a positive correlation between pathological lying and leftism also exist regarding this group, particularly its majority subgroup, the Ashkenazim. After all, Jews—especially their intellectual "elites"—have played a significant role in modern leftism, as well as in ideologies on the opposite end of the political spectrum, such as libertarianism. Even when they are not the original creators, they have actively participated in the philosophical distortion or warping of these ideologies—with rare, usually individual, exceptions that appear to seek enlightenment rather than distortion...

But why do they do this? 

Their very own asymmetric cognitive profile (verbal IQ << performance IQ) might explain—at least partially—the correlation found between pathological lying and "Gentiles" (such as many, or perhaps the majority, of self-declared leftists of other ethnicities or races). This could also, in part, offer a form of exoneration—assuming this is one of the countless cases that likely exist among us—regarding an inability to exercise full "free will" or reflective judgment. This arises from a specific cognitive profile reflecting a dominant pattern of brain organization that may favor lying over truth, or excessive linguistic complexity over a clearer, more objective use of language...

A complementary explanation is that, as part of an ancestral cultural reflex, they learn to organize and rally around narratives (and lies) crafted by their "elites"—narratives designed to advantage them over other human groups (indeed, the majority of them?). This mirrors the dynamic seen in virtually every human group, where only a minority manages to transcend instinctive and learned cultural impulses—as well as the social or tribal structures that validate these impulses as reliable paths to individual comfort and/or collective support. The difference here lies in their high level of organizational or political cohesion, geared toward a struggle for hegemony against "outsiders" and underpinned by superior average intelligence. This inevitably raises the question of the extent to which they—on average—actually believe in the very narratives and lies they project to deceive, confuse, or indoctrinate other groups...

Furthermore, it is interesting to note the political-organizational similarities between leftists and Jews; both operate like political-ideological sects—not unlike sects stemming from any other ideological background, including... of course, the many organizations..typically conservative religious organizations... Yet these "two"¹ differ from other existing sects in the nature of their beliefs and in the levels and types of cognitive profile they exhibit...

¹ Exceptionally close...

Displaying this cognitive profile (verbal IQ >> performance IQ) does not necessarily indicate that one suffers from pathological lying.

Possessing the ability to craft narratives or stories, or to argue a point, does not necessarily imply a progressive inability to refrain from lying or to distinguish lies from facts or truths. While there is a correlation—in that a typical pathological liar tends to be an excellent storyteller—it does not follow that everyone with "verbal intelligence" asymmetrically superior to their "general intelligence" (or IQ) suffers from this disorder. However, it is possible or even probable that there is a disproportionate number of pathological liars—or individuals falling somewhere on that disorder's spectrum—among those with this profile; most remain undiagnosed for the political reasons mentioned earlier in the text. They simply go undiagnosed due to political-ideological convenience, which does not mean they are not more prone to inventing, believing, and/or spreading lies. Indeed, this is another crucial point: pathological lying is not limited to fabricating lies and believing them; it also involves a heightened vulnerability to believing lies invented by others—especially those perceived as personally advantageous—thereby conflating them with "personal facts" and potentially permanently corrupting one's capacity for moral and intellectual discernment...

Returning briefly to the statement in the third subheading and adding another potential claim: the very profile associated with the ability to craft (often convincing) narratives may also be the one that, when combined with other equally.intrinsic factors—specifically "non-cognitive" ones (personality traits)—that are nonetheless at odds with the mythomaniac profile, contribute to producing an opposite profile. This profile is likely linked to a superior linguistic capacity specifically suited to the factual description of elements—both concrete and abstract. It is a fundamental characteristic** which, when coupled with an excessively subjectivist* psycho-cognitive profile, undergoes a corruption of its own: it shifts from functioning as the sole ideal pathway for the objective expansion of understanding regarding the world and its phenomena, to serving instead as a cognitive support for the compulsive rationalization of one's own beliefs...

* I have previously sought to distinguish between two broad groups of linguistic capacities: the aesthetic and the functional. The aesthetic is directly reflected in one's manner of writing and speaking, while the functional is directly reflected in the use of language to understand the world and communicate effectively. I have also noted in other texts that correlations between high verbal IQ and certain ideologies—such as left-wing views—tend to relate specifically to the aesthetic aspects of language; after all, it makes little logical sense for someone who is heavily ideologically biased—and thus far more prone to corrupting their perception of the world—to exhibit healthy development of that capacity, given its inevitable link to language...

** Or a type of bias contrary to the one that drives the systematization of reason as a model of thought—based on my view that rationality itself is a form of subjectivizing perception, albeit one directed toward objectivity and impartiality; the type most...paradoxical

¹

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/prefrontal-white-matter-in-pathological-liars/35A3EB7AA604A278BBEBDE6C1CB20DB2

²

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289624000709

Beyond the *g* factor: Verbal and performance IQ as predictors of sociopolitical attitudes

Highlights

•

Verbal IQ predicts political attitudes with twice the strength of performance IQ.

•

The importance of verbal IQ holds true even when comparing members of the same family.

•

Individuals with higher verbal aptitude are more likely to vote and report civic engagement.

•

The *g* factor is not the only component of cognitive abilities relevant to attitudes.

Abstract

Measures of intelligence predict sociopolitical attitudes and behaviors, such as liberalism, religiosity, and electoral participation. However, little is known about which cognitive abilities are responsible for these relationships. Using multiple cohorts from the *Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research*, we tested the predictive performance of different broad cognitive abilities. Through multiple regression comparing verbal IQ and performance IQ (derived from intelligence tests...

...Wechsler), we find that verbal IQ is a stronger predictor of voter turnout, civic engagement, traditionalism, and measures of ideology. On average, the correlation between verbal IQ and the sociopolitical attitudes analyzed is twice as strong as that observed with performance IQ. This pattern persists after controlling for educational attainment and after conducting a sibling-pair analysis. This implies that the relationship is neither fully mediated by education nor entirely confounded by upbringing or family environment factors. Positive and negative controls were employed to test the validity of our methodology. A key finding is that verbal IQ and performance IQ exhibit equivalent predictive power regarding the ICAR-16, a distinct measure of general intelligence. The results suggest that variations in cognitive abilities—independent (orthogonal) of general intelligence—influence sociopolitical attitudes and behaviors. The role of verbal ability in attitude formation may help explain the ideological leanings associated with specific professions. Its association with voter turnout and civic engagement suggests that individuals with higher verbal aptitude may exert greater influence on politics and society.

Further thoughts on the disconcerting paradox involving IQ, political-ideological affiliation, and rationality.

 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.

Is the IQ test really the best way to assess someone's intelligence?

 The best way to analyze a person's intelligence is to conduct a comprehensive psychological, cognitive, and even "cultural" assessment. IQ tests, however well-designed, are like "quick tests" that provide a relatively accurate idea of ​​our quantitative intelligence levels but reveal nothing about qualitative aspects—specifically creative, rational, and emotional capabilities. They are particularly useful for comparing large groups of people but do not seem exceptionally comprehensive at the individual level. It is the difference between, for example, observing Earth from a spaceship and gradually getting closer to it. Nevertheless, such tests remain important within a comprehensive analysis. Yet, again, they offer only a preliminary idea of ​​our capacities and skills (developed abilities)—a starting point rather than a final conclusion.

There also seems to be a tendency to associate any mathematical application with objectivity, while assuming the opposite when such methods are not used. Yet, I see little difference between objectively perceiving that a person is more intelligent in certain domains and administering tests to derive numbers representing that person's performance.

The most common interpretations of cognitive test results attempt to flatten a "mountain range" of individual and comparative variations into a plain. It is as if—because Person X has an IQ of 140 and Person Y has an IQ of 110—Person X is absolutely more intelligent than Person Y. That is precisely the point! As long as qualitative aspects remain unevaluated, one cannot claim anything of the sort. Even if—or when—those aspects are assessed, and a significant performance gap is found across all domains, every "mountain" has its "lows" and "highs." Our intellectual performance cannot be reduced to a single test; we are constantly required to understand and adapt, navigating situations ranging from the trivial to the highly challenging.

Analyzing intelligence solely through quantitative aspects and regarding that assessment as complete is akin to... ...than to perform a "check-up" on half the systems that make up our bodies and define it as a complete check-up.

The essence of human intelligence is wisdom... and IQ.

 Wisdom also consists of the basic—and therefore fundamental—capacity to discern what is true from what is not, as well as what is truly essential from what is frivolous, aiming to broaden one's understanding of reality for better survival and living.

Cognitive tests measure our capabilities—arithmetic, spatial, linguistic, memory, and (decontextualized) pattern recognition—which are vital facets of human intelligence. However, they do not assess creativity or wisdom, qualities fundamental to genius and intellectual discernment, respectively. This means it is entirely possible to score very high on these tests without being creative or "wise." While the facets of intelligence measured and compared by these tests manifest in specific activities or purposes when required, wisdom stems from the fundamental act of perception aimed at correct judgment, and is called upon during virtually every moment of interaction with reality.

Wisdom represents the ideal expression of the integrated functioning of human intelligence's various facets, whereas cognitive tests analyze them in isolation and out of context. It is akin to comparing the individual operation of components in an electronic device versus observing the device functioning as a whole. This applies even in less obvious instances—such as when an individual, through self-awareness, recognizes their own unsuitability for a particular activity.

Pattern recognition

One of the most basic—or fundamental—actions of intelligence is pattern recognition (the detection of repetitive behaviors characterizing phenomena, elements, and their expressions, as well as their levels of similarity and difference). Cognitive tests also measure this capacity, but in a decontextualized manner—using questions unrelated to real-world events—because, when interacting with various circumstances, our psychological predispositions play a highly influential and often detrimental role regarding the philosophical or wise pursuit of unequivocal truth. Due to our personalities and their constant interplay with our environments, we tend to—or risk—filtering information based on what instinctively suits us best, rather than simply recognizing facts and patterns; this information often varies in veracity, ranging from truths and half-truths to outright lies. Therefore, if IQ tests are essentially tests of pattern recognition, wisdom represents the real-world application of that skill—and, I regret to inform you, most people do not perform well in that regard. It is akin to comparing a driving test—which typically requires technical knowledge assessed through written and practical exams—with actual driving on the streets; the exam result does not always mirror reality. This is precisely the case with cognitive tests, as they yield many false positives: individuals who score highly yet prove to be passive, dull, and biased thinkers in practice, or who conversely engage in excessive divergent or overconfident thinking. It is much like the driver who passes the driving test with great scores but then speeds on the streets, disregarding traffic laws and endangering other drivers and pedestrians alike...

IQ or multiple intelligences?

 Do you use your intelligence only to do math problems, solve geometry exercises, and write?

No, right?

You also use your intelligence in social/interpersonal relationships, in relation to yourself (intrapersonal/self-awareness), in relation to the environment, in creative or intuitive ways, to make moral judgments... or to play sports, right?

So, which of the two is more correct: IQ or multiple intelligences?

The theory of multiple intelligences is more comprehensive than the model proposed by the most orthodox proponents of IQ tests—not least because the capabilities "estimated" by those tests are already encompassed within it.

Tying one's shoelaces and reflecting on oneself are expressions of intelligence just as valid as writing essays or performing mathematical calculations.

However, this does not mean the theory is beyond criticism. In fact, the main criticism lies in the very name itself; we cannot consider every psycho-cognitive capacity as a distinct domain or "intelligence," as that would be akin to regarding each system of the human body as a separate organism ("multiple organisms").

That is why we should speak not of multiple intelligences, but of multiple *facets* of intelligence.

There you have it.

Human intelligence is multifaceted—or complex—rather than necessarily "multiple."

Cognitive tests have limited utility, yet they are efficient at what they set out to "measure" or estimate. It would be appropriate for their staunchest defenders to be more precise and humble in acknowledging their potential and strengths—but, above all, their limitations.

And what about the *g* factor?

Cognitive tests were originally designed to detect cognitive impairments rather than exceptional performance. Precisely for this reason, they generally "measure," estimate, and compare based on capacities or potential rather than skills—focusing on the baseline rather than the performance ceiling. IQ tests cannot predict whether an individual who scores highly on verbal tests will become a talented writer, because possessing a seemingly large or sophisticated vocabulary is not enough to achieve that goal. That is why, despite their strong correlative power—people with the highest test scores tend to be more intelligent, especially regarding the facets the tests evaluate—it does not seem possible to establish a perfect correspondence between test performance and real-world performance (for instance, regarding one of their major findings, the *g* factor). While it is true that most people who take IQ tests show little variation in their sub-test scores, this does not mean they will exhibit the same consistency of performance in the real world; human intelligence is far more than just what these tests "measure," given that we use it in every moment of our existence. For this reason, the multiple intelligences model—setting aside its basic semantic issues—seems better suited to representing it.

Once again: what is intelligence?

*A priori*, it is any act of recognizing (knowing) what is true or factual—whether to understand, identify, or predict elements, events, phenomena, or consequences; to categorize and distinguish them based on coherent criteria; or to successfully execute intended actions, adapt or remain flexible, and respond appropriately or logically.

Do not be surprised by my conclusion here: empathy is also a form of intelligence, provided it involves recognizing—or acknowledging—the emotional and cognitive or intentional states of others (which are, in themselves, "truths"). It is exactly like recognizing rain, distinguishing it from other phenomena, and reacting to it appropriately—in this case, perhaps by seeking self-protection.

If someone is crying in front of you, it is intelligent to recognize the reality of their emotional state—its cause, motive, reason, or circumstance—and to react appropriately; in that situation, an appropriate reaction would be one characterized by greater sensitivity. And this is not much different from feeling your hand burning and immediately trying to put out the fire. These are logical reactions based on the perception of facts or patterns.

Intelligence is not exclusively intellectual or reflective, as it can be channeled into physical action and also manifests at an instinctive level—especially in other species. In fact, the foundations of human intelligence are obviously instinctive. A bird’s flying prowess (and navigational skills) or a cat’s agility in jumping and performing acrobatic feats are not merely robotic expressions, despite their deeply ingrained nature. The main difference between us and these species, in this regard, may lie in the speed of reasoning applied to physical or practical tasks, and in the fact that their abilities are more limited compared to the diversity of tasks humans can learn. Engaging in any sport requires intelligence—whether to memorize the exercises, to concentrate during..their execution, as well as for quick thinking or improvisation in the event of unforeseen situations—factors that can be of utmost importance in protecting the athlete from injury.

On High and Low IQ

 A higher or lower IQ is not exactly the same as better or worse intelligence.

A higher IQ suggests a greater capacity for accumulating and comprehending information and knowledge—that is, for handling complexity. Even so, it is important to emphasize that IQ tests measure potential rather than actual achievement. Therefore, a lower IQ tends to reflect a simpler form of intelligence, or a reduced capacity for accumulating and comprehending information and knowledge—or for dealing with complexity.

In any case, "simple" is not worse than "complex."

It depends.

Oversimplification and over-complexification are equally bad.

Being "less intelligent" refers more to being "cognitively simple" than to being "foolish"—if we define "stupidity" as an inability to comprehend or possess self-awareness (an ignorance of one's own limits and potential), even though this may correlate with cognitive simplicity. After all, there are many individuals with more complex intelligence who act stupidly—emotionally and/or intellectually—such as by fervently believing in fake news because they are unable to control their own cognitive biases.

The cult of IQ tests versus the scientific method and reality

 Hypothesis: (all) individuals (deemed gifted) who score above 135 on IQ tests are "geniuses" (highly creative, insightful, perfectionistic, talented... with great potential for achievement...) and are mentally balanced...

Method: scientific...

(Lewis Terman's famous longitudinal study)

Around 1,500 Californian children who scored 135 or higher on IQ tests were selected to participate in a long-term study aimed at observing and analyzing their life trajectories into old age.

Result: they grew up to become, on average, professionally successful adults who were healthier and more socially adjusted than the general population. However, no disproportionate number of high-impact scientific, philosophical, or artistic achievements—or instances of "genius"—was observed within this group.

Note: two of the children who were rejected for scoring below the established threshold of 135 or higher went on to distinguish themselves as adults through exceptional creative achievements (William Shockley and Luis Alvarez)...

Despite these facts, a cult-like reverence for cognitive tests has been fostered—one clearly marked by misunderstanding and/or ignorance regarding human intelligence itself. Here is a simple list of the main dogmas or misconceptions held by those who worship IQ:

- There are no multiple "intelligences" / human intelligence is not multifaceted, or it consists solely of what cognitive tests "measure" and estimate (convergent learning potential);

-- IQ = intelligence;

-- Creativity is not a (psycho)cognitive sub-domain separate from convergent learning/memorization;

-- Gifted = genius;

- People with high IQs are [absolutely] more intelligent than people with average or low IQs; -- People with high IQs are "geniuses" precisely because of their scores;

-- People with relatively low scores on cognitive tests are "mentally deficient";

- If there are high-IQ individuals [the majority] who show no significant creative achievements throughout their lives, the reason is never a lack of potential for creativity *per se*, but rather society's fault or a lack of motivation;

- Only the main test scores matter, because differences in subtests are irrelevant;

- Due to the *g* factor, most people show little variation in their cognitive abilities...

What IQ fetishists think, in essence:

"A person who scores high to very high on cognitive tests is automatically a 'genius'."

Reality:

High scores on cognitive tests reflect, on average, greater capabilities regarding memory, verbal, arithmetic, spatial, and reasoning "intelligences," and/or convergent learning. Students who—in my parents' day—were called "nerds" for consistently getting the highest grades in school are also the most likely to score high on IQ tests, because both assessments focus on the same facets of human intelligence. There are exceptions to this rule—for instance, students who would score high on IQ tests but lack interest in what teachers are presenting and end up being more lax about their classroom performance, usually because they are self-motivated in their pursuit of knowledge and/or are ahead of their class level.

Creativity plays a decisive role in genius; thus, it is possible to be highly intelligent—depending on the specific set of abilities—without being particularly creative or becoming a "genius." However, every "genius" stands out precisely because of their creative achievements. Therefore, to identify individuals with the greatest creative potential—perhaps even at an extraordinary level—it might be better to focus on those who score highest on cognitive tests of divergent thinking and/or possess strong intrinsic motivation. Instead of just looking for "nerds," we should seek out all children and adolescents//adults who display intense passions—typically for specific fields like astronomy, the arts, history, or paleontology.

More compelling evidence in favor of hereditarianism??

 That is, of a postmodern "heresy": believing that behavior is primarily determined by genetics or biology, not by environment.

1- On the alleged absolute causal relationship between low cognitive performance and social deprivation

"Sub-Saharan Africans are, on average, less intelligent in terms of IQ and other comparative aspects of intelligence because of the very high rates of poverty they experience or the social neglect in which they live. Because malnutrition and poverty directly affect brain development, all that is needed is for these differences in intellectual performance to be eliminated."

This is certainly a line of thinking commonly adopted by individuals who identify with the "left" of the political-ideological spectrum, and it applies not only to the sub-Saharan context, but also to any other context of poverty and inequality. More than a thought, it is a narrative, a discourse closed to intellectually honest criticism and that typically does not accurately reflect the facts. While it makes logical sense that poor environmental conditions have deleterious medium- to long-term effects on humans, their effects were not well understood until now, especially without examples of significant social improvements some 70 or 80 years ago. But in 2025, this assertion is no longer possible, given that such examples already exist, as in the case of the United States, a country that, while in the 1940s had high levels of social inequality and a significant proportion of individuals living in absolute poverty, has managed to significantly reduce its extreme poverty statistics to this day, also because it has managed to provide the majority of its citizens with a life cycle free from malnutrition. For one of the most obese countries in the world today, it is clear that this situation of endemic hunger, especially for certain ethnic, racial, and social groups, is a thing of the past. It's not that it will definitely not return, but for a good few decades now, there has been significant improvement in the reduction of extreme poverty there. As a result, Americans, even the poorest, have, over the generations, become taller and more robust than their grandparents and great-grandparents. However, average differences in cognitive performance and social adjustment continue to persist, even though most Americans do not live in an intergenerational cycle of malnutrition and measures to combat inequalities (regardless of how fair they may be) have been adopted. This is a supposed paradox, because if better nutrition promotes the healthy development of body and mind, and this is primarily true for the body, the belief that it _works miracles_ for the mind or brain seems to be untenable, at least based on this remarkable evidence from the richest country in the world, with a high rate of social and racial inequalities, especially some 70 years ago, where, in fact, there has been a secular and cumulative increase in the height and weight of its inhabitants, gains particularly strong among the poorest, due to improvements in living conditions. But this has not resulted in a homogeneous increase in cognitive abilities among these groups. Indeed, the performance differences observed since the beginning of the 20th century continue to persist, as if an increase in weight and height, caused by better nutrition, did not have a significant impact on intellectual abilities, especially in the sense of equalizing them. Some might still appeal to the "Flynn effect," a statistical phenomenon consisting of the secular increase in performance on IQ tests observed in several countries. But in the case of racially diverse countries like the United States, even if this phenomenon also occurred, it occurred primarily in the population as a whole, because when groups are compared, the differences tend to remain the same, for example, between ethnic and racial groups. It is still unknown what the "Flynn effect" actually consists of—whether it reflects real gains in cognitive abilities or whether it reflects changes in the tests themselves, resulting in an increase in averages. One example of this phenomenon is the increase in the average IQ or test performance of the American population, in which the first scores, when adjusted for current scores, would be about 20 to 30 points lower. If the average was 100 100 years ago, today it would be 70. But a spectacular increase of 20 to 30 points should be reflected in all social aspects, and that is not what we perceive (a statement by the scientist responsible for discovering this phenomenon). Furthermore, it is unlikely that the American population at the beginning of the 20th century had an average intelligence level at the level of intellectual disability.

Despite this very likely evidence in favor of hereditarianism, it still doesn't mean that poor environmental conditions can't impact cognitive performance or brain development in the medium and long term. The most likely conclusion is that, when they are eliminated, the increase in cognitive performance occurs according to the genetic or biological potential of the individual or population, which is not the same for everyone. This may explain the secular increase in intelligence, at least on cognitive tests, in the American population as a whole, yet another reflection of the impact of these improvements among the poorest, while also perpetuating performance differences between groups.

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...

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.

More random slurs

 "Zero tolerance for criminals"

Typical conservative talk

I agree!!

But... What about criminals in suits and ties with lots of money?

The premature death of a "celebrity" may be regrettable, but it's also regrettable that there are people so socially and economically privileged, especially if they have the audacity to speak publicly about the supposed privileges of those far less privileged than themselves and how much they supposedly suffered while alive...

Even though prejudice based on identity or nature can be very painful, not having enough to eat or living in financial insecurity is an even more visceral suffering that hinders the fullness of life. Furthermore, a wealthy person who suffers negative discrimination can still compensate with their privileges...

The problem with mourning the death of a famous person is that, for most, it consists of mourning the loss of a person they never knew, who often left no objectively good social contributions, and who is also associated with offering condolences as a matter of privilege, making it clear that certain lives are supposedly more worthy of collective commotion than others...

The politically correct "left" confuses compassion with pity.

The "leftists" loves to justify his great intolerance of differing opinions with the rule of "not being tolerant of the intolerant..." but intolerance is much more justifiable when it comes to a fool, which is precisely what they tend to be...

An unmistakable trait of stupidity is the chronic inability to avoid generalizing groups. Precisely what "left-wing" (and also "right-wing") identitarians do most...

Regulated and restricted immigration is like drinking in moderation, and mass immigration is like alcoholism...

Many of those who most believe in and desire the application of eugenics, usually conservatives, if they truly understood what it would entail, especially if eugenics' main goal were to elevate human rationality, would fight to keep humanity as stupid as possible...

Besides the "pathological altruists" and those ignorant on the topic, among those who position themselves as completely opposed to any practice of eugenics, there are also those who have a personal interest in it, such as those with antisocial personality disorders... if they tend to prefer dysfunctional societies in which they disguise themselves better and consider them a perfect environment for adaptation, also in the sense of being successful...

Being in a problematic situation does not necessarily make an individual problematic. If there are problematic individuals who are in stable and peaceful life situations...

There are those who many consider "dead weight," primarily because they are supported or "carried" by others, or who present a more apparent relationship of unilateral dependence. But there's also the "living weight," the one who, even if they contribute financially or are not more dependent in a relationship, also contributes negatively, in other ways and/or not enough...

"It's important to respect the president because he's an authority"

Or

"It's important to respect an authority because he's an authority"

Redundant arguments like this are never sufficient for a truly philosophical analysis...

It's possible to hate groups without necessarily generalizing all the individuals who associate with them.

There are only three ways to develop sympathy for more objectively problematic groups (with a disproportionate number of problematic individuals):

Self-identification

Distance

Or a fanciful idealism

Sometimes, the best way to understand people's beliefs is

by seeking to know who they are.

Why do geniuses tend to be lonely?

For two main reasons:

1. Because, by becoming obsessed with their most interesting topics, they tend to become less interesting as social figures.

2. Because this intellectual obsession tends to shape their ways of seeing and relating to the world, constructing a unique existential perspective that is difficult for others to access or understand. While the ideal for socialization is for an individual's existential perspective to be as generic as possible, very easy to relate to and align with.

Every living being has its own beliefs, not just humans. Belief, in its most primitive sense, is an echo of confirmation based on what one feels, perceives, and experiences.

If creativity is intelligence and rationality is also intelligence, what is intelligence?

As if everything is God, what is God?

If "everything" is more of an abstraction than an absolute fact.

The problem isn't necessarily reading little, but thinking and understanding little. And, in this sense, there are many who are avid readers, but also have a deficient capacity for philosophical-scientific understanding... Just like those individuals excessively biased to one side of the political-ideological spectrum who are more ignorant than knowledgeable on a range of topics, even or especially those who appear to have specialized.

The problem, a priori, is not that the humanities are 99% ideologically biased to the left or right, but that the truths corresponding to them are not...

The same applies to the arts. It doesn't matter if they're biased to the left, center, or right, but what does that mean (bad taste, excessive politicization...)

The biggest differences between individuals with high (120 or higher) and low IQs (90 or lower): the ability to memorize and rationalize personal beliefs, even the most irrational ones

The biggest difference between the most rational and the least rational individuals: the ability to understand reality, which is the most critical to intelligence

"I am totally against discrimination and segregation."

Say those ''self righteous'' people who are always discriminating and segregating themselves in ideologically homogeneous spaces of more intimate coexistence...

Ideological fanaticism can be as serious as untreated schizophrenia, because the individual subjected to this condition begins to experience and interpret reality in a completely distorted way, always biased towards their delusional beliefs...

Genuine self-knowledge is scientific self-knowledge, which is also philosophical, which means knowing one's own potential and, therefore, one's own limits.

A classic example of ideological self-knowledge, in the worst sense of the term, means being unaware of one's own limits, believing one has infinite potential.

The safest way to self-knowledge is to begin with one's own limits, and then understand one's own potential, if these are determined by the former.

"We change all the time."

Self-knowledge requires the discipline of a trained self-observation so as not to make the kind of vague or imprecise deductions, like the one above.

No, we don't change all the time, literally. Most people don't change significantly in the long term. And the minority who exhibit more notable behavioral changes very likely already had underlying factors, inherent in their own nature. For if there is a first rule of behavior, it could well be this: no tendency emerges or expresses itself without a predisposition, just as there is no middle without a beginning. And the origin of our behaviors lies within ourselves, in our most innate mental traits, and not in the external "environment," so to speak, a collection of multiple factors given this abstract name, very similar to the idea of a whole, nothing more than a sum of factors confined to an arbitrarily determined space.

*Disregarding exceptional cases of brain injury or other mainly external factors that cause personality/mental changes

Attempts to universally extrapolate one's own experiences or life trajectories, as if they were possible examples in any other personal context, seem to tend to be based on seemingly less complex examples, especially in more challenging contexts. An example of a very common fallacy of thought...

The right to free association or self-segregation is also, especially, the right not to be forced to live with those who don't know how to live with them...

Claiming "anti-racist" these days (the 2020s) has progressively become an identification that expresses a lack of scientific and even moral (philosophical) understanding of related topics: race, behavior, society... rather than just a political-ideological inclination, much less a morally superior inclination, if the most fair judgment is never possible based on lies.

Just as, especially for a woman, who identifies as a feminist, has ceased to signify just a political position, much less a morally superior position, even by behaving like an inverted machismo, a widespread dehumanization of the male gender by many activist groups...

Still including within the fallacious term of "anti-racism" "anti-Semitism," anyone who is too biased to consider it in the way those most interested want it, as a thought crime, is as fanatical as those who passionately and uncritically declare themselves "anti-racists."

A person apparently endowed with high cognitive capacities who adopts "anti-racist" narratives, as well as other "identity" strands, is either suspected of doing so, perhaps benefiting from this position, or what is suspect is their rational level, that is, their epistemic level of rationality. But because it is tacitly irrational behavior, defending or relying on distortions of facts, what is already confirmed as a low level of instrumental rationality is not suspect...

Just as shame, if not more so.It's those fanatical individuals who clearly defend and/or rely on distortions of reality are the ones who act as apparent opponents of the fanaticism and influence of the first group. In both cases, the same question arises: are they more like madmen or cynics?

In absolute terms, no racial or ethnic group is superior to another, because no group is endowed with absolute uniformity of individuals, especially in terms of intellectual and moral behavior.

But in relative and historical terms, it is perfectly sensible to conclude that, yes, this hierarchy exists...

The paradox of labeling and moral behavior

The more you distance yourself from or condemn a label, the freer you feel to act in accordance with that same label, but through non-traditional or non-explicit means.

The same insufferable authoritarians who claim to be against any type of segregation are precisely those who most want to impose their unpleasant presence everywhere...

Every abstraction is arbitrary. A city, a concept, or a word. It's the same as giving form or limits to what doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist. It's the same as giving form and structure to the imagination.

A teacher's humanistic training doesn't mean they have to take on roles that aren't their primary competency, but rather that they at least master a minimum of legitimate knowledge about the sciences they deal with in their daily professional life. Therefore, ideally, teachers shouldn't be assigned other roles, such as that of psychologist/psychiatrist, but rather that they know how to psychologically and cognitively assess their students, so they can direct their teaching strategies. Or at least have a multidisciplinary team to support them.